Sitting of 30 July 1913

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
London and South-Western Railway Bill [Lords],
McBride's Divorce Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Private Bills,
Ordered, That Standing Orders 220 and 246, relating to Private Bills, be suspended for the remainder of the Session.
That as regards Private Bills to be returned by the House of Lords with Amendments, such Amendments (if unopposed) shall be considered forthwith:
That as regards Bills returned, or to be returned, by the House of Lords with Amendments, such Amendments (if opposed) shall be considered at such time as the Chairman of Ways and Means may determine:
That when it is intended to propose any Amendments thereto, a copy of such Amendments shall be deposited at the Private Bill Office, and notice given on the day on which the Bill shall have been returned from the Lords.—[The Deputy-Chairman.]
Dunfermline District Water Order Confirmation Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 14) Bill,
Lords Amendment considered, and agreed to.
Airdrie Corporation Gas Order Confirmation Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 211 and 236 be suspended, and the Committee on Unopposed Bills have leave to consider the Bill forthwith.—[The Deputy-Chairman.]
London Electric Railway Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Railway Bills (Group 4),
Mr. SOAMES reported from the Committee on Group 4 of Railway Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Friday, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.
Message from the Lords,
That they have agreed to,—
Dundee Boundaries Bill,
Liverpool' Corporation Bill,
Southampton Harbour Bill, with Amendments.
Amendments to—
Arundell Estate (Closing of Arundell Street and Panton Square) Bill [Lords].
Central London Railway Bill [Lords],
Edinburgh Corporation Bill [Lords],
Grays and Tilbury Gas Bill [Lords],
Great Eastern Railway Bill [Lords],
without Amendment.
Amendment to—
Worthing Gas Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Kirkcaldy and Dysart Water," [Kirkcaldy and Dysart Water Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]
Kirkcaldy and Dysart Water Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Ordered (under Section 7 of The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) to be considered To-morrow.
Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London, No. 2) Bill [Lords],
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London, No. 4) Bill [Lords],
Reported [Parties do not proceed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 7) Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
Pilotage Order Confirmation Bill,
Reported, without Amendment [Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill [Lords] (changed to "Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 6) Bill [Lords]"),
Reported, with Amendments [Portrush Provisional Order confirmed] [Kingston Provisional Order not proceeded with] [Title amended]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments [Bagnalstown Provisional Order not proceeded with] [Remaining Provisional Orders confirmed] [Title amended]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table
Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
Ascot Authority Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.
Watney, Combe, Reid, and Company Bill [Lords],
Reported, with an Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.
Metropolitan Water Board Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MEDICAL BENEFITS (IRELAND) (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
Copy presented of Report of the Departmental Committee on the Extension of Medical Benefits to Ireland [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
POLICE WEEKLY REST DAY.
Return presented— relative thereto [Address 4th July Mr. Ellis Griffith]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed [No. 243.]
EXPLOSIONS (BRAY).
Copy presented of Report by G. S. Taylor, His Majesty's Inspector of Factories, on the circumstances attending an explosion which occurred at the electricity generating station of the Bray Urban District Council, Bray, Ireland, on 10th July, 1912 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE.
Copy presented of First Report on the Proceedings of the Board of Trade under Part II. of the National Insurance Act, 1911, with Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ARMY (RESERVE AND SPECIAL RESERVE (REGULATIONS).
Copy presented of Further Regulations for the Army Reserve and Special Reserve [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
ARMY (REGIMENTAL DEBTS).
Copy presented of Royal Warrant under The Regimental Debts Act, 1893 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

MISDESCRIPTION OF FABRICS BILL.
Reported, with an Amendment, from Standing Committee A.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 244.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 244.]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideratio To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 286.]

PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE.
Second Report brought up, and read; lie upon the Table, and to be Printed.
PRICES OF EXPORTED COAL.
Return ordered, "giving the quantities of coal exported from each of the ports of the United Kingdom, by quarterly periods in 1912, at prices not exceeding 5s., above 5s. but not exceeding 6s., above 6s. but not exceeding 7s., and so on, with comparative totals for 1907–11 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 107, of Session 1912-13)."—[Mr. Samuel Roberts.]

MARCONI'S WIRELESS TELEGRAPH COMPANY, LIMITED.
Ordered, That the Order [21st July] for a Return relative thereto be read and discharged, and instead thereof:—
Marconi's Wireless Telegraph Company, Limited,—Copy of Agreement between Marconi's Wireless Telegraph Company, Limited, Commendatore Guglielmo Marconi, and the Postmaster-General, with regard to the establishment of a chain of Imperial wireless stations, together with a copy of the Treasury Minute thereon, and other Papers.—[Mr. Masterman.]

HERRING FISHERY (BRANDING) BILL.
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Mr. JAMES HOGGE: Might we know why this Bill is not on the Paper?
Mr. SPEAKER: These are only unsubstantial alterations; they are little more than drafting Amendments. If they were of any substance they could not be taken without due notice.

CROWN LANDS BILL.
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  ROYAL NAVY.

    CLOTHING.
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether a new scale of prices for the clothing of blue-jackets has recently been introduced', the cumulative effect of which will be to in-increase on an average by about£ or £ per annum the necessary expenses of the men; and, if so, whether he will explain how the recent addition to the men's pay and the grant of free kit on entering the Service are sufficient compensation for the increase of expenditure from this cause?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): I have nothing to add to the full reply I gave to the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth which I circulated with the Votes on Monday last, except that the average increase of price is estimated to be 5s. or 6s. a year and not at the £4s or £s a year given in the hon. Member's question.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the reasons given by the Government for raising the pay of seamen was the increased cost of living? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider raising the increase so as to meet the additional increase in the cost of clothes?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The hon. Gentleman has answered his own question. He says that one of the reasons for the increase was the increase in the cost of living.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Was the right hon. Gentleman aware when he made that statement that another increase in the cost of living would be announced?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The question was considered in connection with the general course of the wages movement outside.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right. hon. Gentleman aware that this Order was officially promulgated only on 1st May?

    OIL FUEL.
    Major HOPEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is taking any steps to promote and encourage the full development of the resources of the Scottish shale fields; and whether, in view of the strategic advantage of using for the

    509
    Navy, as far as possible, oil fuel produced in the United Kingdom, he will in negotiating contracts give treatment to British oil-producing companies preferential to that accorded to the Mexican Eagle and other foreign oil companies?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The best means of securing development of shale and other home sources of supply of fuel oil is receiving and will continue to receive very careful consideration. All pertinent considerations will be taken into account in negotiating for supplies of oil from various sources, but it would not be in the public interest in securing adequate supplies on the best terms that degrees of preference of one supply or another should be promised.
    Major HOPE: Does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge the principle that both for strategic and industrial reasons it might be advantageous to pay, if necessary, a little more for Home-produced oil fuel than the price for which the foreign supply is obtainable?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: All other things being equal, no one can doubt that there are substantial advantages in a domestic supply over a foreign supply.
    Mr. GRETTONasked the Prime Minister (1) if, in view of the importance of the adoption of a new fuel for the Navy to the general scheme of defence, the Committee of National Defence was consulted, and approved the adoption of oil fuel on a great scale; and (2) if the Cabinet was consulted previous to the adoption of oil as the only fuel for the battleships of the 1912 programme, or if the change of fuel was decided and adopted without the knowledge of the Cabinet?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The adoption of oil as a fuel for vessels of the Navy was begun in 1904; its use since that time has been gradually and constantly extended, and the decision to use oil in five battleships of the 1912– programme, involving a comparatively small addition to the growing oil requirements of the Fleet, indicated no new departure in policy. It is not customary or desirable to state what matters have or have not been submitted to the Cabinet, or (subject to some reservavations) to the Committee of Imperial Defence. The Government as a whole, takes full responsibility for the. decision referred to.

    ADMIRALTY EMPLOYÉS (PAY).
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is now in a position to make any statement with regard to the pay of the pensioner. leading hands employed in the Royal Naval Barracks, Devonport?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The pay of these leading hands has been increased to 25s. a week from 1st August,. 1912, and to 26s. a week from the 1st ultimo.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can explain how it is that domestics (medical mess) are called upon to work 100 hours and over a week; and whether, in these circumstances, he will consider some addition to their weekly wage of 23s.?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for the Black-friars Division of Glasgow on the 21st instant., from which he will see that he has considerably overestimated the number of hours worked by these men. The hours at Chatham have now been reduced as foreshadowed in that reply. I may add that these men will receive an increase of 1s. a week as from 1st June last, and instructions on the subject will be issued very shortly.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the hospital employés (labourers) have not yet received the increase of pay to which they consider themselves entitled according to the announcement made on the 4th June last; will he say whether they are so entitled; and, if so, when that increase will be given?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The labourers employed at the Royal Naval Hospitals will receive an increase of ls. a week as from 1st June last, in consonance with the-general announcement which I made on 8th May. Instructions will be issued very shortly.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when the instructions will be issued in view of the statement in the question?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: It was not quite clear whether the order was applicable to some of these men. If it is applicable they will get the pay at the increased rate from the 1st June.

    CANADIAN BATTLESHIPS.
    Mr. FREDERICK HALLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if the three Canadian battleships, or additional ships to take their place over and above the Home shipbuilding programme already provided for, will be ready for the whole-world defence of the Empire from the end of 1915 or the beginning of 1916 onwards, as foreshadowed in the Admiralty Memorandum on the Canadian proposals issued some time since?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have nothing to add to the full statement I made to the House on this matter on the 17th of this month.
    Mr. F. HALL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether from the statement that he made on the 17th it is to be understood that he recognises the necessity that these three ships should be ready by that time in the event of Canada not supplying them?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I made the statement as fully and explicitly as I could. I am afraid everyone must have what understanding of that statement that is most suitable and convenient to the degree of intelligence with which he reads it.

  War in Balkans.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can contradict the statement that the outrages at the town of Kirkush, attributed by the King of Greece to Bulgarians, were as a fact the work of Greeks themselves?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): The assertion that these outrages were committed by Bulgarians has, it is stated in the Greek Press, been confirmed by the superior of the French mission at Kirkush who has said that he was an eye witness of what occurred. The Bulgarian Government have since stated that these outrages were committed by Greeks.
  Mr. NOEL BUXTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what
  512
  Reports have been received from His Majesty's Consuls of outrages by Turkish troops in Thrace; and whether His Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople has made any protest to the Sublime Porte in regard to the outrages at Rodosto and Airobol?
  Mr. ACLAND: Reports from various sources have been received of outrages by Turkish troops in Thrace: I have also received from various sources reports of outrages by troops of other nationalities in various places. Charges and countercharges of this kind abound against different nationalities so that no nationality can be singled out as the only one to be reprobated, and in cases where the Reports seemed to be well founded they have been brought to the notice of the Turkish Government or of other Governments concerned. The question of the Turkish reoccupation of Thrace is under the consideration of the Powers, and His Majesty's Government do not propose to take separate action, but the Turkish Government have been warned in connection with the incursion of Turkish troops into Bulgaria, that we cannot be expected to protect them from the consequences that may come upon Turkey as the result of violent action on her part.
  Mr. NOEL BUXTON: Will the Foreign Secretary kindly instruct His Majesty's Consuls to give any possible help in the work of relief as they have done during the past winter?
  Mr. ACLAND: Yes, Sir, it is the fact that they have helped whenever they could during the past winter, and I think I should be quite right in assuming that they will continue to give such assistance as they can in the distribution of relief, even without special instructions.
  Colonel YATE: Is it only in connection with the Turkish invasion of Bulgaria that a warning has been addressed to Turkey, and not in connection with their reoccupation of Thrace?
  Mr. ACLAND: I should like to have that question put on the Paper.

  South Africa (Strike of Miners).
  Sir CHARLES HUNTERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is now in a position to make public Lord Gladstone's dispatch on the recent disturbances in Johannesburg?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): A Blue Book was issued yesterday, and another containing two subsidiary dispatches from Lord Gladstone will be available to Members to-day.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Will there be any opportunity of discussing this question?
  Mr. HARCOURT: Yes, Sir, to-morrow, on the Colonial Office Estimates.

  Emigration.
  Sir JOHN SPEARasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether any steps are taken to prevent men deserting their wives and families and leaving them destitute at home by emigration to the Colonies and other places within the British Empire and Dependencies, in cases where application is made for assisted passages by Agents of the Governments of the Colonies and other places; and (2) whether any and, if so, what steps are taken to ascertain whether men of full age who are granted assisted passages to Australia by the Government Agents of the Colonies are questioned before the assistance is given in regard to the dependants, if any, they are leaving at home; and whether any steps and, if so, what steps are taken to verify the statements made by such men before assisted passages are granted?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I am not in possession of the information asked for by the hon. Member, but will inquire of the High Commissioners and Agents-General and communicate to him the result.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    ROYAL FIELD ARTILLERY.
    Major M'CALMONTasked the Secretary of State for War (1) how many officers constituted the committee upon whose advice the recently ordered changes in the Royal Field Artillery were decided upon; and how many of those officers had served in Royal Field Artillery batteries; and (2) whether the recent decision to abolish Royal Field Artillery batteries with war records to their credit was arrived at in order to save travelling expenses; and whether the possibility of transferring a nucleus of such batteries to new stations, taking with them their old numbers and records, was considered as an alternative?
    Major STANLEYasked whether the committee of Artillery officers who devised the proposed scheme for reducing certain batteries were given a free hand to settle on the best scheme they could frame, or Whether they were told to consider only two schemes and to decide which was the least objectionable?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): In order to maintain efficiency quite apart from the question of expense, it is necessary either that the numbers should remain as they are, or that the exchange of numbers referred to in Army Orders should be carried out. The only reason for changing numbers was the desire of the Artillery themselves that batteries with distinguished records should form part of the Expeditionary Force, and should not become part of the Training Brigades which do not go to war. After the fullest consideration, it was decided that the Artillery would be best pleased with the exchange of numbers laid down in Army Orders. This will accordingly be effected, but it must be clearly understood that what is involved is, in effect, a change of stations rather than a change of numbers. In order to still further satisfy Artillery sentiment, arrangements will be made for a nucleus to be transferred with the records, so as to preserve continuity of history.
    Major STANLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the first paragraph of Question 15 as to whether the committee of Artillery officers who devised the proposed scheme for reducing certain batteries were given a free hand?
    Coloney SEELY: I have dealt with that in my answer. In order to obtain efficiency these were the only alternatives —either to renumber the batteries, which is, in effect, to change the stations, or to leave the numbers as they are.
    Mr. LEE: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how large the nucleus is that he is transferring?
    Colonel SEELY: I could not say at once. I think the House will be satisfied that we have endeavoured to meet the very natural desire of the Artillery to retain its continuity by maintaining an adequate nucleus.
    Mr. HUNT: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Artillery have been reduced in numbers or not?
    Colonel SEELY: The numbers of the Artillery is a matter quite apart from this question. I shall be glad to deal with them in the Debate.

    TERRITORIAL FORCE.
    Major STANLEYasked the Secretary of State for War (1) how many Territorial Field Artillery brigades have attended camp without an adjutant from the Royal Artillery; and (2) how many Territorial Field Artillery brigades have not got adjutants from the Royal Artillery?
    Colonel SEELY: Three out of the fifty-five brigades of Field Artillery are temporarily without an adjutant; one of these three is at present in camp; the two other brigades have not yet begun camp.
    Major STANLEY: Is there any chance of their getting them at all?
    Colonel SEELY: Yes, I have said that three out of fifty-five are without an adjutant, but that is only temporary.
    Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked the Secretary of State for War the number of youths under nineteen years of age in the Regular Army and in the Territorial Force, respectively, on 30th June, 1913, or, if the Returns for that date are not available, on 15th June, 1913; and how many Members -there are over fifty-five years of age in the National Reserve?
    Colonel SEELY: The numbers serving in the Regular Forces under nineteen years of age on 1st July amounted to 13,691. There are no Returns of ages in the Territorial Force of later date than those shown in the general annual Reports. The Returns of the National Reserve do not show separately the numbers over fifty-five years of age.

    TRADING MONOPOLY.
    Mr. JOHN O'CONNORasked the Secretary of State for War, if he is aware that it is sought, by persons connected with the Army in the United Kingdom, to establish a trading monopoly within the Army, and that such monopoly is to be financed by a company known as the Canteen and Mess Co-operative Society, Limited, with £80,000 profits made out of the soldiers serving in South Africa; and whether, with a view to preventing such monopoly from depriving the soldier of
    516
    the benefits of trade competition and injuring taxpayers in garrison towns who. have to take measures to keep such towns in good sanitary condition, he will investigate the matter so as to prevent any injustice to the soldiers and citizens?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to a question on this subject put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Southampton on the 21st inst. I hope to have an opportunity of dealing with this matter during to-day's Debate.

  Delhi.
  Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, in the course of a public lecture delivered on the 21st instant in London, a member of the Public Works Department of India stated that he had never had difficulty in securing clever mistris, or master-craftsmen, and that some of a superior order existed who could carry out independent building work; and whether the Government of India and the selected architects will be instructed to use the services of such master-craftsmen in building the new Delhi?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The Secretary of State is informed that a statement of the kind was made in a paper on Indian architecture read by a member of the Indian Public Works Department. He understands that the Government of India wishes to see Indian craftsmen utilised as fully as possible in the building of the new capital.
  Mr. KINGasked whether the Government of India maintains successful schools of art in India but not a single school of architecture in the whole Indian Empire; and whether, in connection with the building of New Delhi, an attempt will be made to attract, educate, and employ native youths anxious to take up architecture as a profession?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The attention of the Government of India will be drawn to my hon. Friend's suggestion.
  Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India has already held an open competition for official residences in

  517
  the New Delhi and that the prize has been awarded to Ram Rup, a master builder, said to be, like all the Jaipur draftsmen, as clever with tool as with pencil; whether he will bring these facts to the notice of the selected architects for the New Delhi; and if the design of Ram Rup will be utilised in any building shortly to be erected?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Secretary of State has no official information. But, assuming the facts to be correct, they will be well known to the Delhi'Executive Committee, under whose directions the buildings will be constructed. The Secretary of State is unable to say whether the prize design will be utilised.
  Mr. KING: Will the hon. Gentleman take some steps to put the Government in India and the India Office in constant communication upon these points as to the development of the plans for Delhi and the work in progress there, because it so often happens that there is ignorance of what is going on in the other quarter?
  Mr. MONTAGU: Yes, Sir, but my hon. Friend will understand that if you give to the Government of India the responsibility of carrying out certain works and ask them to set up a committee to supervise the work, it is impossible to continually interfere with the discretion you have deliberately given them. The questions my hon. Friend asks in this House and the answers given to them are fully reported in all the Anglo-Indian newspapers.
  Mr. KINGasked whether Ram Singh, who succeeded Mr. L. Kipling as principal of the school of art at Lahore, was employed by Queen Victoria to decorate the ballroom at Osborne House, and to design and carry out the artistic decorations for the recent durbars; and whether Ram Singh will be consulted in connection with the building of the new Delhi?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Secretary of State understands that the facts are generally as stated in the first part of the question. As regards the second question he has no information as to the intentions of the Government of India.

  Excise Administration (India).
  Sir HERBERT ROBERTSasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether replies have been received from the local
  518
  governments with reference to the representations upon questions of Excise administration submitted by the deputation which waited upon the Secretary of State for India on the 18th July, 1912; and, if not, whether, in view of the importance of the questions involved, he will request the Government of India to obtain replies from all the local governments as soon as possible?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Government of India have received replies only from the North-West Frontier Province and Delhi. They reported by telegram on the 7th July that they were sending reminders to the other provinces, and that they would deal with the question without avoidable delay.

  Sale of Drugs (India).
  Sir HERBERT ROBERTSasked the number of shops for the sale of opium and its preparations, the number of shops for the sale of drugs other than opium, and the quantity of opium and other drugs consumed in each of the major provinces of India in 1901–2, 1906–7, and 1911–12, respectively; and what was the amount of revenue derived from the sale thereof in each case?
  Mr. MONTAGU: A statement containing the information asked for by my hon. Friend will be circulated with the Votes.—[See Written Answers this date.]

  Diseases of Animals Act.
  Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is still satisfied that the Diseases of Animals Act, 1910, so far as it concerns the trade in decrepit horses to foreign ports, is being effectively administered; and whether he has examined the published evidence of Mr. Percy Carew Essex and other careful personal investigators?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): After carefully investigating every complaint brought to my notice, including published statements by Mr. Essex and others, I have no reason to think that the Board's inspectors engaged in administering the Diseases of Animals Act, 1910, have failed to do their duty I will gladly investigate any evidence to the contrary, accompanied by full particulars, which my hon. Friend may be able to furnish.

  House of Commons (Library).
  Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether, before next Session, he can arrange to place an indicator in the Map Room of the Library?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): These machines cost a good deal to install and maintain, and as there are already two indicators in the Library the First Commissioner hopes my hon. Friend will not press for further expenditure.

  Cooking Instruction (Secondary Schools).
  Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that a number of girl elementary scholars at Chorley are receiving cooking instruction in the secondary school contrary to the Regulations of the Board of Education; whether the Regulations of the Board will be upheld; whether he is aware that a number of girl scholars qualified for, and desirous of receiving, cooking instruction at Chorley are shut out by the inadequate provisions made; and whether he -will make representations to the Chorley local education authority on this matter?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Trevelyan): The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. The arrangement is not contrary to the Board's Regulations. I am informed that the existing accommodation is insufficient to provide cookery instruction for all the girls in the public elementary schools at Chorley who are of an age to profit by it. His Majesty's inspector has conferred with the authority on the subject of the supply of special subjects instruction and I understand that they considered the question of making provision for this purpose in connection with their new elementary school, but decided not to make it in that way. The provision of such instruction is within the discretion of the authority.
  Mr. KING:Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the President the other day advocated the development of teaching of mother-craft in connection with our
  520
  schools. Is not this an opportunity for carrying out that policy?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: Under the existing system of Grants there is no power.

  Oakham National School.
  Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether, having regard to the approval which he has given to the managers of Oakham national school in their giving religious instruction contrary to their trust deed, he will intimate to them that they may appoint, if they desire, any qualified person, regardless of religious persuasion, as headmaster of the school?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: As appears from my answers to previous questions with regard to this school, the assumption on which this question is based is incorrect. I do not propose to give any such intimation as is suggested by the hon. Member.
  Mr. KING: Is it the intention, therefore, to allow a latitude in the consideration of trusts when they are convenient to one party, but to narrow them when they are for the convenience of the other side?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: That is not a justifiable interpretation of the answer I have given.
  Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that a difference has arisen in connection with the religious education given at the national school at Oakham, and the bishop has not been called on to decide upon the interpretation of the trust; whether other school managers with national society's trusts will be allowed to violate their trusts; and whether a circular will be addressed to all such schools and all local education authorities pointing out that similar arrangements to those made at Oakham will be allowed?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: I am not aware that such a difference has arisen, and I do not know whether the bishop has been called on to decide upon the interpretation of the trust deed. I will consider the necessity of taking action with regard to any alleged violation of trusts with which I have power to deal when it is brought to my notice. I have no intention of issuing such a circular as is suggested by the hon. Member.

  Marylebone Grammar School.
  Mr. ROWLANDSasked the President of the Board of Education if he is aware that the education committee of the London County Council desired to purchase the freehold of the Marylebone Grammar School in view of the proposed enlargement of the school; whether the ground landlord was willing to negotiate; and, if so, can he state the terms offered to the committee; whether there are compulsory powers by which the freehold can be acquired in such cases; and, if not, whether he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation to confer this power upon local authorities?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I understand that the freeholder is unwilling to sell his interest. A local education authority have powers of compulsory purchase of land for the purpose of supplying or aiding the supply of higher education under Section 1 of the Education (Administrative Provisions) Act, 1907.

  Cahirciveen Railway Station.
  Mr. BOLANDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received a copy of the resolution adopted by the Cahirciveen Rural District Council on the 16th instant; and whether, in view of the statements therein contained to the effect that there is utterly insufficient accommodation for enrailing cattle at the Cahirciveen railway station, and that farmers are compelled to remain at the station every fair day from 8 in the morning to 5.30 in the evening, and are hindered in their business, steps will be taken to compel the railway company to provide proper facilities?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): I received the resolution to which my hon. Friend refers, and I am sending him a copy of a letter received from the railway company, whom the Board asked for their observations on the subject.

  Irish Lace.
  Mr. BOLANDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the statement in the recent British Consular Report of trade in the Aleppo villayet that the agent of an Irish firm employs several hundred women and girls at Aintab in the working by hand
  522
  of linen handkerchiefs and, lacework, some of which is very fine, for sale mostly in America; whether he is aware that a quantity of so-called Irish lace of inferior workmanship is sold in America to the detriment of the reputation of the genuine article; whether he will make inquiries as to whether this Aintab variety is consigned to America as Irish lace or is consigned in the first place to the firm in Ireland, which employs an agent at Aintab, and thence sent to America as the genuine Irish product; and whether representations will be made to the United States authorities with a view to exposing the real origin of this pseudo-Irish lace?
  Mr. BUXTON: His Majesty's Consul at Aleppo has been asked to furnish such further information on the subject as he may be able to obtain, and perhaps my hon. Friend will communicate to me any information in his possession which may throw light upon the question. On receipt of this information, I will consider whether there is sufficient ground for calling the attention of the United States authorities, to the matter.

  Darlington Labour Exchange.
  Mr. HODGEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in connection with the strike of the Darlington Labour Exchange clerks, it is intended to penalise the clerks for their action by stopping their annual increment of pay; and, if so, whether, in view of the fact that these men struck because, in their opinion, one of their number was to be punished by being transferred to Perth for an alleged offence for which he had been acquitted, he will reconsider the matter, and not penalise these men for standing by their colleague from a sense of justice?
  Mr. BUXTON: As I explained in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for White-haven, on 24th July, ample means exist for the representation of any grievances felt by the staff of the Labour Exchanges, and absence from duty without leave for the purpose of securing the remedy of grievances, however well founded, is a mode of procedure incompatible with the interests of the public service. The clerks at the Darlington Exchange left their work without notice, and without representing their case in the proper manner, and they were leniently treated in being allowed to resume duty with no other penalty than that which normally attaches to suspension without

  523
  pay. I am not prepared, after careful consideration of the whole matter, to vary the decision in regard to the loss of the annual increments, which was clearly explained to the clerks before they returned to duty.
  Mr. HODGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the action of the clerks arose out of a mistaken policy?
  Mr. BUXTON: They had ample means of making any representations they desired in regard to the matter. They left the service without notice, at very great public inconvenience, and I do not think this is at all a severe penalty.
  Mr. HODGE: Has not the inquiry shown that the action of the management was mistaken?
  Mr. BUXTON: That has nothing whatever to do with the question. Whether the manager was right or wrong these men had the ordinary opportunity of presenting their case. They went out without notice, leaving at great public inconvenience.

  Irish Egg and Butter Trade.
  Mr. WILLIAM ARCHER REDMONDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the English and Irish railway clearing houses have yet come to any decision in regard to their new regulations concerning the Irish eggs and butter trade; whether he is aware that it is now over three months since the injury inflicted upon the Irish traders by these new regulations was brought before the English and Irish clearing houses, respectively, and received assurance of immediate attention; and what explanation is offered for such delay in dealing with a question which so vitally affects the interests of this Irish industry?
  Mr. BUXTON: I have forwarded to my hon. Friend a copy of the reply which the Board of Trade have received from the Irish Railway Clearing House. The companies say that the new regulations as to the addressing of goods are working well, and have been conducive to a great improvement in the speedy and safe transit of traffic, and they doubt whether any general desire for their cancellation exists among Irish traders. I have not yet heard definitely from the railway clearing house as to the application of the regulations to
  524
  imported goods, but I will again call their attention to the matter.
  Mr. W. A. REDMOND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Irish traders consider that these new regulations mean an increased cost of transit of at least 25 per cent. upon Irish goods, and is he further aware that the objection of the Irish traders is to the application to Ireland of these regulations, and by what possible stretch of imagination could the railway companies have conceived that their application elsewhere would remove this objection?
  Mr. BUXTON: If the hon. Member has any evidence to show that this is increasing the charges, I shall be very glad to consider the matter. The evidence before me at present is that on the whole these new regulations have led to a speedier transit of goods.
  Mr. W. A. REDMOND: Have the Irish railway clearing houses proposed that these new regulations should apply to foreign countries as well as to Ireland?
  Mr. BUXTON: I must have notice of that question.
  Mr. CRUMLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a meeting of traders in county Monaghan, three weeks ago, protested against this increase of 25 per cent. on the carriage of goods from Ireland, and will he make further inquiries?
  Mr. BUXTON: If the hon. Member will give me information to that effect, I will certainly make inquiries.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    SANATORIUM BENEFIT.
    Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can give the figures relating to the administration of sanatorium benefit up to 30th April, 1913, with respect to the following particulars relating to England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, the number of persons recommended by insurance committees for sanatorium benefit; the percentage of such persons who have received such benefit; and the percentage of cases in each country in which treatment is being or has been given in sanatoria, in or through a tuberculosis dispensary, or by domiciliary treatment.?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: The information desired by the hon. Member has been given in a Return (Cd. 6884) recently presented to Parliament, of which I am sending him a copy.

    GUARANTEE FUNDS.
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked what is the amount standing to the credit of the officials and agents of the approved section of the guarantee funds; and the amount that has been paid out, if any, in consequence of defalcations?
    Mr. BENN: I assume that the hon. Member's question relates to the guarantee funds established by the several Commissions and by the Joint Committee, respectively, for the purpose of enabling approved societies to give the security required by the Commissioners under Section 26 of the National Insurance Act. The sum standing to the credit of the several societies contributing to the guarantee funds is £22,884. No amounts have been paid up to the present in consequence of defalcations, but several small claims have been received from approved societies. These claims are at present undergoing investigation, if and as soon as it is determined that the losses in question should be made good out of the guarantee funds, the claims will be paid in clue course.

    SICKNESS BENEFIT (HOSPITAL TREATMENT.
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Secretary to the Treasury (1) if he is aware that, when an insured person having no dependants is in hospital and receives no sick pay, each week that he is in the hospital counts against the insured person as sick pay, and if the Government intends making any alteration in the Amending Bill to remove such a hardship; and (2) if he is aware that, when an injured insured person who meets with an accident and is receiving less as compensation than the amount allowed for sickness under the National Insurance Act, which is made up by the approved society, each week that the insured person receives the difference from the approved society counts as sick pay; and if the Amending Bill makes any alteration with regard to the matter?
    Mr. BENN: Under Section 8 (1) (c) of the National Insurance Act, sick-
    526
    ness benefit is payable from the fourth day after being rendered incapable of work for a period not exceeding twenty-six weeks, and any time during which an insured person was an inmate of a hospital or receiving compensation for an accident therefore counts towards this period. With regard to the withholding of sickness benefit while the insured person is in hospital, a Clause in the Amending Bill has been passed by the Standing Committee requiring a society to expend all the money so saved either (1) in connection with the patient's treatment, or (2) in assisting his dependants, or (3) in cash payments to himself, or otherwise for his benefit. With regard to periods during which an insured person is in receipt of compensation, I would point out that the contributions payable under the Act were calculated with reference to the relief to societies' funds afforded by the withholding or reduction of sickness benefit. On the other point Clause 6 (2) of the Amending Bill, contains a provision as regards later illnesses occurring within a year [which under Section 8 (5) of the Act are treated as a continuation of the same illness], making the number of weeks which count towards the twenty-six weeks of sickness benefit proportionate to the amount of sickness benefit actually received from the society.

    MEDICAL BENEFIT.
    Mr. F. HALLasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he has definite knowledge of cases in which doctors have given sickness certificates under the National Insurance Act, with the object of hampering the working of the Act; and if he will state the name of the friendly society on whose assurances he based his recent statement on this matter?
    Mr. BENNMy right hon. Friend has nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member for Glasgow University on the 23rd instant.

  Imperial Wireless Chain.
  Mr. HORNERasked the Prime Minister (1) whether he is aware that an action on the part of certain shareholders in the Marconi Company against Mr. Godfrey Isaacs and the directors of the Marconi Company is now pending; whether he is aware that fraud is

  527
  being alleged against the management of the Marconi Company by the plaintiffs in this case; whether he will consider the advisability of postponing the confirmation of the new Marconi Contract until this action has been decided in the Law Courts; and (2) whether he is aware that Mr. Percy Heybourn has been summoned before the Stock Exchange Committee for improper conduct as jobber to the Marconi Company, in connection with the recent issue of Marconi shares; and whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into the whole of these transactions and Mr. Godfrey Isaacs' part in them before asking the House to confirm the new Marconi Contract?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have no direct knowledge of the matter referred to, but I have received from the solicitors of the gentlemen named letters in which they complain that the allegations in the questions are both inaccurate and injurious. In any case, they do not appear to me to have any bearing on the merits of the proposed contract with the company, and its discussion will not be postponed.
  Mr. HORNER:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Stock Exchange Committee have deferred their decision with regard to Mr. Heybourn until after the trial of the action against Mr. Godfrey. Isaacs and other directors; and that being so, does he not think that it would be equally proper to postpone the ratification of the Marconi Contract?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir; that has no relevancy of any sort or kind to the contract.
  Viscount DUNCANNONasked the Postmaster-General what will be the inter-working arrangements between the Imperial wireless chain and independent private companies working the same system in other countries?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): No arrangements have been made or discussed.
  Mr. PIKE PEASEasked the Postmaster-General when his representatives were last present at Clifden to test high-speed transmission by wireless telegraphy from Glace Bay; and whether he will inform the House as to the nature of that
  528
  demonstration, and give particulars as to how it compares with the normal working of the Marconi Company across the Atlantic during last week?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No representatives of the Post Office have been at Clifden recently. A demonstration of high-speed working was given to the Advisory Committee in March last. That demonstration is fully described in the Committee's Report. I have no information to show how the results then obtained compared with the working of last week.

  Housing Problem.
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked the Prime Minister if he has received a memorial from, the National Land and Home League, signed by Members of Parliament of all parties and by social reformers of all classes in the country, directing his attention to the urgency of the problem of rural housing, and requesting that Parliament provide such moneys as may be found essential to its solution; and whether he is yet in a position to make a statement in response to the representations of the said petition?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have received the memorial to which the hon. Member refers, and it will be carefully considered together with the other representations relative to the question of rural housing. The Government's policy will be announced in due course, and I cannot anticipate it by any separate statement.
  Mr. RAFFAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that a large number of agricultural labourers object to what they call "charity cottages," and will he consider the propriety of endeavouring to give a rural housing scheme by means of land reform?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not know that I am expected to go into that matter now.

  Prison Administration.
  Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that this is the third consecutive Session in which there has been no opportunity of discussing the Home Office Vote for prisons; and whether, having regard to the advance in the science of criminology, the rapid movement of opinion in regard

  529
  to punishments and prison methods, and the desirability of Parliamentary control and criticism, he can even yet arrange some opportunity of Debate before the prorogation?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am aware that no Debate on the Prisons Vote has taken place since 1910, 'but there have been opportunities in the present Session when discussion could have taken place, had it been generally desired. Another such opportunity will arise on the Appropriation Bill.
  Sir W. BYLES: May I ask whether "general desire" means the general desire expressed on the other side of the House?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Home Office Vote has been put down for discussion, and the opportunity for discussing prisons on that Vote has passed.
  Sir W. BYLES: I went to the Chairman at the beginning of the Debate and inquired whether we could speak about prisons, and I was told that it would not be in order to do so.
  The PRIME MINISTER: It cannot be discussed on the Vote on Account, but it can be discussed on the Appropriation Bill.
  Sir W. BYLES: Does not the right hon. Gentleman see that this in itself is a condemnation of the present method of selecting the Votes in Supply which are to be discussed, and will he consider the advisability of revising the whole matter?
  The PRIME MINISTER: When I was first in the House the great bulk of the Estimates were not discussed at all. I think they get much fuller discussion now than they ever did. It is a matter for the Procedure Committee now sitting.
  Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that hon. Members on this side of the House prepare speeches, and that when the appropriate occasion for their delivery offers they are requested by the Whips to defer the speeches until a later occasion, and will he use his influence with the humbler Members of the Government to prevent this practice being continued?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I will give my hon. Friend the opportunity of taking my own place if the occasion should arise.

  Government of Ireland Bill.
  Mr. F. HALLasked the Prime Minister if, in the event of the Government of Ireland Bill becoming law, it is proposed that an Irish Parliament shall be elected thereunder during the existence of the present Parliament?
  The PRIME MINISTER: This is a hypothetical question, which it would be premature to answer.

  Customs Staff (Messengers).
  Mr. F. HALLasked the Secretary to the Treasury what are the number of un-established messengers employed in the Customs; the number receiving 21s. a week; their longest period of service; and whether these men are entitled to a pension?
  Mr. W. BENN: Excluding boys, the number is 37, of whom 27 are paid 21s. a week; the senior has served nearly 16 years. All these men are in receipt of pensions in respect of previous service in the Army, Navy, or police; they are not entitled to further pensions, but, subject to certain conditions are granted a gratuity on retirement.

  Workhouse Administration.
  Mr. SUTTONasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he will consider the advisability of now issuing an Order for prohibiting the serving of bread and water as a meal to casuals?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): Yes, Sir. I propose to give consideration to this matter.

  Notification of Disease.
  Mr. F. HALLasked if notification is required under the provisions of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, or Orders made thereunder, in cases of venereal disease?
  Mr. BURNS: The answer is in the negative.
  Mr. F. HALL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will be prepared to bring in or to support a Bill making the Infectious Diseases Act applicable to this disease?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman) should give notice of the question.

  Whiteabbey Post Office, Antrim.
  Major M'CALMONTasked the Postmaster-General whether the operator in charge of the Post Office telephone exchange at Whiteabbey, county Antrim, is required to maintain a continuous day and night service on a salary of 5s. per week and a house, and without any allowance for an assistant; and, if so, whether such remuneration is in accordance with usual Post Office rates as being sufficient for the hours entailed?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The facts,are as stated. The allowance of free accommodation and a payment of 5s. a week is the remuneration which was given by the National Telephone Company before the transfer of their undertaking to the State, and I have not thought it necessary to alter the arrangement at the present time. Representations on behalf of operators of this class have been made to the Select Committee on Post Office Servants, whose Report is expected to be issued shortly.
  Major M'CALMONT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he considers the salary adequate for a girl who has to be there during the whole twenty-four hours of the day, and who gets no holidays or any allowance for the payment of an assistant?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The matter is now before the Select Committee. The remuneration does not consist wholly of the pay. It consists also partly of the value of the accommodation provided, which is free. The work, probably, is very slight.
  Major M'CALMONT: It is not a question of the amount of work. It is a question of not being free, and not being able to go away without providing a substitute.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Frequently the members of a family can do this work.

  Sub-Postmasters (Pay).
  Mr. CLYNESasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the increasing discontent amongst sub-postmasters throughout the country due to the arrangement still in force respecting their pay for work in connection with the National Insurance Act; and whether, in view of his promises to sub-postmasters, he can take immediate steps to establish
  532
  better remuneration and make this retrospective?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to refer the hon. Member to the reply given to questions on this subject on the 28th instant.
  Mr. CLYNES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in the event of any increase in remuneration being conceded, that increase will be retrospective?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUELIf the hon. Member would refer to my previous answers he would find that point dealt with.

  Suffragist Prisoners.
  Lord ROBERT CECILasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the fact that Mrs. Pethick Lawrence and Lady Sybil Smith have been released, he will advise the release of Mrs. Wyan, who was convicted of a less serious offence?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): I think the Noble Lord has founded his question upon a misapprehension. The chief magistrate on Friday last sentenced Mrs. Pethick Lawrence and her companions to fourteen days' imprisonment in default of finding sureties to keep the peace. On the same day, while the case was still within his jurisdiction. Mr. Muskett, who appeared on behalf of the police, represented to him that the women were not militants habitually engaged in the use of criminal methods, and he consented to reduce the imprisonment to four days. There is no analogy between these cases and that of Mrs. Mary Wyan, who was sentenced to twenty-one days' imprisonment in default of finding sureties, and whose offence, having regard to all the circumstances, was, in my judgment, more serious than that of the others.

  Shops Act (Inspectors in Ireland).
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that, although the Urban District Councils of Longford, Granard, and Cavan have appointed inspectors to see that the provisions of the Shops Act are observed, in reality nothing is being done, and in a great many cases the Act is being completely ignored; and whether he will take steps to ascertain definitely whether these inspectors are performing their duty?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND
  (Mr. Birrell): I am aware that the Urban District Councils of Longford and Granard have been very dilatory in putting the provisions of the Shops Act into force within their respective districts. The Granard Urban District Council have been informed that unless the Act is put in force by their inspector proceedings will be taken against the council which, it is hoped, will have the effect of enforcing compliance with the Act. As regards Longford a resolution was recently passed by the council directing the inspector to carry out the provisions of the Act. Inquiries are being made with regard to the action of the Cavan Urban Council.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. O'MALLEYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the offer made by the Congested Districts Board more than seven months ago for the Clements estate, Connemara, has yet been accepted or declined by the landlord?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The offer of the Congested Districts Board for the purchase of this estate has been accepted.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what business will be taken on Friday?
  The PRIME MINISTER: On Friday, we shall take the Committee stage of the Revenue Bill.
  To-night, after Eleven o'clock, we hope to take the Isle of Man (Customs) Bill (Second Reading), Public Buildings Expenses Bill (Report), Post Office Bill (Second Reading), Local Government (Adjustments) Bill (Committee).

BILLS PRESENTED.
  TERRITORIAL FORCE (BALLOT) BILL.
  "To amend and apply the Militia Ballot Acts to the Territorial Force." Presented by Sir SAMUEL SCOTT; supported by Mr. Ashley, Viscount Castlereagh, Viscount Helmsley, Colonel Rawson, and Mr. Raymond Greene; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 287.]
  PREVENTION OF DESTITUTION BILL.
  "To provide for the more effectual prevention of Destitution and the better organisation of public assistance." Presented by Mr. CLYNES; supported by Mr. Parker, Mr. Charles Duncan, Mr. Bowerman, and Mr. Thomas; to be read a second time upon Thursday, 14th August, and to be printed. [Bill 288.]

TRUCK ACTS AMENDMENT.
Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: I beg to move, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend and extend the Truck Acts, 1831 to 1896."
The Bill which I desire to ask leave to bring in is a Bill to amend the Truck Acts, 1831 to 1896. This Bill is founded on the Report of the Committee of 1908. It will be within the recollection of the House that there was a Majority Report and a Minority Report. Both Reports agree that the Act of 1896 was entirely inadequate, and that the workers still suffer grave injustice and injury. The Majority Report recommend that no fines or deductions should exceed 5 per cent. of the weekly wage, and that fines and deductions should be abolished altogether
552
in the case of young persons under sixteen. The Minority Report, on the other hand, reports in favour of the complete abolition of fines and deductions. The words of the Report are:—
"In our opinion disciplinary fines fail in their purpose. We believe them to he not merely negative in good but active in harm, inasmuch as they maintain and ever create the very situation they are designed to destroy. Irritating in their imposition and ineffective in their result, they occupy in the organisation of industry where they exist, a place that should be held by supervision."
This subject forms a hardy annual in the Home Office Debate in this House, so that there is no need for me to over-labour the necessity for reform or to produce any great number of instances of the inadequacy of the Act of 1896, but I would remind the House that the Act of 1896 said that for a fine to be legal it must be shown that something has been done likely to cause damage to the employer or a hindrance to his business, and, in the second place, that fines must be fair and reasonable. However, when we turn to the Report of the Committee and also to the annual Report of the Factory Inspectors, one finds numerous instances of most unjust fines for most trivial offences. There are, in Miss Squire's evidence before the Committee, instances of fines being extracted from workers for such things as sneezing, laughing, singing, and wearing hair-curlers, and as much as 6d. or 1s has been deducted from workers' wages for this offence. And also in last year's Factory Inspector's Report there are instances of fines being imposed for hair-dressing, whistling, and talking, and, again, there are other instances of girls earning only Ss. a week having fines of ld. a minute deducted from their wages for arriving late, and there has been furnished to me from the Industrial Laws Committee a monstrous case of deductions from most inadequate wages.
The worker in this case is a majolica paintress in the potteries. She is often on short time, and sometimes employed for not more than two days a week. The highest wages she has ever earned for a full week—on one occasion only—is 17s. 5d. When on short time her wages often do not exceed 5s. 9d. Her average wage is 5s. 6d. The deductions from her wages were: Sweeping, 2d for a full week and ld. for two days; washing overalls, 2d. per week; infirmary, 2d. per week; and gas in winter, 2d. a week. It may be urged that these fines are absolutely illegal. The Prime Minister used that argument when the deputation of women

553
workers waited on him, but, to my mind, it is very cold comfort to tell factory workers that all these fines are illegal, when, owing to the inadequacy of the staff, a factory inspector cannot visit a factory or workshop more than once in two years. If a worker does complain most likely she suffers dismissal, and the hard part of it is that owing to the uncertainty of the law whenever a. case is brought into Court it is most difficult to get a favourable decision from the magistrate. Therefore the promoters of the Bill say that all fines and deductions should be swept away. There is nothing in this Bill, however, to prevent an employer from proceeding against a worker for damage for careless work, and there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the employer locking a worker out for lateness. Clause 2, Subsection (2) would prevent the device of calling part of the wages a voluntary bonus, and then alleging that the bonus had really been drawn, and Clause 3 extends the benefit of the law to out-workers. I hope that the Government will move soon in this matter and remedy the
grievance. This Bill has no chance of passing into law this Session, but it is intended as a gentle reminder to the Government that they have been very lax in the matter. I hope that when the Government do bring in a Bill they will decide to sweep away fines and deductions, first, as a relic of barbarism, and, second, as a sign of a badly organised and inefficiently conducted business.
When labour is well organised and business is efficiently conducted there are hardly any fines. There is no grievance among the spinners and carders, and there are no fines and deductions. In 1Bacup and Clitheroe I am told among the weavers fines and deductions are rapidly being abandoned. Miss Squire, in her evidence before the Committee, said that where the foreman or forewoman know their business there is no need for fines or deductions. I think that I have said enough to show that the system of fines and deductions is not only an injustice to the worker but is a barrier to the more humane and efficient management. It may be said that you cannot make people either humane, efficient or ntelligent by Act of Parliament. I cannot help thinking that the influence of Parliament is sometimes underestimated in this respect, for it can be claimed, at all events, that the Trades Boards Act has had a very valuable educative effect on employers.
554
They are learning that it does not pay them to pay wages below the subsistence level, and I cannot help thinking that if Parliament in its wisdom was to pass an Act abolishing fines and deductions in a very few years' time there would not be a single employer of labour who would regret it in the least. D'Israeli, in "Sybil, or the Two Nations," referred to the great gulf that existed between the rich and poor, the employer and the employed. That gulf still exists, those two nations still exist, and I am afraid that they will always exist if this irritating and degrading system of fines and deductions is allowed. There is no hope of arriving at better feeling between rich and poor, between employer and employed, in this country unless we sweep away a system that leaves a rankling feeling of injustice in the minds of the workers.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Lord Henry Cavendish-Bentinek, Mr. Noel Buxton. Mr. O'Grady, Mr. Rowntree, and Mr. Stephen Walsh. Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 289.]

SUPPLY.— [NTNETEENTII ALLOTTED DAY.]
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. MACLEAN in the Chair.]

ARMY ESTIMATES, 913-14.— [Progress.] ARMY—WAR OFFICE.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £443,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the War Office, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31k day of March, 1914."
Mr. LEE: This being the Vote for the salary of the Secretary of State for War, it is, I think, the proper occasion for raising any questions of broad policy for which he is responsible, and it will give him the opportunity, I hope, of replying to certain inquiries which have been addressed to him, not merely by us in this House, but by important bodies outside, like the National Defence Association and others, as to whether, in the opinion of his military advisers, the Territorial Army and other troops available for Home defence after the Dispatch of the Expeditionary Force are, or are not, equal to the task of taking over the military defence of the United

555
Kingdom. I think it must be obvious to everyone that the position cannot be safeguarded if the Expeditionary Force should be tied to these shores, and the right hon. Gentleman himself, I think on March 19th, in our first Debate told us that it was the fact that the Expeditionary Force could be and would be sent abroad if the strategic situation overseas required it; and, moreover, that it could be maintained abroad for a campaign I assume of reasonable length. That, of course, implies that in his opinion, and I assume of his military advisers, that the Territorial Army must be considered to be capable of undertaking the military defence of the United Kingdom in the absence of the Expeditionary Force. That lands us at once, and once again, in the old dilemma which is created by the contemplation of the two cardinal features of the Government's military policy. What I mean is that the Government's military policy for the last seven years has been, first of all, as regards the Regular Army at Home, that it should be so organised and keyed-up that it should be able to start at a moment's notice for anywhere.
I do not propose to criticise the fitness of the Expeditionary Force for that kind of work. The other side and the other cardinal feature of the Government's military policy which was laid down by Lord Haldane in 1907 was that the Second Line of our Army, the existing Territorials and what remains behind after the Expeditionary Force has left, the Territorials, are deliberately designed not to commence their serious war training until the same moment the Expeditionary Force leaves, and, in the words of the Memorandum which was issued at that time, the Territorial Army will be one of support and expansion to be at once embodied when danger threatens, and not likely to be called for until after the expiration of the preliminary period of six months. It is obvious that those two cardinal features, as I call them, are necessarily mutually destructive. They must be fatal to the whole structure of national defence in the case of war, and, as far as I can see, the inevitable outcome is that in the unhappy event of war we shall be forced to abandon cur Oversea obligations, whether they are within the Empire or elsewhere; and with regard to elsewhere we shall once mere, owing to the fact that the Expeditionary Force will probably not be forthcoming,
556
run the risk of the old reproach which used to be levelled against us of perfide Albion.
I am aware this matter is a very old story that has been raised by us again and again in Debate. I wish to point out that there has been no solution of this impasse offered by the Government, so far as I know, during the many years they have been in office. We put the question often and we have had many evasions of the issue. We have had no definite clear explanation of this, as I think, dangerous position, and recent events within the last week, so far as we are enabled to judge from what we read, impel us to return to the charge, and we intend to persist in pressing the question on the Government until we get some satisfactory explanation that shall dispel our fears, or until the Government takes some satisfactory action with regard to the situation. I would like to point out that in this matter the Government, as in the case of their naval policy, are once more neglecting to maintain the standard of strength which they themselves have laid down. I am not referring now to standards designed by us, but taking their own standards in the case of the military defence of this country, as well as in the case of naval defence, they are not maintaining the standards which they themselves have laid down and laid clown recently. The Prime Minister, speaking in the House of Commons on 29th July, 1909, said:—
"It is the business of the War Office to see that we have tinder all circnmstance"—
Mark those words—
"a properly organised and properly equipped force, capable of dealing effectively with possible invasion by 70,000 men."
I think it is admitted by the War Office that, assuming there was an invasion by that number of men, a body of trained Regular troops, the number of Territorials required to deal with them should be in the proportion of three to one. Three times 70,000 is 210,000; therefore, that number of men, in the first place, are required as a mobile striking force in order to carry out what the Prime. Minister said was the duty of the War Office. I have made my point, so far. It is admitted that an invasion by 70,000 men is a possibility. It is further admitted that an Expeditionary Force, consisting of 160,000 or 170,000 Regulars in the first instance, may have to be dispatched at once, and may lave in addition to be maintained in the
field. In those circumstances we once more come back to the fundamental question as to what provision the War Office

557
is making for the military defence of the United Kingdom, in the absence of the Expeditionary Force, and what troops of one kind or another will remain here when the Expeditionary Force has gone, and what is their quality, and what their standard of training. Taking, again, the official statement of the case as I understand it, it is claimed that 400,000 troops, of sorts, would remain after the dispatch of the Expeditionary Force, consisting of the residue of the Regulars, the Special Reserve—what there was of it—and the Territorial Force. But I do not think it can be seriously denied by the right hon. Gentleman that, in the event of having to send the full strength of the Expeditionary Force abroad, that practically every efficient Regular soldier and every remaining efficient officer, belonging either to the regular Army or to the Special Reserve, would have, if not immediately, at any rate within a very short time, to be sent to reinforce the Expeditionary Army, in order to maintain it in the field.
4.0 P.M.
What will be the position, after the dispatch of the Expeditionary Force? This point was discussed in very great detail by my Friend, the late Mr. Wyndham, speaking at this box at the commencement of the Session, and I do not propose to cover the ground which was so ably traversed by him on that occasion. I would merely remind the Committee. that he arrived at the conclusion—and if hon. Members wish they can follow his reasons In the Debate in the OFFICIAL REPORT of that Debate—that the total number of effectives—he used the word "effectives" in a very limited sense—the total that would be left, after the necessary reinforcement of the Expeditionary Force, would be 225,000 men. There was one point on which he did not touch, namely, that the number of 225,000 men made no provision whatever for maintaining order amongst the civil population of this country—and I must remind the Committee that is likely to be no light task in time of war, for even in August, 1911, we were having internal troubles in this country, and no less than 58,000 men of the Regular Army were employed in support of the civil power, and would have been unavailable for other purposes. Therefore, I estimate, following on Mr. Wyndham's figures, that not more than 200,000 men at the most would be available for Home Defence after the departure of the Expeditionary Force, and that this number would have to deal with any possible serious invasion of the kind referred
558
to by the Prime. Minister in the remarks which I quoted, and with any of the small possible and frequent raids such as have been made during the last few days. In addition to that, they would have to provide permanent garrisons at our coaling stations, our dockyards, fortresses, and any points which require to be garrisoned. If we have 200,000 men for all these purposes, have we any indication of what number is really required? We have the Government telling us of 400,000 being available, which agrees—I suppose it is a coincidence—with the figure of the Norfolk Commission, which sat after the Boer war. That Commission came to the conclusion that 400,000 men represented the minimum that would be required for the defence of this country in the absence of an Expeditionary Force. That was in 1904. The right hon. Gentleman, speaking last year, said—I do not know whether I have the exact quotation—
"The world has not become more peace-loving. 01 her nations have not reduced their armaments. Our defensive task has not become easier."
Of course that is obvious to everybody. It is one of those unfortunate facts which every country may have to face, and presumably, therefore, if 400,000 men was the minimum necessary a few years ago, it is no exaggeration to suggest that 500,000 will be required to-day. But when I ventured to make that claim earlier in the Session, the right hon. Gentleman in reply flatly denied that any such number would be required. He informed me that it might be my opinion, but that responsible military opinion does not take that view. It is not for me to set up my opinion against that of his responsible military advisers, but I do think that we ought not to be met with a mere general denial of that kind coming from them through him, and that we are entitled to know, if that be the case, what is the view of the General Staff with regard to the numbers required—how many men are necessary, and what standard of efficiency and training and armaments they ought to attain to. This is really the main question which I wish once more to press upon the right hon. Gentleman to-day, and which I do hope on this occasion—the occasion of the Vote which more directly concerns himself than any other in the whole of the Estimates—that he will take note, as perhaps he did not in past Debates, when I asked the question, though I feel sure he has observed it to-day, by giving us really a satisfactory reply. If he can give us a satisfactory reply no one will be more

559
pleased than myself, because I am seriously and genuinely concerned about the situation. I do claim that the House of Commons and the country—while certain information is quite properly kept highly confidential, but this is not one of those instances—are entitled to know these elementary and fundamental facts, which go to the root of the whole question of our national defence. So far the Government has steadily refused to answer our inquiries in regard to this matter, and, therefore, I think we
must be excused if we feel little confidence in the War
Office estimates, numbers, and so forth which have been given to us in the past. In 1907, when the Territorial Force was first launched upon an expectant public, we were told that 315,000 men was the number required. Last year, on 11th March, the right hon. Gentleman, in answer to a question, said that the establishment of the Territorial Force was naturally based upon the requirements of the service for which it was intended. To-day, as we know from the Official Returns, it is 2,000 officers and 60,000 men short. of its establishment, and it is rapidly dwindling. Of the numbers which are actually in its ranks to-day only about one-half are efficient in the very limited sense of the term which has been laid down by the War Office.
There is the Special Reserve. We were told in 1907 that 87,000 men was the number required for that force. I understand, again from the Official Returns, that to-day it is 32,000 short of that number. The officers of that force are 50 per cent. short of strength and, I believe, in some instances that it runs to 60 per cent. The shortage of the non-commissioned officers is a matter of even greater seriousness. Earlier in the Session when we pressed this point upon the attention of the right hon. Gentleman, we were told that we must not refer to the matter because the whole subject was being inquired into by a Committee. I hope he will be able to give us some information, this being the last occasion of the present Session that we shall have any opportunity of discussing Army matters. I trust, therefore, we shall be able to get some statement from the War Office in regard to the present position of the Special Reserve. These being the actual figures in the case of the Special Reserve and of the Territorial Force, and differing as they do so markedly from the original
560
estimates of the War Office, I feel bound to ask what reliance we can be expected to place upon the assurances of that Department when the estimates so far have been so lamentably falsified: I do not want to weary the Committee by unnecessary details in dealing with this matter, but to go back to the main point which I made just now, so far as our information goes, we should, in the event of war and after the departure of the Expeditionary Force, have only some 200,000 men—I do not say they are all efficient — available to discharge the duties which the Norfolk Commission claimed that 400,000 men were necessary to perform. I think that is a very serious position. Whilst the shortage of numbers would have been serious enough in any case, apparently the seriousness of the situation has been deliberately aggravated by the action of the Government during the last seven years. The result of their policy has been so far to reduce practically every branch of our military forces.
The Regular Army has been reduced by some 20,000 men and nine cadres, which latter, in my opinion, is the more serious, because it has taken away the power of expansion which previously existed. The old Militia Force has been reduced by some 32,000 men from the strength at which it stood when the Government came into power. The old Volunteer Force has been reduced by some 22,000 men, although I do not personally attach much importance to the last reduction. This, then, is a total reduction of something like 75,000 men, quite apart from the consequential reduction of the Reserves, which amount to a very considerable figure. So far as we can see, the Government are doing nothing whatever to remedy the deficiencies which have been partly created by themselves. Apart, however, from the Government, the reduction would have been exceedingly serious. As we know, and I regret to say it, at present recruiting is bad. We have no returns to go upon except the Annual Report of last year. In that Report I think I saw that 6,000 men less were taken last year than in 1907. The standards have been lowered, there has been even talk, I understand, of having recourse to that old and happily abandoned system of bounties in order to induce men to serve. So far as we can see, the only prospect that we have before us, unless the Government has some new policy to announce, is a still

561
further dwindling both of the first and second line of our military defence. I do not doubt we shall have still further speeches from the right hon. Gentleman telling us that everything is absolutely ideal; that our army is the best in the world, that it is the best equipped and all that; and we shall no doubt have from him further eulogies of the all-sufficient virtues of the voluntary system of enlistment.
The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): What is your alternative?
Mr. LEE: What was the right hon. Gentleman's own alternative when he sat on those benches, but when he belonged to a different party from that to which he now belongs? His old alternative was that every able-bodied man should serve in defence of his country—
Colonel SEELY: Abroad?
Mr. LEE: I did not say abroad at all. I am talking about Home defence. The right hon. Gentleman has not followed the remarks which I am putting before the Committee. The whole burden of my argument has been the deficiency of numbers for Home defence. The right hon. Gentleman's own solution, until he found that he had to cut his military coat according to his political cloth, used to be that the voluntary system was not one upon which we, in this country, could rely for the future. However, I do not want to bring up the past more often than necessary, but the right hon. Gentleman provoked it by his interruption. At the time to which I refer the right hon. Gentleman had memories of the war, and I think they weighed heavily upon him. Now, apparently, war does not enter into his calculations at all. His main anxiety appears to be to produce paper strengths, which look very imposing, and to have fine spectacular reviews on Wimbledon Common and elsewhere. These may help to keep quiet the House of Commons and the country, but they really do not at all solve the problem as to what we will require in time of war. On this point I would like again to call attention to that most able and invaluable document written by the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman in 1907:—
"The contemplation of large numbers by the people of this country, who are unable to take into account the question of war efficiency and war organisation, necessarily promotes dangerous national illusions."
I think that was perfectly true. That is exactly the position in which we find our-
562
selves to-day, where the people of this country are asked to contemplate the large numbers which exist on paper. A large proportion of these are quite unavailable for the purpose of war. I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman is trading on the traditional blindness and indifference of the people of this country in time of peace, and gambling upon the chances of there being no war and no awakening by war in his time. I hope that when the awakening comes it will not be in time of war. I am, personally, extremely anxious that the awakening should come now in time of peace, when there is an opportunity to do something, otherwise if it conies in time of. war we shall have a general panic; we shall, at any rate, have such a deterioration of the public morale that it will be quite sufficient to bring disaster. I do not think that this question of public morale as distinct from the morale of the military forces, is sufficiently considered in our military policy. The House will remember the well-known saying of Napoleon:—
"In war morale is to the physical as three to one."
I do not think that is an exaggeration. But in democracies, such as that to which we belong, this force of morale, however-foolish and unreasoning it may be, is. nevertheless 'strong enough to control and deflect the movements of armies and navies, even in times of great emergency, and strong enough also to bring the best plans of statesmen and strategists to confusion and even to ruin. It is very necessary, therefore, for us to consider it. It is also essential on grounds quite other than military that we should have a Home Defence Force which is strong enough, and obviously strong enough, not merely in the opinion of experts, but in the opinion of the people at large, to quiet and reassure' the populace in the event of threatened war. Just let the members of the Committee consider for a moment what would be the effect upon the ordinary people of this country if in time of war incidents occurred, such as have occurred in mimic warfare during the last week, when there-were raids on the coast—and I am not saying they are anything more serious—in which important towns, shipbuilding yards, docks, and so forth were seized and held by the enemy for a few hours only. We had the same thing that has happened now in the naval manœuvres of last, year, when a large force landed on the Yorkshire Coast. Whilst that did not frighten many of us, knowing the whole thing was a mere

563
peace exercise, I venture to say that the effect upon the population, if these things really happened in war, would be of an almost paralysing character.
Apparently, we see from the recent naval manœuvres that it is possible for an enterprising enemy to land small raiding parties almost anywhere along our coast. It would be folly for me to lay down, or to attempt to lay down, what has actually taken place; therefore, I am not prepared to assert that the defenders in these particuar manoœvres were outwitted, but I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman will deny that things did happen which will compel the most serious attention on the part of the Government and the Defence Committee, with a possible revision of a good many of the optimistic theories which have hitherto been held. It is inevitable—the history of every country shows it—that in time of war, at the very first threat of war, there would be throughout the country a, popular outcry and a demand from all kinds of localities and particular places near the coast for local protection, either by the Navy or the Army. Hon. Members on both sides of the House would bring pressure to bear upon the Secretary of State for War and the First Lord of the Admiralty, saying, "We are entirely unprotected in my Constituency, and we think we ought to be protected." That kind of thing has happened. I remember a very striking example of it in the Spanish-American War of 1898. A Spanish cruiser, a not very powerful ship, was missing. That was all. In Spain nobody knew where it was. Instantly there was a panic down the whole Eastern Coast of the United States, and demands from every State Government and from the corporations of every city on the coast that warships and troops should be sent in orderto preventtheirparticular townanddistrict being laid in ashes by this destroying cruiser. Well, of course, it never turned up—it never appeared at all. Nevertheless, the embarrassment of the Government was very real, as I have been assured by members of the particular Government concerned. It was very real indeed, and I have no doubt whatever that the very same individuals in this House who have been most prominent in demanding reductions of our naval and military forces during the last few years would be the very first in a situation of that kind to be calling out for protection from the Gov-
564
ernment for preparations they have already denounced. That, after all, is not of very vital importance, but what would be the real effect—which is vital? I believe the real effect would be that such pressure would be brought to bear on the Government, that the Expeditionary Force would not be allowed to leave, although the strategic necessities of the Empire and our international obligations might require that it should leave, and, therefore, we should be in the unhappy position of being forced to abandon our Imperial responsibilities with deplorable and, perhaps, fatal results to our prestige and to our world position.
I think the right hon. Gentleman will not deny that the recent manœuvres have shown that some of the expedients at present provided for the purposes of defence are in some respects unreliable, or, at any rate, uncertain. The coast patrol flotillas. on which we were to rely so much, are capable, at any rate, of being lured away. Coast defences, I think, from their moral effect are very useful. They have a very reassuring effect upon the locality in which they are situated, but they are very costly. They cannot be set up everywhere, but, having said that, I wish to say also that I do think they have a great value, and that the citizen soldier—the Territorial soldier—is peculiarly suited for manning defence of that description. He is suited for it, in the first place, because of his general high level of intelligence, and also because no mobility on his part is required, because untrained troops are generally very much steadier in fighting behind entrenchments, and because it is much easier to arrange for the training and firing to bring about a state of efficiency. Therefore, I think the Territorial Garrison Artillery is a force deserving of every possible encouragement, and here I must make a slight digression, and say that, on the other hand, I cannot apply my remarks to the Territorial Field and Horse Artillery. I am not in this matter going to put forward my own personal opinion, but I have talked to a very large number of Artillery officers with regard to this point, amongst others, to Lord Roberts, who, I think, every one in this House will recognise, not only as a great soldier but a great Artillery authority, and I have not found one single opinion which disagrees with this general statement, that the Territorial Field and Horse Artillery is a costly, dangerous—I do not wish to use language unnecessarily strong—but a costly force which would be

565
dangerous to the other arms which it would serve in the event of war, and that in any case it is a waste of money which is much needed for other purposes. Yesterday, the right hon. Gentleman in answer to a question, told us that in the opinion of the War Office, 150 Territorial batteries were efficient.
Colonel SEELY: I do not think that was the word. The question was as to "effective." I did not quite know what "effective" meant. The question of efficiency is entirely a matter of opinion. By "effective" I expect he meant that they were actually there. Perhaps he will develop it in the course of his argument, but it is really very difficult to arrive at what is meant by the question.
Mr. LEE: Although my recollection was that the' word was "efficient," if he likes I will call it "effective"; but I followed up the question by asking, Did he mean effective for the purpose of war? To that we received no reply. I, therefore, take the opportunity of asking again, Does the War Office consider that these 150 batteries of Territorial Field and Horse Artillery are effective units for the purpose of war, because, if they are not effective for war purpose, what is the use of spending money upon them? I am not going to develop this Artillery question at length, because an hon. Friend of mine who has served a long time in the Artillery will have an opportunity of dealing in detail with it. But I do say that, in the opinion of Lord Roberts and others, it would be far better value for people in this country and our military efficiency to get rid of these 150 batteries altogether and to spend the same amount of money in providing thirty batteries of Regular Artillery. Certainly, such experience as I have leads me warmly to support that view. What, then, is wanted in our opinion to deal with this general situation? In the first place, if I may give my own opinion for what it is worth, I think we want more ships and more sailors in order to make absolutely certain, without a shadow of doubt, our command of the sea, because, unless we have complete command of the sea, the Expeditionary Force cannot start at all. That point is sometimes forgotten. In addition to that, I think we want more real soldiers, and by real soldiers I do not mean necessarily Regular soldiers capable of serving in any part of the world, but a citizen Army which is really trained and made effective up to a point where it
566
can hope with some chance of success to fight with trained European troops. Lastly, I think we require an adequate air service. That, again, I do not propose to deal with at length at this stage.
Colonel SEELY: For Home defence'?
Mr. LEE: Yes, certainly. I think it is most important for Home defence, but I do not propose to deal with that in detail, because another hon. Friend of mine who has recently had an opportunity of inspecting the arrangements of the right hon. Gentleman in that connection will deal with that point. But I must just bring forward again one broad point which I brought to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman before, and which he has never answered. He has told us that our Army —I mean our Regular Army, our Expeditionary Force—is better equipped than any other Army in the world in all the necessities of war, and he has also told us that it requires eight squadrons of aeroplanes to complete its equipment for purposes of war. He also tells us that he does not propose to provide more than five of these eight squadrons by the end of the present year. Why not? If this force is really better equipped than any other Army in the world and is ready to start as an Expeditionary Force, why should we wait until the year after next for this most essential part of its equipment? I hope he will give us an answer to that point, and also as to why we are to have, apparently, no kind of aerial force at all for the Home
Defence Army. Surely if the Regular Army needs it, the Home Defence Army, which has enough handicaps already, needs it more. It seems to me quite clear that the only way of dealing with this whole general situation is to have a complete reconstruction of the Home Defence Army as regards its method of enlistment, its training, its arming, and equipment, and this means, inevitably, increased expenditure. That brings me to this point: It seems to me that one root of the present trouble as regards this question of our military efficiency is the indefensible and ridiculous axiom, which appears to have been laid down some time ago, that Army Estimates must always remain at a fixed figure, whilst all other Estimates are showing a steady and startling increase. What possible virtue can there be in a particular figure of £28,000,000, at which the Army Estimates apparently are always now to stand'? There has been an increased cost in everything so far as I know in this country. Our military responsibilities

567
have enormously increased, and, so far as I can see, Army expenditure is the only single item of economy which has been practised by the party opposite which is supposed to be devoted to retrenchment amongst its other party cries. I hope I have not detained the Committee too long in dealing with this question, but I have endeavoured once more to indicate in broad outline to the Committee what are the chief points about which we feel obliged once more—and this is the last occasion during the present year—to repeat our inquiries, and to hope that we shall receive some kind of satisfactory reply. The right hon. Gentleman in previous Debates charged me with omniscience, and I say frankly I was very much flattered at this quite unexpected tribute to my abilities and powers. I valued it very much, coming from such a source, but on this occasion I appear before the right hon. Gentleman as a humble inquirer who is very anxious to know the answers to some very important questions. He said, I think, last year, when I raised a point somewhat similar to this, that he did not believe I meant what I said, and that he did not believe I was really anxious about the situation. I think, quite unconsciously, he does not do me justice. I do really believe what I am saying in this matter, and am really anxious, and I do not believe I am the only person in this Committee on either side who is anxious with regard to the situation. But he went further and said that if I did believe what I said and was really anxious, I ought to devote the elderly and rapidly waning energies that I possess to drilling in the daytime and, as I understand, to exhorting the nation at night. That, I think, throws a flood of light on the right hon. Gentleman's whole attitude of mind. I think he really believes that stout, sedentary politicians, and others with no kind of military capability at all, so long as they are animated by the best and most patriotic motives, are quite capable of resisting invasion by trained Continental troops. I think that was what was at the bottom of his touching belief in the new National Reserve, but I cannot help thinking that the martial memories of his hot youth are a serious handicap to his usefulness as Secretary of State for War. I think it would be far better if he would forget that he had served with so much distinction in the Hampshire Yeomanry.
Colonel SEELY: I never mentioned it.
Mr. LEE: I did not say the right hon. Gentleman did, but I think it would be far better if he would try to forget his military experiences, as I have tried to forget that I was once a brevet-major and lieutenant-colonel. I try to forget all these things, and to resign that long past military career in my case to oblivion. The right hon. Gentleman has been more successful than I have been in maintaining his figure, but I do not think that either he or I would be considered by any competent military authority as being of any real value as military assets. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] It is our business here as Members of Parliament elected to speak in this House to study the problem as well as we can, and criticise without fear or favour where we think criticism is necessary. The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have repeatedly deprecated criticism of the Territorial Army on the ground that it was calculated to shake the morale of citizen soldiers. I am more concerned with the morale of the Territorial Army as they would appear if faced by the real thing rather than well intentioned criticism in this House, and I am still more concerned as to what the morale of the British public would be if it should find out that the arrangements for its safety are wholly unreliable. I therefore feel compelled to repeat the criticisms which we have made on previous occasions with regard to the present condition of the Territorial Army, and I press the right hon. Gentleman to give us a reply upon these three questions: (1) What are the numbers which, in the opinion of the General Staff, are considered necessary for Home defence after the departure of the Expeditionary Force; (2) What standard of training and efficiency should the second line of troops attain to for the purposes of this work; and (3) What steps do the Government propose to take to remedy the deficiency in numbers and training of our present Home Defence Force.
Mr. ROWLAND HUNT: I beg to move, "That the Vote be reduced by £100, in respect of the salary of the Secretary of State for War."
I want to call the attention of the House to the way the Secretary for War treats people who approach the War Office respecting improvements in bullets. Mr. Holland was invited by the War Office to submit a bullet to fulfil certain conditions, and he perfected a bullet after having spent large sums of money upon experiments. He sent it to the War Office, but

569
the right hon. Gentleman's Department have accepted a bullet which, with the exception of slight and unimportant variations is exactly the same bullet as the one submitted to the War Office by Mr. Holland. I submit that the War Office bullet is an infringement of Mr. Holland's patent, and what was stated to be the case by Mr. Walter, a well-known K.C., and an eminent patent lawyer. Mr. Holland supplied the War Office with what they required, and then they searched the Patent Office in order to defeat Mr. Holland's just claims, although Messrs. Ely Brothers, who manufactured the Government bullets pay Mr. Holland a royalty upon his bullets when they are sold to the trade. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will remember that Lord Haldane, just before he was elevated to the peerage, hail agreed to see Mr. Holland on this matter to try and get it amicably settled. The right hon. Gentleman has refused to see Mr. Holland, although that gentleman offered, if the War
Office would put the question before any leading authority in patent law, that he would, if that authority said that the Government bullet did not infringe his patent, give up all claim. The War Office entirely refused to do even that. What I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman is that it is a very bad thing for the War Office to get the name that they are not to be trusted. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to put it off as if it did not matter.
I have heard that the War Office has no soul to be damned and no body to be kicked: If you get that into people's heads, then you cannot expect the rifle-makers and the gunmakers to help the War Office, because they will be inclined to say, "No, the War Office is not to be trusted, and we will not have anything to do with them." Mr. Holland said himself that he would trust the right hon. Gentleman, but he would not trust the War Office as a body, and I think he was thundering well right, too. I put that point before the right hon. Gentleman. because I think it is a serious matter and I should like, if it is possible, to drive sonic shame into him about the way Mr. Holland has been treated. I want to say a word or two about the Prime Minister and national defence. On the 2nd May I asked the Prime Minister:
"Whether he would prevent Members of the Government, from prejudicing the question of the defence of these islands by going about the country saying that invasion was an inconceivable possibility."
On that occasion the Prime Minister replied that he was not aware of any such
570
statement, and when I referred him to the speech he said he should be very glad to have it. After the statement had been sent, I asked the same question of the Prime Minister again, and the right hon. Gentleman in reply to my question, said:—
"I have read a verbatim account of the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary, mid it is quite in agreement with what he said, although the summary quoted by the hon. Gentlemen is no doubt unintentionally misleading. I must refer the hon. Member to that account of the speech of which I shall be pleased to send him a copy, should he desire it."
The Prime Minister was kind enough to send me a copy of what the Colonial Secretary said, and it is perfectly plain what the right hon. Gentleman did say. He said:—
"With our supreme Fleet and our existing defensive forces an invasion by 70,000 or 100,000 men is not conceivably possible."
The Prime Minister particularly said that he was quite in agreement with what the Colonial Secretary said. This is what. the Prime Minister said on the 29th July; 1904:—
"In these matters we must have an ample margin of safety, and, in order to secure that margin, the force necessary for Home defence permanently maintained here, should be sufficient to cope with a foreign invasion of 70,000 to 100,000 men."
The right hon. Gentleman told us very shortly afterwards that the Territorial Force was not sufficient to cope with a foreign invasion of 70,000 to 100,000 men. Surely that is so. From those quotations the House will see that we are in a very unsatisfactory condition at the present time, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give his attention for a moment to what the Colonial Secretary said further on in his speech, of which the Prime Minister said he approved. In the same speech the Colonial Secretary said:—
"I never wish to see this country committed to an aggressive foreign or military policy, and I can conceive no such circumstances under which Continental operations by our troops would not be a crime against the people of this country."
What is the explanation of this force if it is never to be used? The Prime Minister quite agrees with what the Colonial Secretary says, and I think we may fairly ask for an answer to those quotations from the Colonial Secretary and the Prime Minister. There is the question of Belgium. I think we are bound to protect the neutrality of Belgium. The Colonial Secretary—the Prime Minister agreeing with him—says that he can conceive no circumstances under which Continental operations by our troops would not be a crime against the people of this country. Really, it is enough to make you wonder what in the world a Liberal Government

571
will do ! We do not know where we are. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman in this way: We are expected to help to defend Belgium and France if they are attacked. Is the right hon. Gentleman going to get up and tell us that under no circumstances will this Expeditionary Force be sent to help either Belgium or France? Is that what is going to be put into the French papers and the papers of our allies? I hope the right hon. Gentleman will explain this, because it is not the same opinion which he held on 5th June, when he told us that nothing was impossible, and with great respect I think he is right. The First Sea Lord told us that the Navy alone could not prevent invasion, and that we must have a number of well-trained troops. Sir John French says that the Territorials must have months of continuous training before they are able to face Continental troops.
The right hon. Gentleman told us in the last Debate we had that Lord Nelson was supposed to have been the person who declared that one volunteer was worth ten pressed men. But the right hon. Gentleman added that really nobody knew whether it was Lord Nelson who said it or not; therefore, I do not see that we can reckon on that so much. The right hon. Gentleman then went on to say that it was true that one volunteer was worth ten pressed men. Now, really, I should not have thought that even a Liberal War Minister would have made—I do not wish to be rude—quite so idiotic a statement as that! The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that according to our recruiting officers, eighty or ninety out of every hundred men who enlist in our Regular Army do so because they have no other way in which to get clothing, shelter, and food. [Colonel SEELY indicated dissent.] The right hon. Gentleman is really not going to dispute that. It is absolutely well known that 80 to 90 per cent. of the soldiers in our Regular Army enlist because they cannot get jobs at 15s. a week and cannot get food and shelter. I remember a relation of mine telling me, with regard to the Special Reserve, that he knew it to be true that men joined because they were attracted by the menu put up outside the barrack gates showing what they were going to get to eat when they went in. There is no doubt that these are facts, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that perfectly well. This voluntary system is, as a matter of fact, conscription by
572
hunger, so far as the British Army is concerned. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, if he is not too angry with me already, whether he considers that each of these hunger conscripts is really worth ten pressed German soldiers? I would ask him to remember that what ho calls pressed men in Germany are in reality not pressed men at all. The people of Germany themselves vote that every able young man must 'be liable to learn to defend his country, and even the 'Socialists themselves believe in that. Herr—I am not good at German names, but the right hon. Gentleman will know whom I mean—has declared that he would shoulder a rifle himself if the Fatherland was in danger. How, then, can the right hon. Gentleman call these German soldiers pressed men, when, with the rest of the population, they are in favour of a system by which every man can be compelled to defend his country '? How can you call them pressed men when they practically all vote for it, and how can you call the system in this country a volunatry system when many of the men who join the Regular Army are compelled to do so because there is nothing else for them to do under your Free Trade system?
Other nations know what voluntary service means. They voluntarily, through their Governments, have decided that all sound men shall be liable to serve. We do not do that, because political leaders, and the right hon. Gentleman is one- of them, deceive the people and tell them that voluntary service means sitting at home and hiring someone else to fight. These people, deceived by the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends, stay at home, untrained, drink their beer or champagne as the case may be, and let the small minority bear all the burden of the fight. These are the clear facts of the case, and I wish the right hon. Gentleman would face them. I wonder what the War Secretary would be worth if, not pressed by the Cabinet, he would tell the people of this country the true opinion of the twenty officers of the highest rank in the Army! I have a high opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, but I should have a far higher opinion of him if he would put it to the test in that way, and loosen the tongues of these poor generals, so that they would be allowed to say what they really think. What it really comes to is this, that the right hon. Gentleman and his party are really priding themselves upon a form of the least physically fit and the most prosperous people avoid the trouble of

573
learning how to defend their country, and they do it by trusting to bribery to induce the least physically fit, and the most poorly fed of the population to undertake the defence of the country and the Empire for them, and to do it on very inadequate remuneration. When the Regular soldiers have spent the best years of their life in the Army, the Government, in thousands of cases, leave them to starve in the ranks of unemployed, unskilled labour, and that labour comes into competition, not only with the rest of the world, but with all colours of the human race—black, brown, or white. That is how you treat your soldiers who have served you well. The right hon. Gentleman told us the other day that the voluntary system was a priceless advantage. I conclude, therefore, that in his opinion it is a priceless advantage to be able to hire the blood of your fellow countrymen for cash, because that is what the present system comes to and nothing else. The Government call this service voluntary and pretend that it is patriotic, but I can only say that my astonishment at their attitude is overwhelmed by my disgust at their hypocrisy.
When you come to consider the position of the Regular Army, with its Reserve, it appears, so far as I can make out, that it was reduced by Lord Haldane by 70,000 men. This year it is still further reduced by 2,000 or 3,000. The Artillery has certainly been reduced, and so much reduced that when the Expeditionary Force has gone there will only be one Regular Horse Artillery battery and three batteries of Field Artillery left in the country. I asked the right hon. Gentleman the other day whether he would tell me what Artillery would be left, but he refused to answer, so I wrote again for information, and I have it on very high military authority that what I have just stated is absolutely the case. Of course, I cannot find out any more, because the right hon. Gentleman will not tell me, but that is how I believe the position will be in regard to Artillery when the Expeditionary Force has left. Therefore, for the defence of this country, when the Expeditionary Force has left, you are largely depending on the Territorial batteries, of which very few would have any chance with Regular batteries of men who have served for two or three years. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that Lord Haldane told us—and the right hon. Gentleman has said very much the same thing—that the 4th Battalion of the Special Reserve were only trained for three months, and that they
574
will go out at once in the fighting formation to the Continent, as they were enlisted and organised for that purpose. On the Continent these men would have to meet Regulars, who have been trained for two or three years, and this in spite of the fact that Lord Haldane told us in December, 1911, in the House of Lords, that, in the opinion of his best advisers, men who have been trained from four to, six months were not fit to meet Regulars who had been trained two or three years. Look at the position! In the one case-men trained for three months are supposed to be fit to meet Regulars of long service abroad, while in the other case men trained for six months are not fit to meet Regulars at home. Surely the position is so absurd that it hardly requires comment, but it does show to what length a Minister will go in his attempt to save his own skin at the expense of our soldiers.
The Territorial Force is now about 60,000 officers and men short, and 20,000 less than last year. Only 153,500 men passed in musketry last year, so that less than half the number laid down as necessary for defending the country passed in musketry. Over 40,000 are boys under nineteen years of age, and 34,000 did not attend camp at all. That is your Territorial Army up to date. I think I am justified in reminding the House that we want a strong Home Defence Force far more than we did in 1905, when our strength at sea was practically three to one. Now it is admitted that our strength at sea is only about sixteen to ten. Surely the right hon. Gentleman must be able to see the gravity of the position! Surely he cannot deny the facts I have stated! I would remind him that the Association of Chambers of Commerce, the most important representative commercial body in this country, have most emphatically stated that they are in favour of compulsory military serving. I ask the Minister for War or the First Lord of the Admiralty what the naval manoeuvres, which are just over, are supposed to have proved? [An HON. MEMBER: "They are not over."] Well, at any rate, the invasion part is over, and we know that the conditions were quite unlike what would happen in war. The Territorials were prepared, and in spite of that and the fact that the defending force was allowed twenty-five battleships against sixteen of the enemy, the result has been a successful invasion.
Captain MURRAY: Why does the hon. Member use the words "successful invasion"?
Mr. HUNT: The invaders were, at all events, successful in getting in and capturing a town and destroying the telegraph, the railway, and that sort of thing. They were successful, so far as I understand it, in doing that. I do not know what inside knowledge the hon. and gallant Member may have.
Captain MURRAY: I want to know why the hon. Gentleman uses the word successful "?
Mr. HUNT: Because the fellows got there and captured the towns.
Captain MURRAY: How does lie know that they got there?
Mr. HUNT: They were seen by the newspaper correspondents. I observe that the men were sent back again only the other day.If they had not been there they could not have been sent back. he First Lord of the Admiralty never ventured to deny that next April Germany will have, on his own showing, more "Dreadnoughts" altogether than we shall have at the "average moment." That has been said by Lord Charles Beresford, and 1 have said it any number of times. I ask the War Secretary why he ventured to put the enemy in such a very small proportion in these trials, when in reality, if it came to war, the proportion would be -quite different? It is not a fair trial anyhow. I may also remind the right hon. Gentleman that we are not only very short of Infantry, but we are very short of horses. The Chairman of the Remount Committee has just stated that it will shortly become impossible to get horses for any mounted service other than the Yeomanry, and Field-Marshal Lord Nicholson has said that this applies to the whole country. I understand that the War Secretary is going to tell us how he is going to find horses. In the Army Memorandum of 1908–9 it is said that the Territorial Force is designed, in the first place, to compel any hostile Power which may attempt an invasion to send a force so large that its transports could not evade oar Fleet, and, in the second place, to free the Regular Army from the necessity of remaining in these Islands. It is also said that the Territorial Force is designed to enable both the- Regular Army and the Navy to operate with greater
576
freedom at a distance from these shores. That is exactly what the Territorial Force cannot do. They are really inefficients, people who cannot shoot, and wastrels. You must remember, too, that on the 30th September this year there will be a shortage of 188,000 officers and men, and, even if we get 60,000 recruits and 28,000 re-engagements, it will leave us with only 200,000 Territorials altogether on that date —over 100,000 under establishment. A large proportion of them will be recruits or inefficients, and the best of them will have been trained for only a fortnight. This is the force which is to defend us against 70,000 picked Continental troops carefully trained for two years! It would be murder to put these men in the field to oppose even 50,000 Continental troops.
The Secretary for War regrets the shortage in Territorials, but he will do nothing to remedy it because there is supposed to be no danger of invasion. But, as a matter of fact, the danger of invasion has been proved, or else we should not have such enormous efforts made to make up the numbers of the Territorial Force. Lord Haldane told us himself that the enemy would try a blow at our heart, London, if he got a chance. The War Secretary said there was a complete co-operation between the Navy and the Army, and yet there is the very odd thing that a book was published some few months ago after having been submitted to the War Office. In this book the danger of the naval position is very plainly pointed out, and it is stated that our military affairs are at present in a deplorable state. It also said that no recruits under twenty years are of any fighting value. That is the book that the War Office specially allowed to be printed. I suppose there was somebody at the War Office who wanted the truth to come out somehow. The Secretary of State said that there had been grave irregularities, whatever that may mean. This book says that we must have at least 500,000 men really well trained for the defence of this country, as well as over a million Territorials far better trained than our Territorials are at present. This is the book which was allowed to he published by the War Office, and yet the right hon. Gentleman himself and the War Office consider Lord Roberts' scheme is unnecessary which asked for infinitely less. The truth seems to have been let out by accident by somebody at the War Office, and it is the truth which unfortunately the Government is afraid to tell the people for fear of losing votes. It is a very

577
unfortunate thing that it should be so. Generals in the Army cannot tell the people the truth of the matter It is all very well for the War Secretary to say there are grave irregularities, but really the gravest irregularity of all is that the Government conceals our danger and necessity from the people. This force is not only hopelessly inefficient and short of officers and men—some of them have really not fired a military rifle at all—but it is a force about which, even if its numbers were full, Lord Haldane, its creator, said if we relied upon it as against a surprise attack we should be relying upon very little. The Territorial rifle is inferior, and the bullet is inferior; it is the old South African bullet, and not the sharp-nosed bullet which makes a much more severe wound than the old bullet. There are distinct advantages in compulsory training, and it is for the country to decide whether we should have it or not. I ask the right hon. Gentleman himself again, as I have asked the Prime Minister three or four times, to try to bring about an agreement with the Leader of the Opposition. I feel sure that the Leader of the Opposition would agree to make universal compulsory training a non-party matter. It. is compulsory military training that is wanted.
The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): I allowed the hon. Member to introduce the subject of compulsory as against voluntary service, but the hon. Member must not develop it. The only way to bring about compulsory service is by legislation, and it is out of order to propose that in Committee of Supply. The subject is also really unconnected with the Vote we are now discussing.
Mr. HUNT: If you really think that I am not in order in advocating compulsory training, I cannot., of course, go on with the subject. I dare say that the House and the right hon. Gentleman have had about enough of me, and I will finish up by venturing to remind the right hon. Gentleman that we were to have had, anyhow, one day in which we could discuss quite openly what we liked on Army matters. This is an Army matter, and I have been ruled out by the Chairman, so we have had no day at all for the discussion of the general administration of the Army. I submit to the right hon. Gentleman that he knows quite well that when the Expeditionary Force goes away it will leave us in a hopelessly weak position
578
in this country. The Navy will next year be far weaker than in 1906, relatively, to other countries, and in the air we are admittedly outclassed.
Colonel SEELY: No.
Mr. HUNT: Why does the right hon. Gentleman say "No"? France, of course, has more aeroplanes than we have. There are now "Dreadnoughts" of the air called Zeppelins, and I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman considers that we are outclassed in that direction. He has admitted that these airships, these dirigible vessels in the air, can drop bombs of all kinds to cause destruction, and yet we have few or none of the guns necessary to hit them, and it must be remembered that these airships fly in the dark, and an airship in those circumstances would be a very hard thing to hit. I must say I think that I am justified in saying that we are hopelessly outclassed in the air. I certainly think that next year we shall be in a very dangerous position, and I will venture to remind the right hon. Gentleman of the late Lord Wolseley's prophecy. He said:—
"When war came and the talkers had done their work, and the result was invasion and starvation in this country, then the fishwives from the East End of London would invade Downing Street and Whitehall, and hang any Minister that they could catch to the nearest lamp-post."
I think that Lord Wolseley was absolutely right, and for myself I would not stir a little finger to save any Minister's neck, for they are neglecting the safety and security of the Empire.
Mr. GWYNNE: The hon. Member for Ludlow has put to the right hon. Gentleman a great many questions which are mostly concerned with the future. The questions which I desire to put to the right hon. Gentleman mostly concern the past, and they are in reference to a matter which I think I may fairly describe as the scandal of the Middelburg Farm. I should perhaps remind the House that shortly after the conclusion of the South African War a large tract of country, I think some 28,000 acres, were purchased by the Government for military purposes. From that area a small farm of something like 100 acres was handed over and carried on as a garrison institute. After it had been carried on for some time, about four years ago, the farm suddenly closed down by order of the Army Council. It may be said that this is a matter of ancient history, but my reason for raising it—and, indeed, my excuse for raising it on this Vote,

579
which is the Vote on the Secretary of State's salary—is that during the past few months, when the hon. Member for Bodmin (Sir H. Pole-Carew) and myself have asked questions relating to this subject, we have been met in a spirit of evasion, and the issue has been confused. I go further and say that great inaccuracies were committed in answering the questions,
The FINANCIAL SECRETARYto the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): Will the hon. Member refer to the questions?
Mr. GWYNNE: Yes, I will give exactly what I said. We asked questions with regard to this farm, and we were first of all told that it was a private and not a public undertaking. I do not wish in any way to delay the Committee, but perhaps it would be well if I asked the hon. Gentleman straight away, or the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State himself, whether this was a private undertaking?
Mr. BAKER: Yes.
Mr. GWYNNE: I have five or six questions and answers relating to the subject, and I cannot reconcile that statement with the following statements the hon. Gentleman has given me on the subject. The first one was to the effect that this farm was bought with public funds, and was loaned to the Garrison Institute without any rent being paid at all. Does the hon. Gentleman admit that? The next question was this, "Was it not the fact that this farm was started by the use of public money, and that £925 was in fact paid back to the public funds a few years afterwards, and did not the hon. Gentleman himself tell me that it was a loan out of public funds? "If this was a private undertaking, why was it stated by the Commander in South Africa that the Imperial Government Farm was not run in any interest save that of the public? You cannot have it both ways. If it was a private undertaking, why did the Army Council peremptorily order it to be closed down, to use their own words, "in the public interest, in order to obviate any loss falling on the public"? How could the farm be private, and what was the object of the statement that it was closed down in the public interest in order to save the public funds?
Mr. BAKER: Will the hon. Gentleman give me the date?
Mr. GWYNNE: It was the Commanderin-Chief in South Africa to the Secretary for War, sent on 11th February, 1908, and the words were, "In the public interests, in order to obviate any loss falling on the public." I will not read the whole of the document; I will stand by what I have read. Again, I asked the hon. Gentleman if it was not embodied in the Army Council's own instruction that the supreme control of the farm was vested in the Army Council. I ask him does he deny the fact that officers on full pay in the Army were appointed to superintend this farm? It is a private undertaking, yet officers on full pay were appointed to, superintend that private undertaking. I submit that this is quibbling with the matter. Either this farm was public or it was private. The hon. Gentleman may endeavour to make it a sort of hybrid concern—I do not mind which way he takes it—but he cannot take it both ways; he cannot answer in one breath that it was private and in another that it was public. I say that, beyond all question, the answers which have been given to my questions prove up to the hilt that this was a public undertaking, that the. Army Council were responsible, and that they took all responsibility upon them in regard to it. The hon. Member the Financial Secretary asked me whether I would point out inconsistencies in his replies to my questions or those of my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin. I will put to him one straight way. On 6th May he stated, in answer to a question by my hon. and gallant Friend, that there was nothing in the War Office records to suggest that at the date of the closing down of the farm (1909) any repayments were due to public or garrison funds apart from normal trading transactions. On 5th June, a month later, in answer to another question, he stated that there were two items—one of 2600' and one of £100—which were repaid in 1909, to use the precise. phrase, "dates not shown." Therefore, it was distinctly stated in the first case that there was nothing in the records as to repayments that were due, yet after the farm was closed down there were these two payments of £600 and £100. Is it questioned that this is a direct inaccuracy, that it is a misstatement, for which I think an apology is due to the House, because it was deliberate, and I may now call it a deliberate inaccuracy. In regard to the auditing of the accounts, the Financial Secretary to

581
the War Office told me on the 1st April that the accounts of this farm were audited by the officers of the Army Accountant's Department, acting in their capacity of members of the garrison and not as representatives of the Army Accountant's Department. I say that is deliberately untrue. [HON. MEMBER: "Oh, oh !"]
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have examined t he Estimates, and I cannot find any reference to the subject to which the hon. Member is now alluding. I am very loth to interrupt him in the middle of his speech, but I thought the matter was on the Estimates. I now observe, however, that the whole subject is closed, and therefore it is not on the Vote at all. In the circumstances, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to make his subsequent remarks as brief as possible, in view of the large number of subjects which are to be raised on the Vote.
Mr. GWYNNE: I certainly do not want to take up the time of the Committee, but I certainly thought that I could raise these points on the present Vote, and that I was perfectly in order.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Member that he is out of order, and that it is a matter of grace that I allow him to go on with his remarks at all.
Mr. GWYNNE: I do not think the Deputy-Chairman quite realises the point I am raising. I am raising not the question of the Middelburg Farm itself, which certainly is a matter of history, but the question of the consistency or inconsistency of the Secretary of State in giving information. Surely, the Secretary of State's salary is the occasion on which to do that, and if I cannot raise this question as to the conduct. of the Department, when can it be raised. I am referring to questions I asked and to the answers given in order to show that the replies were not consistent or accurate. I really think that this must be in order, for when, otherwise, would it be in order to raise these questions, if not on the salary of the Secretary of State? If we are precluded, then it would appear that the Secretary of State might do anything he likes, and we would never have an opportunity at all. I am not discussing the question of audit, but giving two instances to show the inaccuracies in answers to questions during this year, and, indeed, during the last
582
month. I asked a question with regard to the auditing of these accounts, and was told:—
"The accounts of this farm were audited by officers of the Army Accounts Department, acting in their capacity as members of the garrison skilled in such matters, and not as representatives of the accounting officer of the War Department."
I say that is inaccurate. I challenge the hon. Member to prove that what I say is not correct, that the accounts of the farm were officially audited half-yearly by order of the Army Council, by the administrative staff and not by the board of management at Middelburg at all. The answer was a direct misstatement. Here is another. The hon. Member told my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin on 6th May:—
"The Army. Council considered it desirable to have these sheets sent, not as accounts of a public concern rendered to the accounting office of the War Department, but for administrative reasons, in order that they 'night keep in touch with the working of a garrison institute of an exceptional kind."
That is proved by subsequent answers to questions to be an inaccurate statement. How could the Army Council, if they merely wanted to act as onlookers, send back these balance sheets, as, in fact, they did, and give orders as to how they would be made out? How could they have ordered the farm to be closed down or cause the credit balance to be altered—
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member, no doubt with the very best intentions, is endeavouring to get round the ruling I laid down. I cannot allow him to go into further details on the matter, or allow further illustrations he wishes to bring up in that way. I understood that the general charge he made against the Secretary of State for War was that of inaccuracy in replying to questions. I must ask him to cease from going into these details.
Mr. LEE: As there is evidently some misunderstanding upon this side of the Committee as to the width that is possible in this discussion, may I say we were under the impression that upon the Vote for the Secretary for War's salary it is possible to raise any question in regard to which he is responsible. Are we permitted, apart from this particular question; to raise any question in this Debate affecting matters for which the Secretary for War is responsible, because there are a great many of my hon. Friends who wish to speak on other subjects?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Hon. Members can discuss anything which is within the Estimates. I have carefully searched

583
the Estimates and can find no reference at all in them to the topic upon which the hon. Gentleman is now addressing the Committee. I have no wish to narrow the Debate at this time of the Session, as this is the last opportunity. I think I have made myself clear to the hon. Member.
Mr. HUNT: Are you aware, Sir, that the Secretary for War and the Prime Minister promised us a full discussion on the Army Estimates? I think it is rather hard that the hon. Member should be stopped as well as myself after that promise.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member had a very good run. He was speaking for nearly forty minutes. We cannot go outside the scope of the Estimates.
Mr. HUNT: On a point of Order—
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have decided the point of Order.
Mr. GWYNNE: I apologise to you, Sir, if I was trying to get outside your ruling, but I was not intending to do so. The Secretary of State himself has raised the question, and I thought it was understood we should have a discussion on this point this afternoon. I do, not wish to bring up the whole of this ancient history, because it would take too long and lead to no good purpose. On the general principle as to whether Members on this side have been treated candidly and fairly, I was trying to support my hon. Friend who moved the reduction, because I do not think the hon. Member for Bodmin and I have been treated fairly when we wished to get information on this subject. Why were we told, when we asked to have the correspondence laid upon the Table, that no useful purpose would be served? If there has been a scandal, and if it is over, at any rate, let us have it out, and have an inquiry, so that we may be able to avoid future scandal of this kind taking place. Undoubtedly embezzlements took place. The charges were made in writing. Although I do not accuse the right hon. Gentleman now of being in any way responsible for refusing an inquiry, I think he might have inquired more fully into the matter, and gone more thoroughly into it himself, seeing the importance of the principle involved. I will not enumerate other cases of inaccuracies, although there are several more, but I do say that the right hon. Gentleman should have given
584
more attention to this question when it was raised. I am sorry my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin is not here to speak on the subject, because I know he feels very strongly upon it. The right hon. Gentleman knows quite well that the career of a distinguished officer is involved at the present time in connection with this case. I am not going to mention any names, but the right hon. Gentleman knows quite well that when this scandal with regard to the accounts took place that it arose through a certain officer in a high position refusing to sign the accounts. Because he refused to sign the accounts he was put under arrest—he was a brigadier-general—and kept out in South Africa. The War Office found out that a mistake had been made. He was brought home and quickly given a command in Ireland, and he was advised to say nothing more about it.
Look at the position in which this man is! That, at any rate, is relevant to this year's Estimates. He was out there in charge of this farm, among other things. It was well known in the district that embezzlement had gone on. The next step was that he was put under arrest. What is the obvious conclusion to draw from that? What must people have thought all round the district? That he must have had something to do with it. He was then sent home to England, and it was found he was entirely right, and that it was through his refusal to sign the accounts, which had been passed by the accountants, that this scandal had been found out. It was owing to that that the farm was shut down. Instead of any apologies being made and any regrets being put on record, he was hurried over to Ireland and given the first available command. When the matter had blown over—now I can, without doubt, be in order—and when that time expired, he found himself refused promotion, and forced practically to retire from the Service. What can the public think? They will say there was a slur on that man's name in connection with the Middelburg Farm, therefore he is not going to have promotion. Quite apart from the efficiency of this officer — I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will dispute the fact that his record is a good one, and that he has performed distinguished service for his country—surely the very fact that he had been so badly treated before and that his private and military career had been more or less blasted by this incident in South Africa, although the War Office should have been grateful to him for what he had done, it was incumbent upon them

585
to see that at any rate he was not forced to retire before the ordinary time and that they should have made a point of finding him promotion and letting him go on taking his usual place in the Service ! It is for that reason, if for no other, that some explanation is due from, the right hon. Gentleman. This brigadier-general is entitled to ask for a full inquiry to be held in order that his character may be cleared. It is significant that since the time when these questions were first put in the House by the hon. Member for Bodmin and myself a communication has been received from the War Office—it is four and a-half years afterwards, a somewhat tardy recognition—to the effect that the War Office have always recognised his straightforwardness and the honesty of his principles, or words to that effect. That, coupled with the practical pushing him out of the Service, is but a poor consolation. I press the right hon. Gentleman to try to put himself in that officer's position. If this gallant officer had been closely connected with the Front Bench, if he had been a brother of one of them, does the right hon. Gentleman think he would have been treated in this way? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] That is a fair comment to make. Would the right hon. Gentleman like to see his own brother treated like that? I ask him definitely the question: If his own brother had been in South Africa and had been degraded and placed under arrest, and it was found the whole thing was a mistake, would he have liked to see him pushed out in this way when the matter had blown over? The War Office is responsible. It rests with them to say they will inquire fully into the matter. I am not speaking on behalf of this officer.
Colonel SEELY: Hear, hear.
Mr. GWYNNE: I have only seen him once. He has a right to demand an inquiry. An inquiry should have been held before. After what I have said, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will have a full, impartial inquiry made into the matter, and will see that fair treatment is given to this gallant officer.
Mr. SALTER: I desire upon this Vote to call attention to a matter which I think is strictly in order, a matter of administrative concern which is awaiting the decision of the Secretary of State at the present time. I know there is a considerable number of Members who are
586
anxiously waiting to hear his decision in the matter. It is the suggestion which has been made by a committee of officers in South Africa, who are known as the South Africa Garrison Institute, for the permission of the Secretary of State to bring over to this country a sum of money, which probably considerably exceeds £100,000, and which has accumulated under their control in South Africa, and to embark that money in canteen trading in the canteens of the regiments in this country. That proposal either has recently been made public or else people have recently woke up to the fact, because it has recently excited, both in Aldershot, which is in my Constituency, and in every other large garrison town, exceedingly strong feelings of opposition. I do not know how many chambers of commerce and associations of traders have riot been in communication with myself and other Members in strong opposition to this suggestion. The opinion of the soldiers which is always much more difficult to gather, so far as I can collect, it from the military papers, which probably represent him fairly, are unanimously and strongly opposed to the suggestion.
The Secretary of State should carefully consider the nature of the fund which he is being invited to deal with in this way. This money is public money, for which the Secretary of State is responsible to the nation and which it would be a grave impropriety to invest in trade in any shape or form. The history of this matter is very curious, and the position of the fund is very unusual. As I understand, this large suni of money came into existence in this way: In the days of the war, beginning in Natal, when the force was under Sir Redvers Buller, it was necessary to supply the canteens of the men in the field. Apparently the civilian trader was either impossible or unsatisfactory, and I think the canteens of the men were, in fact, supplied and attended to by the officers of the Army Service Corps, though it was, of course, no part of their official duty. The goods were bought not on the credit of the officers, but upon the credit of the State. They were imported as Government stores, they were stored at the Government expense, and they were distributed at the Government expense. I suggest that the profits which resulted from trading in the canteens in these circumstances are public money and are not the money of any private persons at all. This Natal canteen became

587
afterwards the South African canteen, and it has now become the South African Garrison Institute, a rather abnormal body bearing a sort of commercial style, the officer at the head of which is called the managing director. This is a purely military committee, consisting of officers on active service, who are detailed to these duties in orders, and who, I understand, sit upon that committee and manage the canteens of the garrison in South Africa as part of their military duties and because they are directed to do so, not in their leisure time, or as volunteers in any shape or form.
This money is clearly not their property, individually or collectively; they are not a corporate body, and this money is profit which has been made out of the soldier, so to speak, by the State, though it was not intended to make any profit out of him. It was intended to sell the goods in the canteen at such prices as would only pay expenses. But, still, over £100,000 was taken from the pocket of the soldier by mistake through incompetent trading, because I believe it is very difficult indeed to trade without making either a loss or a profit. When you are supplying a large army under monopoly it is not very difficult to make a profit, and here is £100,000 or £120,000 which is now set free, the institute being closed down, and this very large sum of money has to be disposed of. The House is responsible for it, and it is public money. The matter has excited great interest outside, and it will be discussed from all points of view. The argument put forward by these officers in asking the permission of the War Office to embark this sum of the soldiers' money in trade is that they will trade with it upon what they call co-operative principles, and it is said in that way the soldier will get his goods in the canteens cheaper than he otherwise would, because the profits will be saved which would otherwise be taken. That is an argument which is entitled to the utmost consideration. I have considered this matter with some care, and if I thought that really there was any prospect of the soldier being better served in the canteen under what they call in the Army co-operative principles, I should hesitate for some time before I took the line I am taking in this matter. In the first place, I think any real application of the principle of co-operative trading is quite impossible in the Army. The two things are not compatible. The essence
588
of co-operative trading is that it is an absolutely democratic business, in which the consumer is master of the situation. He bands himself together, he puts his money together, he buys wholesale, and he shares out the goods, and he saves the middleman's profit. That is, in many ways, an admirable thing to do, but it cannot be done and it is not done in the Army. The soldier does not bind himself together; he does not decide on any co-operative principle; he does not put his money together; and, above all, he has and can have no control over the buying of the goods which he is going to consume. He cannot control or dismiss or remove the well-intentioned committee of officers who attend to these matters for him. A regiment does not join a co-operative society. If the colonel approves of what he is pleased to call co-operation, he employs a particular organisation. Any real application of the co-operative principle is quite inconsistent with the discipline of the force.
Co-operation, so far as it can be tried in the Army, is no new thing there. It has existed for over twenty years in the shape of a very estimable enterprise known as the Canteen and Mess Co-operative Society, a body which is registered as a co-operative society and trades quite fairly in competition with private traders with its own money. I have considered very carefully whether a soldier whose canteen is served by this society is any better served than a soldier whose canteen is served by the ordinary trader. I cannot see that he is at all. I think the balance has been, in practice, the other way. The point is the return of the profits made and you have to distinguish between the retail profits and the wholesale profits. As to the retail profit, which is the difference between the price which a tradesman will give for the goods and the price at which they are sold in the canteen, that is returned to the regimental fund both by the private trader and by the Canteen and Mess Co-operative Society. The soldier gets that in either case, and he gets this considerable additional advantage from the private trader that the private trader is bound by contract with the commanding officer that the retail profits which he returns shall not be less than so much per man per month. A minimum is fixed and whether he makes it or not he must pay that sum in. But the Canteen and Mess Co-operative Society do not make any such contract, and their only under-

589
taking is to return such retail profits as they make, so that as regards the retail profits, the soldier is better served by the private trader than by this so-called cooperative society.
Then I come to the wholesale profits. The private trader puts the wholesale profits into his pocket, and the Co-operative Society claims to return the wholesale profits when they can make any. They have, first of all, to pay their debenture interest and 5 per cent. on their share capital. I have examined the balance sheets of this excellent society for the last thirteen or fourteen years, and in that time I can only find that they have twice made any kind of return of wholesale profits. I am quite satisfied that, so far as the return of the profit goes, the soldier practically gets nothing more from the co-operative society than he does from the ordinary trader. I think there are considerable practical advantages which show why a soldier prefers, as I am satisfied he does, to be served by an ordinary trader rather than by a co-operative committee
of his own officers. I have heard the matter discussed, naturally, as Member for the Division including Aldershot, and I have never heard it suggested that these contractors who serve the Army canteens arc not in fair competition among themselves. The officers do not care what canteen their men deal with where there is a private trader, because they are getting their minimum in any case per man per month. They do not care whether the trailer makes the canteen pay or not, and the men are free to go to any canteen they please, and there are popular canteens always full, and unpopular canteens which are deserted, and that is a very great factor in the men's favour. They can go to the canteen that serves them best. Another great advantage which the soldier gets where the canteen is served by the private trader is that he is not afraid to complain freely if the service and goods are not satisfactory.
6.0 P.M.
Where you get a regimental canteen controlled by a committee which includes the men's own officers—because the colonel of a regiment which entrusts its canteen to the Canteen and Mess Co-operative Society sits upon a committee of that body —the officers of the regiment, in the interests of the regimental fund, immediately become interested in the success of the canteen. I have been told in these cases sometimes the men are required to deal at their regimental canteen, but I have been told again that that is not so, and I am
590
not able to verify the statement one way or the other. But in this case the officers are concerned that the men shall deal at their regimental canteen and not elsewhere because they have no minimum, and if there are no profits they will get no money in the regimental fund. Where you get a canteen served by a committee of officers, including the officers of that very regiment, it is not reasonable to expect that the soldiers will complain with any freedom. They cannot complain. For these reasons I am satisfied that, however delightful is the theory of co-operative trading, as it must be applied in the Army, and as it has been for the last twenty years, the balance of advantage in the soldier's interest is in favour of being served by the ordinary trader, and I think that is the soldier's view as well. There is something somewhat undignified in establishing the relation of shopkeeper and customer between officers and the men under their immediate command. I do not think the men like it. It is contrary to the King's Regulations that officers should be concerned in any kind of trading. I do not know how this is to be got over as regards this society from South Africa. I think it is better to leave all trade to the traders, and to replace them if they are unsatisfactory. We are not, of course, at present discussing the trouble between the large trader and the small trader. In that matter my sympathies have always been with the small trader, and modern changes in canteen management have been exceedingly hard upon the small trader, who has been ousted by the large trader. I wish it were possible to bring back the old-fashioned days when regiments dealt with the ordinary tradesmen in the district -where they were quartered. But that is not the immediate point. The question is between the trader, large or small, and the co-operative society. It is no argument in favour of the employment of the fund in the manner proposed to say that it should be used as has been indicated. That which my 'Constituents dread—and there is a similar feeling in all garrison towns—is monopoly. I think if these well-intentioned officers in South Africa are permitted by the War Office to finance themselves with this large sum of public money, which is morally the property of the soldier, it will result, according as they succeed or fail, in the dissipation of the fund or the gradual establishment of a monopoly. I am not sure that they will

591
succeed. I see a statement in a letter written from the officer at the head of the society—
"that with so large a sum of money they could carry out this expenditure without loss."
I am not at all sure about that. These gentlemen are skilled soldiers, but they are not skilled traders. It does not require much skill to make a profit in South Africa under a monopoly, but to make a profit in England is a different thing. I am not sure that this fund would not be gradually frittered away. If the society succeeded a monopoly would undoubtedly result, and these officers who, with the best intentions in the world, advocate this co-operative system, are all the time aiming at a complete monopoly of canteen supplies. There is no doubt about that. The managing director of this Canteen and Mess Society was examined before the War Office Committee, which inquired into the subject in 1903. His evidence is given on page 192. The following questions were put by Lord Cheylesmore:—
"From your evidence it would appear that you would like to make it compulsory for regimental officers to go for their goods to canteen and mess societies? — Yes. I would rather drop out the word "mess." I would say co-operative associations."
"Thai is what you want, your object being to set rip an organisation to secure every penny of profit on goods supplioed to them. And you think it desirable for every regiment to get their goods from such an organization? —Yes. I think it must be for this reason: You cannot get any kind of uniformity unless you have some kind of compulsion."
It is perfectly plain that the desire of that gentleman is to force colonels of regiments, whether they like it or not, to entrust their canteens to his society, and the committee, who have made the proposal which we are now considering, are also concerned to establish a complete monopoly. That is what has so much aroused the traders of the country. There is, however, one stipulation that the- directors think absolutely necessary for the success of the scheme, and that is, War Office recognition of the status of the South African Garrison Institute. War Office recognition of the status of the institute means that it is to be intimated to commanding officers of regiments that they should entrust their canteens to this concern, or it means nothing at all. I find from a letter written by General Clayton:
"Provided sanction is received, the South African Garrison Institute would propose to start in one of the large garrisons in England, taking over the whole of the institutes in the Command, and manage them in exactly the same way as the institutes in South Africa."
That I find repeated, and it means that it will no longer be open to the
592
colonel of a regiment to manage the canteen as he pleases, but that he will be compelled by the officer commanding the district to have the canteen served in this way. It will not take long to get a monopoly of the canteens. That would be very bad for the soldiers, and very unjust to the traders, not merely to the large people who now supply the canteens, but also to the smaller traders with whom I am specially concerned, who used to supply direct, but now supply the large contractor. At any rate, they have now the competition of the contractor, and if you agree to this proposal, they will charge what they please. For these reasons, and speaking, I am sure, for the Army, and a large body of opinion inside and outside this House—military opinion and trading opinion—I venture to express the hope that we may have a very definite statement from the representative of the War Office. The matter has been before the War Office since July last, and they have had most ample time to inform themselves and make up their minds. The question is whether they will allow the fund to be thus used, or what they will do. As to how it ought to be used the rules of this very institute say that its surplus funds shall be given to deserving military charities and military institutions of that kind. I venture to say that that is what ought to be done with this money.
In a recent question it was suggested that the money should be divided between military charities and institutions for the benefit of soldiers. If that were done, everybody would approve of it. Having regard to the large size of the fund, I would suggest for the consideration of the War Office whether it would not be more expedient that the Secretary of State should vest this money in a small committee of officers for distribution annually —the proceeds will amount to £4,000 or £5,000 a year—among deserving institutions and charities. It is on these lines that the fund could be properly dealt with and developed, and I hope we may have from the representative of the War Office a definite statement to that effect. If any attempt is made to sanction the use of this money in trading in this country, I am quite sure we shall have endless bitterness and trouble. A canteen and mess cooperative society is quite a different thing. That is a body trading with their own money, but if the Secretary of State allows this purely military society in South Africa to come over here and finance themselves with this money, and carry on any

593
unfair competition with traders at home, there will be endless bitterness, and every time a regimental canteen is captured by this body there will be questions in this House. I am certain that the Secretary of State desires to do nothing except to make the best of the distribution of the money, and I hope he will say that the War Office have decided to refuse the request and to distribute it among military charities.
Captain CLIVE: My hon. and learned Friend has stated the case from the point of view of his constituents at Aldershot. That is a point of view which I believe we share, but I would like to endeavour to show that his fears are wholly groundless. The hon. and learned Gentleman more than once spoke in a tone of regret as to some period when the canteens of regiments, instead of being run as they are now, were supplied by the small shopkeepers. I confess that I do not know when that period was. I have only known the Army for twenty years, but it certainly never existed during that time. When I joined the Army the commanding officer made the best arrangements he could for the canteen supplies. Some canteens were very well run in that way, while in other regiments they were very badly run. This resulted in an inquiry by a Committee, presided over by Lord Grey, in 1903, to see what better organisation could be found. That Committee recommended the system of which my hon. and learned Friend speaks with so much alarm and fear. They recommended practically a co-operative monopoly. They recommended that military co-operative societies should be formed to take over all the canteens. That was a recommendation in the Majority Report, but it has not been complied with. What happens now? The Canteen Co-operative Society, which is the only one, has endeavoured to do this business, but it finds itself in competition with two great private firms—Messrs. Lipton and Messrs. Dickeson. I have figures showing how the canteens are apportioned throughout the country. There are 293 canteens, of which sixty-nine are supplied by the Canteen Cooperative Society, Messrs. Dickeson have 117, and Messrs. Lipton have fifty-three. These are the only two firms which really do a big business of this sort. There are six or eight small people scattered about the country who on account of local conditions supply the canteens.I need not go into particulars respecting them.
594
Practically the whole threat of monopoly comes from these two big firms. They are only prevented from having that monopoly by the philanthropic efforts of the Canteen Co-operative Society. No doubt if that society did not exist Messrs. Lipton and Messrs. Dickeson would find very little difficulty in carrying out some amalgamation which would give them control of the whole of the canteens of the country. My hon. and learned Friend is afraid on behalf of his friends the shopkeepers of Aldershot, but I contend that these shopkeepers have nothing to do with the, canteen business.
Mr. SALTER: The local people raise the produce and supply that to the regiment.
Captain CLIVE: The only produce they supply is what are called perishable groceries, butter, eggs, and such matters as that, which must be obtained locally whether there is or is not a monopoly. Those are the only things obtained locally now at Aldershot or anywhere else, and they would be obtained locally under any system. The whole of this fear is engendered by the suggestion that the £80,000 from South Africa should be contributed to improving and extending the co-operative movement among canteens. The Aldershot Chamber of Commerce themselves in their statement suggest that the whole trade of all the canteens through the country is something like £5,000,000 per year. In face of that it must be fairly obvious that you are not going to transform this huge trade into a gigantic monopoly by the addition of £80,000 of capital. I am not committed to any particular method of spending the £80,000, but on the face of it it is a plausible contention that the money which has been made by trading with the soldiers should be used on behalf of the soldiers to provide capital for further trading with him to his advantage. My hon. Friend says that this is public money. I do not think that the House will agree with him. Money which has been made from the soldier through the necessities of the war, where a monopoly had to be created, should not be taken from him now.
Mr. SALTER: I meant that it is the property of the Secretary of State as such, and that he is responsible, and that it is not the property of these gentlemen.
Captain CLIVE: My hon. and learned Friend is wrong there, because the South

595
African Garrison Institute are a body incorporated in South Africa under an old Dutch law. They are at present trustees for this money. I do not know where the Secretary of State comes in unless he has to give his sanction to the money being used for the canteen. Then he talked of incompetent trading. On that point I would refer him to the Report of the Committee, where it mentions that the chair-man of the Chamber of Commerce of Johannesburg and the ex-chairman were invited to speak as to the methods of trading of the institute, and they reported that their prices were 10 per cent. Below those of ordinary firms in South Africa, although they have been able to distribute to the garrison profits of over £30,000 in a year. That surely cannot be criticised as incompetent trading. He criticised the Canteen Co-operative Society on the ground that they did not give fixed rebates to the regiments that. Employed them. They cannot give fixed rebates for this reason. Under the true principles of co-operation they have no funds front which they can guarantee anything. All they can say to those with whom they deal is "the whole of the profits which we make out of it are yours. We shall not give you back four or five shillings or whatever it is, but we shall give you back everything that we make out of you." I quite see the point of view of some commanding officers who prefer the fixed rebate system, who like to know how much money they have to handle and to spend on various purposes. That is one of the reasons why the Canteen Co-operative Society have not got these contracts. The wholesale profit my hon. and learned Friend admits goes to increase the dividends payable to the shareholders. In the case of the co-operative societies it goes back to the regiment. The fact that they have only contributed twice during the last fourteen years, which I take from the hon. and learned Member, really does not alter the argument. There are great difficulties to contend with. They have to fight with these very large bodies and still on two occasions they have been able to contribute wholesale profits which no private firm would have contributed to the soldiers.
With regard to the methods of the society, Lord Grey's Committee in its Report says:—
"The society represents the only attempt to apply co-operative principles to the purpose of supplying regimental inst institutes for canteens. The evidence before the Committae proves that the founders of the society were actuated by disinterested motives, that they hoped to strike a blow at the bribery and corruption
596
which are well known to exist in canteens and that their ambition was to raise and promote the true interests of the soldier."
On the point of bribery there is the best reason to know that the danger is by no means past, and that it is a continual menace to the integrity of certain noncommissioned officers and men, and sometimes even officers who have to deal with this matter in every regiment of the British Army, and therefore if you can encourage this trading you will to that extent I hope eventually abolish a very serious temptation which is put in the way of the noncommissioned officers and men. In reference to the official recognition of the societies I do not think that it is their desire to have any sort of official recognition. They are prepared to go on as they have done, competing as before. As regards the request that they should receive War Office recognition if the £80,000 was to be spent in this way, this recognition has already been refused by the War Office. There is no question I understand now that it was recommended by Lord Grey's Report in the nature of granting an absolute monopoly to this society. All I ask the Secretary of State to do is to give the most favourable consideration to this proposal for spending this money, with any safeguard which he may think necessary, but to bear in mind those points which I have endeavoured to put before him in the hope that he will recognise that co-operative trading is in the best interests of the soldier.
Mr. BAKER: The last two speeches to which we have listened afford a good illustration of the non-party character of our Debate, and both are in very marked contrast to that which preceded them. I will deal first with the question of the canteens. I am rather fortunate in one respect at any rate, that is that the hon. Member for Shropshire (Captain Clive) has very largely answered the arguments which were put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Salter) and he concluded his speech by saying, quite truly, that the War Office has already refused official sanction to the proposal put forward by the South African Garrison Institute. The position is that the Garrison Institute have been told that they cannot have official sanction, and that they can have no special facilities in the United Kingdom such as they have enjoyed in South Africa. They are, of course, on their own responsibility, without official sanction,

597
making inquiries from general officers in command at Home in order to discover how they individually view the proposal. Those answers may all be quite unfavourable to the scheme. They have not come to us. Our position is that we have refused official sanction, but the hon. and learned Gentleman wanted something more than that. He wished for a positive definite assurance that in no circumstance would the Secretary of State allow the use of the capital sum of £80,000 in possession of the Garrison Institute. I suppose that there is hardly anyone in this House more capable of dealing with a difficult and complicated question of law than the hon. and learned Member, and I was very much surprised that he did not treat the matter rather more from that point of view, because in my humble judgment the legal position in regard to this fund is rather obscure.
I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman in one respect was quite wrong. He described this as public money. There is only one test of what is public money—that is money that comes out of the taxpayers' pockets, voted by this House, and for which some Minister is responsible. That is not the case at all with these funds. They came out of the pockets of the troops in South Africa. The only sense in which they can be said to represent in any respect public money is that certain facilities were, it is quite true, granted during the war, but I would like to remind the hon. and learned Gentleman and others, who outside the House made grave misstatements on this point, that it cannot be truly said that this money has come out of the pockets of these soldiers. The plan followed was to sell all necessaries to soldiers below cost price, and to sell luxuries to soldiers and necessaries to officers at cost price, and the consequence is that the bulk of the sum probably came out of the pockets of the officers in service in South Africa. I would not suggest for one moment that they would put in any special claim. The money belongs in a general sense to the Army. The hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of incompetent catering during the war in South Africa, but if there had been contractors free to charge what they pleased, does he not suppose that the troops would have been infinitely worse under a system of private trading? I do not wish unduly to take up the time of the House in discussing the merits of the different systems which
598
might be applied to regimental canteens. There are one or two considerations which are quite obvious. One is that at any rate the regimental system and the co-operative system are solely in the interests of the troops and nobody else. It is possible, as the hon. Member stated, that you do not get the expert management and the business instinct as in the case of private management, but, on the other hand, one can pretend that private management is carried out in the interests of the troops solely. The object, of course, of any contractor, whether he is a brewer or any large firm fortunate enough to secure a canteen contract, is to make a profit or a dividend. It is only in a secondary sense that he considers the interests of the troops. The hon. Member for Shropshire shows that even that system has not prevented something very like the creation of a monopoly at the present time. Out of 201 on the tenant system canteens, 117 are in the hands of one large firm, and 33 are in the hands of another.
I hope I have made clear what the attitude of the War Office is on this matter. I do not think that an absolute assurance can be given in regard to the use of the £80,000. The hon. and learned Gentleman will, I have no doubt, recognise that there are very great difficulties in the way of its being used in accordance with the proposal put forward by the South African Garrison Institutes. He spoke one moment as though the funds were at the disposal of the Secretary of State; they are not, indeed. The Secretary of State, of course, has the general power to veto any arrangement which he thinks is against the interest of the troops or undesirable from the point of view of the Army as a whole. He certainly has not—and I say certainly, as I think I am correct in saying it—absolute disposal of these funds. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not really confine himself to this particular case. He treated it as part of the much larger question of what is the proper plan on which to carry on these regimental canteens. That is a question which is occupying the mind of my right hon. Friend very much at this moment. We cannot deal with this case apart from the general question. The arguments put forward by the two hon. Members will certainly have great weight, and also the suggestions which they have made, but I think it is very likely it may prove to be necessary, and the matter will be dealt with soon, to appoint a Committee to go into this matter in all its aspects. I hope the hon. and

599
learned Member will find himself satisfied with such assurances as I have given. I now pass to another matter raised by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. R. Gwynne). The hon. Member enjoyed a certain amount of latitude in his speech, and I understand that I shall be allowed an equivalent latitude in my reply. Really this case which the hon. Member called the "Middelburg farm scandal" is a waste of the time of this House. The hon. Member seems to be constitutionally unable to avoid suspicion. These matters are ancient. They happened a long time ago, and, of course, none of us sitting here were personally concerned in them, but I am personally ready to give the hon. Member an answer on every point. He accused me and my right hon. Friend of evasion. He no doubt is quite ready to imagine improper motives in anybody, but what possible motive of an improper kind could there be in any one of us for concealing these facts.
Mr. GWYNNE: Let the hon. Member answer my questions without making suggestions. If he makes those I shall have to answer them.
Mr. BAKER: The hon. Member accused me and my right hon. Friend of evasion. I shall show that that charge is not true. The hon. Member attached to the case of the Middelburg farm, the case of a certain officer, whom he rightly calls a distinguished officer. He gave a wrong version of the facts attending such check as that officer's career has received. He said rightly that there was nothing against that officer's character. I quite agree, and in so far as he has suffered, it was for a totally different offence from the one put forward by the hon. Member, and I venture to say that he has done no service to that distinguished officer by what he said about him this afternoon. The first statement made by the hon. Gentleman was that this farm had been bought from public funds. The farm was never bought at all. A great deal of land, prairie land, was bought, on which there was no farm, and this farm was subsequently created on that land. He said it was proved that it had been bought out of public funds, and that no rent. was charged. I have already given him in answers good reasons why no rent was charged. The land itself was practically valueless.
Mr. GWYNNE: I did not say that. I said, if it was a private concern, why was
600
the farm which was bought with public money let at no rent at all?
Mr. BAKER: I say it is not a private concern.
Mr. GWYNNE: You said before it was.
Mr. BAKER: Let me correct myself. I mean, of course, not public. I say that no rent was charged for reasons which were given. The land as it stood was quite valueless, but, used as a farm for the troops, was of enormous value in giving a milk supply for the troops and the hospital. It cured one of the greatest troubles at Middelburg station, the dust nuisance. That no rent should have been charged is shown when ultimately, on the withdrawal of the troops, the land did come to be sold. It was owing to the fact that this farm was created that it was able to be sold to the Cape Government for agricultural purposes. The hon. Member said that this farm was started with public funds. What did happen was that a small allowance was made, at the beginning, of R.952 to enable the farm to meet current expenses before the revenue accrued. That sum was very soon paid back. The only other public money that entered into this farm at all was when a small dam on the river there burst and a new darn was constructed, partly at the public expense and partly at the expense of the farm. That money was repaid. The farm benefited in the improved irrigation, and the troops secured a bathing-place. Those were the only two items of public funds which entered into the accounts of this farm. The hon. Member said the point really was whether this was a public undertaking or not. I said all along it was not, and for this reason, that with those two small exceptions, no public funds entered into it. Those farm accounts were not accounts for which I could be responsible, or for which my predecessors before me in office were responsible. They are not moneys voted by Parliament, and in no sense of the word public money. If the hon. Member means by public undertaking an undertaking conducted for the troops, and if he insists on that, I quite agree it was so. Here is a very simple test. If there had been a loss the loss would have fallen entirely on the troops and not on the taxpayer. It would very likely have had to come out of the canteen fund. It. was a recognition of this fact by the Army Council that the troops were in danger by mismanagement that caused them to interfere. They permitted it and

601
supervised it in the interest of the troops. The hon. Member alleged as against that a certain statement made by the General Officer Commanding in South Africa. He stated that as coming from the Army Council. I do not think it really would cause any misunderstading in the minds of most people. The general officer said that farm was being closed down in order that no loss might fall on the public. I should say that was not strictly accurate, but it is quite possible he had it in his mind, "Supposing there is a loss, we shall not be able to pay it, and then the War Office will have to apply to the Treasury as a special case to make good the deficit." There is really no discrepancy between the statement of the general officer and the policy of the Army Council. The Army Council come in for the reason that the Adjutant-General and the military members are continually watching anything which might adversely affect the welfare of the troops. They keep a general supervision over canteens which are private undertakings conducted by private firms, and they intervene in order that they may be well conducted, and in order that the troops may have their interests protected. The hon. Member then gave one instance of what he said was an inconsistency on my part, in which I said:—
"there is nothing in the War Office records to
suggest that at the date of closing down the farm any repayments were due to public or garrison funds, apart
from normal current trading transactions."
He said that that was inconsistent with an answer I gave him on 5th June, in which I said that certain sums 'were repaid on the closing down of the farm. The hon. Member really seems to be constitutionally incapable of seeing the true difference between two things which are somewhat alike. There is nothing inconsistent between the two answers. I said there was nothing in the War Office records to show, and that was what we thought at the time. Inquiry was made and it was found that there were these two sums. What possible object could I have had in deceiving the hon. Member I guarded myself by saying there was nothing in the War Office records to show. The hon. Member might have the generosity to remember that these events happened a long time ago, and the questions involved delving among records which in the nature of things are not perfect in the War Office on this matter, because it was a private undertaking conducted in South Africa, so that the War Office have not got the full papers. The hon. Member
602
further said that the auditing of the accounts proved that this was a public and not a private undertaking. The accounts, it is true were audited by officers of the accounting officer, but they did not represent the finance branch of the War Office. The hon. Member seems to suppose that that is unusual. The local auditors are always ready to give advice and assistance in connection with non-public accounts, such as mess accounts, charitable funds, and accounts of that kind, when they are asked to do so. Their services are frequently employed in that way, and there is nothing exceptional or unusual about this particular case. Sometimes these officers are even ordered to give their services for the benefit of the Service as a whole in auditing such accounts. The Committee will probably think that I have carried this matter far enough. I certainly maintain that I have met every one of the points which the hon. Member alleged against me. These funds are funds for which no Financial Secretary to the War Office has ever had any concern, and of which the Comptroller and Auditor-General will take no account. Therefore, I venture to say that the hon. Member has not only pressed his case very unfairly, but chosen a matter which might well not be used to occupy public time.
Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSON: My recollection of the management of canteens is very much that described by the hon. Member opposite. For my part, I am not alarmed at the use of the word "monopoly" in respect to the control of the liquor traffic, because you cannot eliminate interested management from the retail trade without monopoly. Under a recent Bill the Government, in their wisdom, have refused to give facilities for eliminating the element of private profit from the retail trade in my country, but I am glad to see that they view this system with rather more tolerance in connection with military canteens. I hope the system will be so successful in that direction as to enable the Government to regard its extension to civil societies with more tolerance. in future. It is not quite fair to compare the elimination of private profit from the retail trade with the management of a co-operative society. H you take the best system involving the elimination of the element of private profit from the retail liquor trade, say, the Scandinavian, you will find that certain persons are nominated, just as cer-

603
tain officers in the Army are nominated under the system which has been attacked by the hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite, who exercise a very strict control over, the trade, and there is nothing of the cooperative principle. The hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that adequate provision should be made for the distribution of the profits. That is an important point and I entirely agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman.
The hon. Member who initiated this discussion demanded the reconstitution of the Second Line of defence, but he did not enlighten the Committee as to how that reconstitution was to be brought about. The hon. Member who followed him entered in more detail into the reasons which underlie his argument, and was called to order by the Chair. I do not intend to go into the question of compulsory service, but that, no doubt, was the alternative suggested. As a supporter of the voluntatry system, I naturally do not accept that alternative. At the same time I think that a more specific declaration is required from the Government as to the means they intend to adopt for making good the deficiencies in officers and men in the Second Line of defence. Believing in the voluntary system, I suggest that certain additional provision will have to be made to enable the Second Line to succeed on the voluntary principle. The time has gone by when it can be safely said that those deficiencies will be made good by a given time. I rather doubt that. I think that further provision has to be made to make good those deficiencies, and the sooner we have a clear undertaking from the Army Council and the Government as to how those deficiencies are to be made good, the sooner public confidence will be restored, and the sooner we shall be in a position to face whatever difficulties may arise. I do not exactly feel that confidence, and I shall not so long as these grave deficiencies in the numbers and, to some extent, in the training of the Territorial Force exist. I doubt very much whether any competent military authority will state that the estimate of 315,000 men for the Territorial Force was an excessive estimate. I take that to be the minimum, and I should be sorry to see it reduced. Since 315,000 remains as the establishment I submit that it is quite time that establishment was filled up. I think it can be done. The ship has been spoilt for the
604
lack of a ha'porth of tar. The easiest way of getting the numbers is to give a good bonus for the completion of the fortnight's annual training. It would involve a considerable sum of money, but it is high time that bonus was given, with adequate provision for out-of-pocket expenses when attending drills and musketry, and for separation allowance. Another most attractive proposal is that the insurance of the men should be paid. I do not, believe that that would give you the men you require, but at the same time it is an attractive proposal, and would to a great extent lessen the opposition in the large works to service in the Territorial Force It would grease the wheels.
Above all, I should like to have some clear undertaking from the Government that they are seriously considering the question of physical training for boys and girls between the ages of fourteen and seventeen, and that drill will not be, eliminated from that physical training in the case of boys. That is very desirable from the social point of view, and also as a necessary basis for the success of the Territorial movement. These are clear and definite points, and my- confidence in the administration of the War Office will largely depend upon how those points are met and how soon they are met. I believe that the general principle of the Territorial system, with some slight modifications in the working of the associations—and some of those have been suggested by a Departmental Committee at the War Office—is absolutely sound. I believe that it cart be made a complete success, but the War Office have always funked at asking for another million of money with which to make the system a success. I entirely agree that the fixed limit to the Army Estimates has been a great stumbling block. It is the surest mainstay of those who are asking for a compulsory system of national service for Home defence. It also encourages the War Office to move in a vicious circle, because whenever one asks for the necessary money for the Second Line the answer is, "That is all very well, but it must come off the Regular Estimates, and we do not want to reduce the allowances of the Regular Army." I certainly do not. I think the Regular Army is now at a minimum, and in some respects, perhaps as regards the Artillery, at a low minimum. At any rate there ought not to be a penny taken off the Regular Army for the sake of the Second Line, and-I hope we have heard the last of that heresy. There is also the question of

605
officers. That is a serious weakness. I trust that the point which I mentioned earlier in the year has not escaped the the attention of the War Office. I refer to the provision of a college for the training of non-commissioned officers promoted to the commissioned ranks. Meanwhile, greater care should be exercised than is exercised in sonic cases in respect to the retirement of competent commanding officers of the Second Line. We have lost some men whom we could ill afford to lose, especially in view of the shortage of officers. I trust that on these points we shall have a clear statement from the War Office, because the time has gone by for expressing pious hopes that without further expenditure or trouble the Territorial system will of itself bring about success.
7.0 P.M.
Mr. SANDYS: The remarks I desire to make on the subject of aviation would
more properly have been made by the hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks). But, as the Committee may be
aware, the hon. Member for Brentford has been seriously ill, and though I am glad to say he is very much better, he is
unfortunately not sufficiently recovered to be here this afternoon to take part in this Debate. He has consequently asked me on his behalf, as well as on my own, to place before the Committee the result of the investigations which he and I recently undertook at the suggestion of the right
hon. Gentleman on the subject of aviation. In order that the position may be perfectly clear to the Committee, it will be necessary for me briefly to recapitulate the circumstances which led up to this controversy, and which finally resulted in the visit which my hon. Friend and myself paid to the various branches of the Aviation Department at Farnborough and on Salisbury Plain. For a considerable time past Members of this House, who, like myself, are interested in the question of aviation, have come to the conclusion that a large number of the statements of the right hon. Gentleman with reference to this branch of our Army might be described as unduly optimistic. That is a criticism which it certainly appeared to me could be applied to the statements which the right hon. Gentleman made in that portion of his speech on the subject of the Army Estimates which he devoted to this particular topic on 19th March. In the subsequent Debate which took place on 24th March my hon. Friend the Member
606
for Brentford drew special attention to this question of aeroplanes, with especial reference to the numbers and efficiency of these machines. In the course of his speech he threw considerable doubt upon the statement which the right hon. Gentleman had made when the Army Estimates were originally under discussion that we were in possession of 101 efficient machines. In the course of his speech my hon. Friend defined an efficient machine as one which was capable of starting off at once, flying at a speed of 50 miles an hour, and able to rise in the air at least 3,00o feet. The right hon. Gentleman interrupted my hon. Friend during the course of his speech with this remark: "I say on my full responsibility as a Minister that we have 101 machines which we are flying."
Later, in the same Debate, the, right hon. Gentleman stated that he had been in telephonic communication with his Experts, who had informed him that there were over eighty aeroplanes in possession of the Royal Flying Corns and the Central Flying School together which would come up to the standard of efficiency laid down by my hon. Friend, and the right hon. Gentleman added: "These eighty are ready to go, will fly at 50 miles an hour, and continue to fly at 50 miles an hour, at 3,000 feet." On 5th June, a further Debate took place, and the hon. Member for Brentford definitely challenged the right hon. Gentleman to produce the, eighty machines which the right hon. Gentleman stated that he could do on the previous 24th March. He made it perfectly clear in the terms of his challenge that they were to be machines ready to fly at once, to fly under observation for three hours, to have a speed of at least 50 miles an hour, and to be able to rise in the air at least. 3,000 feet.
Colonel SEELY: Fly three hours !
Mr. SANDYS: I will give the right hon. Gentleman the reference. If the right hon. Gentleman will turn to the Debate of 5th June, column 1070 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, he will see that my hon. Friend said, "If the right hon. Gentleman will really produce these machines and let us see them fly for three hours and satisfy us, I will not be backward in the apology which I willl make to him." Those are the terms of the challenge. The right hon. Gentleman accepted my hon. Friend's challenge, but he refused—I think mistakenly—a suggestion which I ventured to-make that a small Committee of Members

607
of this House should be appointed to investigate the matter. However, he very kindly offered me personally the opportunity of accompanying my hon. Friend, an invitation which I was very glad to accept. Subsequently, in the course of that Debate the right hon. Gentleman expressed his satisfaction that this investigation was going to take place. He stated also that they, the War Department, were in possession at, that time of 120 machines in first-class order. I am bound to say that I received that statement with considerable surprise, remembering as I did that in answer to a question on the previous day, 4th June, the right hon. Gentleman had stated that we had 126 machines, thirty-one of which were in various stages of repair. I therefore, rather wondered at what had happened to the six machines which had disappeared altogether during the twenty-four hours. I was also curious to know how the repairs had been effected to the remainder of the machines in that remarkably short space of time. However, the final statement of the right hon. Gentleman on 5th June was that he had 120 machines in first-class order. Communications, to which I was not a party, then took place between the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend, and my hon. Friend, as I understand, very properly requested that an expert should be allowed to accompany us on our investigation. The right hon. Gentleman refused, and he also refused—
Colonel SEELY: I do not know why the hon. Gentleman is referring to the whole of the controversy. The subject seems to me to be very uninteresting.
Mr. SANDYS: My hon. Friend suggested that it would be desirable that some expert who had full knowledge of these matters—at any rate, he did suggest that the hon. Member for Hastings, who has particular knowledge of this subject, should accompany us. In order to make the point quite clear, I have a letter written by General Henderson stating that the right hon. Gentleman could not give permission to my hon. Friend for this gentleman to accompany him.
Colonel SEELY: I would like to clear this thing up at once. As soon as I made the arrangement, I handed over the whole matter to General Henderson. I never made any stipulation. However, I take the full responsibility for what General Henderson did.
Mr. SANDYS: This is a letter of General Henderson which my hon. Friend received:—
"The Secretary of State for War is not prepared to comply with your request that Mr. Du Cros should accompany you."
General Henderson places the responsibility on the right hon. Gentleman.
Colonel SEELY: I accept it entirely.
Mr. SANDYS: The result of that was that my hon. Friend and myself were obliged to conduct this investigation without expert assistance, which, under the circumstances, I think, would have been extremely desirable. Before laying the results of this investigation before the Committee, there are one or two points which I desire to emphasise. Owig to the fact that we were refused expert advice in this matter, I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that he is not in a position to discredit any statements I may make on behalf of my hon. Friend and myself on the ground that we are not possessed of
sufficient technical knowledge. Any statement of that kind is ruled out by the refusal to allow us to take the expert assistance which we desired. I just want to make that clear to start with. I also want to explain to the right hon. Gentleman the basis on which we arrived at our decision as to whether any machine which we saw could fulfil the requirements of the test that had been laid down. We immediately came to the conclusion that it was quite impossible for us to judge, not being experts, in relation to machines which were on the ground as to whether they were capable of carrying out any of these requirements. Equally, if we had seen the machines in the air, not being experts, we should have been unable to judge. This was the disadvantage which we suffered from in being deprived of expert assistance. As a matter of fact, no suggestion was made to us during the course of our investigation that any machine which we saw should be brought out and flown. We did see three experimental machines, to which I shall allude later, which were actually in the air. These were the only three machines which we saw flying. We did not like to take upon ourselves the responsibility, under the circumstances, of asking for machines to be brought out and flown. Consequently, my hon. Friend and myself abandoned these requirements altogether —I mean those as to flying for three hours, the speed of at least 50 miles an hour,

609
and so on—and we decided to accept a machine as fulfilling the requirements of the test so long as the officer who was in the habit of flying the machine said it was in good flying order. All the officers were on parade, as General Henderson informed us, for the purpose of giving us information. We decided to ask the officer who was in the habit of flying a machine if in his opinion the machine was in good flying order, and if he said it was we accepted that as sufficient to fulfil the requirements of the test. This, I want to point out, was an enormous concession and entirely in favour of the right hon. Gentleman.
Colonel SEELY: Why?
Mr. SANDYS: Because—
The CHAIRMAN: I suggest that the hon. Member should make his full statement, and then that the right hon. Gentleman should answer it.
Colonel SEELY: This is a very important matter, and I would like to make it quite clear. It is a remarkable statement to make and it is very unfair to the officers concerned, who are not here to answer these things.
The CHAIRMAN: The more important the statement is the less suitable it is for dealing with by interjection.
Mr. SANDYS: I fail altogether to follow the point of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. I am not making any suggestion whatever against any of the officers. All I said was that the officers were paraded in their sheds, as General Henderson said, for the purpose of giving us information. We, therefore, asked them for it. That is not a reflection either upon General Henderson or upon the officers. What I wanted to point out was that by merely asking that the machines should be able to fly and not asking for these other requirements we are snaking an enormous concession in favour of the right hon. Gentleman. Therefore, if his statements were in any degree accurate, what we ought to have found was not merely the eighty machines to which originally the allusion was made, but we really should have found approximately the 120 machines which the right hon. Gentleman had stated only a few days before were there in first-class order; because, I say, a machine cannot be described as a flying machine in -first-class order unless, at any rate, it is able to get off the ground!
610
The method in which we carried out the investigation was that my hon. Friend and myself each took a separate list of the machines we saw—the Army number of the machine, the type and horse-power of the engine, the date of delivery, and the remarks of the officer who NS as in the habit of flying the machine. After our tour was completed we compared notes. Where there was any difference of opinion as to whether any machine could be regarded as ready to fly or not—and there were two or three cases where there was a difference of opinion between my hon. Friend and myself—we gave the right hon. Gentleman the benefit of the doubt. I want also, before I summarise the results of our investigation, to deal with the question of monoplanes. We saw twenty-four of these. Some were in good order. Others were in very bad repair. Some were dismantled altogether. All of these monoplanes, no matter what condition they were in, we ruled out altogether, in view of the fact that they had not been flown since the accident which occurred in the early part of September—that was nine months before we paid our visit to the Royal Flying Corps. This ruling out applied to all monoplanes except two Bleriots, the Army numbers of which were 219 and 221. We did not see these two machines because we were told they were in transit between Farnborough and Larkhill. But we were especially told about them and asked to note them because they were two monoplanes and the only two used for flying at that time. We included them on the list of machines fulfilling the requirements of the test.
I understand the right hon. Gentleman's position in regard to these monoplanes, generally speaking, is that although these machines are regarded as dangerous for use in time of peace, nevertheless he thinks they should be looked upon as efficient in time of war. He said something of that kind, and that is an argument which I think he might be tempted to use again on this occasion. Is that a sound argument? Let us transpose these conditions to another arm of the Service with which perhaps we are more familiar. Suppose we possessed a certain number of guns which exploded when fired with blank ammunition causing a loss of life among the men, and suppose an expert committee decided that none of these guns were to be fired at all until they were altered and made safe, would the right hon. Gentleman suggest that batteries armed with

611
that kind of gun which were not to be fired in time of peace ought to be regarded as efficient Artillery units in time of war? The right hon. Gentleman sees it is ridiculous in regard to guns, yet this is an argument he asks us to accept in regard to monoplanes. We gave the matter most careful consideration, and in view of the fact that they had not been used for nine months owing to the findings of the committee of experts appointed by the right hon. Gentleman, and as it was impossible to get any accurate information in regard to these machines as many of them had never been flown at all, and there was no officer at that time in the habit of flying them, we said they could not be regarded as fulfilling the requirements of the test.
On Wednesday, 11th June, we paid our first visit to the Central Flying School, and I am bound to say we were both of us, and especially myself—because I was there when I heard of the original purchases, and I was looking round when the pegs were driven in to mark the sites for the buildings—very much impressed by the extraordinary progress made in the erection of the buildings and for completing arrangements for the Flying School, and we desire to pay the highest tribute to all its members, both to the enthusiasm of those in the Flying School, whether they were. the officers in course of training or whether they were the staff giving instruction. We both decided that the Flying School was the most satisfactory part of our tour. We were shown eighteen machines which the officers told us were in flying order. We then proceeded to Larkhill to inspect No. 3 Squadron, Royal Flying Corps. This squadron was regrettably deficient in machines. I must point out that each squadron should consist of three flights of four aeroplanes each, with two in reserve for each flight. That is eighteen machines in all per squadron. No. 3 Squadron was eight machines deficient. There were only ten machines in all and of these ten, two were under repair. Two of the eight machines which we were told were ready to fly, the commanding officer told us could not be regarded as war machines. I regard this as very unsatisfactory in view of the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman not very long ago that these squadrons were always kept on a war footing. On 13th June we paid a visit to Farnborough. An interesting document was
612
supplied to us before that date. We were given the details, in an Official Return forwarded by the courtesy of General Henderson, of the aeroplanes in possession of the War Department., and the total came to 120 machines, exactly the same number to which the right hon. Gentleman had alluded two days previously in the House, and which he described as being in first-class order, but when we came to examine the document, these 120 included 42 machines which were described as under repair, under reconstruction, or totally damaged.
And here is another curious circumstance. We found that the machines "ready to fly," upon which this controversy turned, were in this list enumerated under this very description, and there were fifty of them, excluding three experimental machines and including seven machines described as being under test. Therefore this document with which the War Office was good enough to supply us, really settled the whole matter and absolutely cut the ground from under the right hon. Gentleman's feet. Then as to our visit to Farnborough. Here we inspected No. 4 Squadron. The organisation of this squadron was not so advanced as No. 3; there had been, as far as we could understand, no clear sub-division into flights. The squadron machines and depot machines were so mixed up that it was impossible to distinguish one front the other. At Farnborough there were twelve machines stated to be in flying order. Then we were shown by a civilian, who appeared to be in charge of this particular shed, seven machines which were, under test, but had not yet been handed over to the Flying Corps, but which we were told were in flying order. We did see three machines in flight at Farnborough, and I will give the right hon. Gentleman the numbers. One was 441, another machine B.E. 2, and another machine which had been christened "F.E."—I conclude out of compliment to my right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. F. E. Smith). These were experimental machines flown by civilians, and we did not feel, although we were glad to see them in the air, that we could include them amongst the machines that came under the category of the test. Therefore, taking all the machines together that we saw, including the two, Bleriot monoplanes, and including four machines at Montrose—we did not go to,

613
Montrose; we accepted the figures—that gives a total of forty-four machines which on that occasion were ready for flight. If you add the machines under test—that is, the seven additional machines, although you are not justly entitled to do so, because they had not yet been handed over —that gives a total of fifty-one machines, which is absolutely the outside figure of the machines ready to fly which were available between 7th June and 13th June. We made inquiries, and we were told that this was not an abnormally small proportion of the total, and from the information I have had since I think that is an accurate statement. We were told that given the same number of machines there never would be approximately more than about fifty machines which would be in efficient flying order at one given time.
Apart from this question of the challenge, which I think is settled, there are far more important questions which are brought into prominence, at all events to my mind, as the result of this investigation. What would be the position of this country if war broke out? The staff of the Central Flying School desired particularly to emphasise this point, that, in the event of war breaking out, the Central Flying School must go on exactly as before, in order to supply the pilots who would be wanted to make up the regrettable casualties of war. In order to carry on the Central Flying School a minimum of at least thirty machines would be necessary, and I say twenty at least of these ought to be in flying order. I think that is an estimate in favour of the right hon. Gentleman—that is to say, giving them ten machines which are under repair, they must have at least twenty machines in flying order. If you add that and make the necessary deduction, that only gives twenty-four machines actually available for the war squadrons, or, if you add the seven machines under test, you get a total under the most favourable conditions of only thirty-one machines, or less than two squadrons in all. I say that is a most dangerous and unsatisfactory state of affairs.
It was perfectly evident to us that those machines to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded on 24th March as being ready to fly at 50 miles an hour cannot be found, at any rate in these numbers, at the present time. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman how can he reconcile the statement he made in this House, on 5th June, that "we have got 120 machines," and in
614
regard to which he said, "I take only those in first class order"? How can he reconcile that definite statement he made in this House, and which I accepted as perfectly accurate, with the fact that in the official Returns with which we were provided for 7th June, that number of 120 was only reached by the inclusion of forty-two machines which were under repair, under reconstruction, or described as wrecked and only waiting authority to be struck off? How can flying machines under reconstruction or totally damaged, and therefore incapable of flying, be described as flying machines in first-class order? I say such a statement as that is calculated to mislead this House and to mislead the country. We cannot play with this question of military aviation. The success or failure of military operations in the future must largely depend upon the efficiency of our Flying Corps and upon the proper provision of materials and machines. And I feel bound to say this, that unless the right hon. Gentleman can give some satisfactory explanation of the wide discrepancy which appears to me to exist between what he told the House and what we discovered as the result of our investigations, it will be difficult for me, at any rate, to receive in future statements which he may make, with regard to the great Service which he controls, with that complete confidence which should be accorded to a Minister of the Crown.
Sir MARK SYKES: I should like to take this opportunity to draw the attention of the Committee to another branch of the defensive forces of this country, which seems to have been treated in a rather similar way to that in which the right hon. Gentleman apparently has treated the branch of flying. I refer to the condition of the Territorial Force. I think the right hon. Gentleman himself will admit that the Territorial Force is in a serious situation at the present moment, and I submit to him that part of the difficulty which those who belong to the Territorial Force and those who have to try and raise it, are confronted with, is the fact that neither the public nor the Territorial Force itself know exactly what, that force is intended for. Is the situation that within twenty days' notice the force may be required to fight a desperate battle upon which the fate of this country depends, or is the very greatest thing it can be called upon to do to relieve the guard at Buckingham Palace? We really do not know whether this is a force to replace the troops going

615
abroad, or whether it will ever be required for the purpose of defending this country, or whether it is really intended to meet a serious invasion. As long as this question is in doubt, one can never appeal to the public. At present the public, if they think the force is only required for ornamental purposes, will believe that it does not matter if it is 60,000 men short, because if you mobilise the force in a month's time, 60,000 men will have as much experience as the men with three years' service, and if the force is required actually for fighting purposes its position is too hopeless to make it worth while to make any effort to bring it up to strength.
The right hon. Gentleman is always saying that this force is perfectly ready to do anything it may be called upon to do, but that is really his generous nature, because it is the habit of the right hon. Gentleman to avoid any discouragement of the efforts of people who are doing their best though it may not be worth very much. Although it may be generous on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to do that, I think it is rather cruel to lead people into a fool's paradise and trust to luck or Providence to pull them through. With regard to the Territorial Force, the right hon. Gentleman will take risks which he is not prepared to take in everyday life. Suppose the right hon. Gentleman had in his mind that the Territorial Brigade would have to go in three months' time to Egypt to take over garrison duties, I can well imagine the efforts he would make. He would embody the brigade at once, inquire as to it s officers, musketry and the physique of the men and the equipment, and I think he would suffer from insomnia during the whole of his inquiries and would do his utmost to prevent that brigade having to take up such duties. But that is nothing; the Territorial Force may, as far as the right hon. Gentleman knows, be our sole defence, the defence of the capital of this Empire within three months from now.
The right hon. Gentleman's policy is exactly the same as the policy of those who were responsible for the loss of the "Titanic." Matters of everyday occurrence and minor probabilities are guarded against, but the major possibilities are not guarded against except in a formal way. The regulations of the "Titanic" would not admit a case of measles on board for fear of an outbreak, and the most scrupulous care was taken against such minor probabilities, but against the
616
major possibility of running into an iceberg only ordinary precautions were taken, the result being the humiliating tragedy with which everybody is familiar. The same with the British Army. Home defence is left absolutely to chance. I submit that it is very difficult to get the whole of the public to take seriously this danger of invasion. It is like the doctrine of eternal punishment, some believe in it and some do not, but prudent people take precautions to avoid it. I admit that the odds are that the Territorial Force will never be wanted, but if it is wanted, it will be wanted in a hurry, and we ought to leave nothing to chance. In the old clays we were able to lose two or three battles and win in the end, but you cannot play those games on shore in this country. If the first action fought on these shores is not an absolutely crushing disaster to the raider or invader, any soldier will admit that this country is doomed.
I wish to say a word on the point of numbers. We are now 60,000 men under strength on paper, and even an optimist like the Secretary of State for War will admit that the real deficiency is about 80,000. He will also admit that not only a great number of recruits are not fit to take the field, but a great number of them, even after having been recruited, never appear. In the enthusiasm of the moment many men enlist, but often they find that their civil obligations will not allow them to follow the thing right out. I can speak of a case in point which I only discovered yesterday where we recruited 170 men and only 120 of them were finally available. We are not now suffering half so much from the effect of the exits after the boom as people imagine, but we are suffering just as much from the exits of people who do not complete their service. It must be clear to the right hon. Gentleman that we cannot trust to individual enthusiasm and the sporting instincts of the few in order to keep a defensive force for this country. I still believe that the voluntary system will provide us with a modest and effective force, but the possibility to my mind is getting further away every day, and if things slide on for another eighteen months, and we get under 200,000, then I am certain the voluntary system is doomed. It may seem almost academic, but I submit to the right hon. Gentleman that there are two fundamental errors in the working of the Territorial Force, and they were not fore-

617
seen. It may sound odd, but I think a great mistake was made in pinning our faith to what was really a dead force in this country, and that was the Lord Lieutenant and the Territorial Associations. There was an idea that that force could be revived for local defence, but as a matter of fact, these forces were divorced from our defence by the Cardwell system, and wiped out of existence by subsequent developments.
Therefore, a dead force was appealed to in order to provide our local defence. The other administrative error was not including the Cadet Corps. We cannot save the voluntary system unless we do two things, and one is adequate training paid at proper rates of labour up to one shilling per hour. I know it will cost £1,000,000, but the voluntary system is worth that. My other point is the establishment of a more scientific system of recruiting. I suggest that the County Associations have done splendid work, but they have not got the prestige and authority in this country to carry on such an arduous task as recruiting. We recruit for an Army for the defence of this country as you would for a slate club or for a small friendly society. Recruiting ought to be in the hands of a body representing the whole community instead of being done by the County Associations, and trusting to the Lord Lieutenant, who is nothing more than a hat and feathers in the public mind. I think we ought to go to the county councils, and they might do the recruiting and try to get every single soul in the country directly in actual touch with the defence of the country. In that way a great saving might be effected. A further saving might be effected by getting civilians to do such work as the cooking, signalling, and other duties, and in this way a great many rifles might be saved for the firing line. The guarding of wireless telegraphy stations and such places might be left in the hands of the civil police, and this would free about 8,000 from actual garrison duty work. I know this is a very delicate matter to mention, but in the South of England there are certainly two forces which might make our path a great deal easier. I do not suggest that they are against us, but they do adopt an attitude of very rigid neutrality. I refer to the trade unionists and the Free Churches. I know there are some Trade Unionists who think it wrong even to defend your own country, and there are those in the Free Churches who
618
think the same thing, but I do not think that applies to the whole of the body making up those two great forces. I submit that the Adult School in the North of England and the Pleasant Sunday Afternoon organisation could make up our figures in two weeks if they set their minds to do it. I make a fir, al appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to spend more money in training, and making a fairer bargain with the men who join. I also appeal to the Government and to the right hon. Gentleman to open the eyes of the public to the dangers of the situation, which, if once all parties agree to recognise, I am sure public opinion will rise to the occasion, and the danger which many of us feel is not so remote as we should wish it to be will be banished from our minds.
Mr. NEWD EGATE: I should like to ask the Secretary of State for War if lie can inform the House upon what principle. Territorial service medals are given? I ask this question because I happen to know in certain quarters it is supposed that these particular medals can only be got by the exercise of a certain amount of influence. If that idea is allowed to go forward I am sure it will do a great deal of harm to the Service, and we should remove the impression that anything connected with the Service can only be got by favour. I have' been corresponding with the right hon. Gentleman during the last few weeks with regard to a certain case in my own Constituency. It was the case of a man who enlisted in 1868 and who had obtained two medals for active service, and he left the Army in 1893. He was recommended for the Meritorious Service Medal by his commanding officer and the general in command in India. He has heard nothing about this medal from- that time until present day. In the first letter I wrote to the right hon. Gentleman, I pointed out. this man's case, and he replied, in a very civil manner, that the case should be considered, and in reply to a second letter the Secretary for War gave me clearly to understand that there was so many people claiming this medal that this man's claim could not be considered, and he gave that as the reason why the medal has not been granted to him. He said that there were so many warrant officers who had a claim on this medal, and they had the first chance of gaining it. I ventured to point out to the right hon. Gentleman the other day that the man who claims this medal could not have been a warrant

619
officer because he was an armourersergeant, and armourer-sergeants were not made warrant officers until 1st April, 1893. They might just as well not recommend him for a meritorious medal, because he could not obtain the rank of warrant officer under the old regulations. Generals who send up the names of soldiers as deserving the meritorious medal do so under great responsibility, and, if there are more names sent up than there are medals, surely it would be fairest to take the names according to seniority! I venture to ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain how these medals are given, because in some quarters it is certainly considered that a great deal of favouritism is shown in granting them. I feel sure, however, that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to disprove such a suggestion.
Major GUEST: I want to raise a point dealing with the reorganisation of the Artillery which is at present taking place. The Secretary of State for War in the Memorandum he issued earlier in the year foreshadowed the reorganisation which was to be effected in the Artillery. In the main that reorganisation is to the advantage of the Army as a whole. It has the effect of reducing six of the eighteen training batteries which are at present stationed throughout the Kingdom and have up to now been employed in the training of Special Reservists for the Artillery. Owing to the introduction of mechanical transport and the ammunition column, and the consequent necessity for these men in the Special Reserve, six of these batteries are being reduced, and the remaining twelve are being converted from training batteries into reserve batteries. I find no fault with the re-organisation. It will have the effect of placing all the batteries of the Expeditionary Force on to a six-gun battery basis, and, when we get three batteries home from South Africa, as we shall in a very short space of time, it will give us eighteen unallotted batteries. I should like to know whether those eighteen batteries will be on the six-gun basis or whether they will be kept, as now, on the four-gun basis? I approve of the reorganisation, but I find fault with the methods which are being employed to effect them. It is proposed that certain batteries which are now in certain fixed stations in the country shall be converted into reserve batteries. The. reserve batteries under the present system do not take any part in war; in
620
fact, they are permanently prevented from going on service. Certain stations where it seems suitable to have these reserve batteries have been selected, and it is proposed simply to change the numbers of the batteries in these reserve stations with other batteries which are presumed to take their places. No transfer or change over in the personnel is to take place. The names of the batteries are simply to be changed and their numbers, their plate, their records, and their traditions are to be handed over from one battery to another.
It happens that in these stations which have been selected for reserve batteries there are at present batteries which have a long and distinguished history and career, and they will have to hand over their history and their records to the junior batteries which will replace them, with the result that there will be a distinct break in their sentiment and in their traditions. I do not know whether the Secretary of State for War realises that, although the Artillery are a regiment, still they have battery esprit de corps just the same as any regiment in the Service. I can imagine what would be the feeling of two regiments, either Infantry or Cavalry, which were made to change their names, their traditions, their records, their mess funds, their regimental funds, and their charitable funds simply by an order of the Secretary of State. It seems to me that this method which is being adopted is unjustifiable. When two batteries change stations the whole batteries do not change—in fact, only about 50 per cent. of the men in each battery change from station to station. The horses and the guns are handed over, and only a certain portion of the personnel of each battery change places. The reserve batteries have an establishment of eighty men; the fighting batteries have an establishment of about 160 men; and, as only eighty amen will have to be transferred to replace the old batteries in the reserve stations, and as only 40 or 50 per cent. of that number will have to go in order to change the identity of a battery, it seems to me that the saving of money is certainly not worth while offending the traditions, and, if I may say so, the honour of twelve important and distinguished batteries in the Service. It is not a matter which applies only to the officers; it applies to the men, too, because the battery funds are collected both from the men and the officers, and is as much the property of

621
the men as, for instance, the money which is collected by the South African Canteen institution, and, if we are going to take account of those things in one case, we certainly ought in the other.
If it is a case of efficiency, then it is a lack of War Office administration and War Office control that these batteries have got into a state of inefficiency, and they should be immediately sent to practice camps and camps of exercise where their efficiency can be brought to the highest pitch. There are proposals which can be put forward to meet what is undoubtedly a difficult question and which cannot be allowed to continue. The Army Order says that these changes of numbers and names are to take place on 1st August next, and I welcome the fact that this Debate has come before the changes and that we have had an opportunity of discussing this particular matter. These twelve batteries which are now in these stations have practically all completed their period of service in the stations, and, if they are not ready for moving this year, they certainly could be included in the relief next year, and with a delay of only part of a year we should be able to obviate this very unfortunate proposed change. If the War Office are determined to carry out their present proposal, I would suggest that a certain percentage of the non-commissioned officers and officers should be allowed to transfer and take their records, their plate, and their funds with them to the new station to continue the identity of the battery, because it certainly cannot be for the good of the Service that any honourable corps in the Army should suffer as is proposed in the Army Order.
Major WILLOUGHBY: I wish to express my agreement with what has fallen from the hon. Gentleman opposite. I think that it would be a very great misfortune if the esprit de corps of any battery were injured by the proposed reorganisation of our Artillery. I look upon the esprit de corps of our regiments, Infantry and Cavalry, as one of the most valuable assets in our Army, and anyone who has served with the Army would feel that anything that would interfere with that esprit de corps would be a great disadvantage. It is equally so with the Artillery, and I think that every Service member ought to press upon the Secretary of State for War the necessity of reconsidering this subject. I regret that when we had an answer from the Front Bench we had no reference made
622
to the position of our Army generally. On previous occasions I have brought to the notice of the Committee the deficiencies in the establishment of our Army. At the present time it is very much below strength owing to the difficulty of obtaining recruits, and I think that the Committee might well consider whether some steps might not be taken to make up the deficiency in our recruiting. I do not think that it is nec3ssary for me to say how many recruits we are short, but I am quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman will not deny that he has some considerable difficulty at present in getting as many recruits as he would wish, in fact, earlier in the Session the Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. H. Baker) did say that the recruiting position was not altogether satisfactory. I hope that when the Secretary of State for War speaks tonight he will be able to hold out to the Committee. some hopes of bringing the proper number of recruits to our Regular Army. The House has voted a certain number of men for our Standing Army. It has voted the pay for that number of men, and I think that we are entitled to know what likelihood there is of that number of men coming forward this year to serve their country. If we have not got that number of men, and it is essential that we should get them, I do say that it is the duty of the Secretary of State for War to have some scheme by which we are going to get more men, and to prevent us falling short of our strength. It may not at present make a great deal of difference, but, if we are not getting recruits in the Army at the present time, we shall a year or eighteen months' hence find ourselves with very few trained soldiers in the ranks, and, even although we then get an extra number of recruits, it will not make up for the lack of that training the men ought to get this year.
It is not really for me to make suggestions as to how more recruits can be obtained for the Colours, but if I were consulted, I should have to say that I have certain ideas as to the manner in which it might be possible to attract men into the ranks. Being a humble Member of this House, and having no special claim to press my views upon the Secretary for War, I can only suggest that, if he wishes to maintain the voluntary system, which no doubt is the desire of the country generally, as regards the Regular Army, it is essential that the condition of soldiers in the Service should be considered. One

623
requirement in order to attract recruits to the Colours is, I am almost sure, to be found in some alternative to continuous soldiering. I believe a great deal might be done to attract men if some scheme could be thought out whereby soldiers could be used for other services of the State at various times. We are often accused on this side, when we are criticising the shortage of men, with offering no suggestion as to how the problem is to be solved. I do not wish to criticise without giving some idea of the lines on which a solution might be found, and I would suggest that recruits might be attracted to our Army if we offered them opportunities of being employed on other service than soldiering at various times of the year. At the present moment we are embarking on a great system of road development. There are many other public works of a kindred nature, and, in my opinion, recruits might possibly be attracted to the Army if it were made known that soldiers would be used at certain periods of the year in works of that description, and the use of their services in that way would, I believe, result advantageously, not only to the force, but to the men themselves. I hope the Secretary for War, when he speaks, will hold out some hope that some proposal will be made by which recruits will be attracted in greater numbers to the Colours.
I next wish to allude to the subject of the Flying Corps, which has already been dwelt upon by the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Sandys). I am only too glad to think we have such a splendid body of men, both officers and rank and file, who have come forward to serve their country in the Flying Corps. It will be due to the willingness of both officers and men if the country is rescued from the difficult position in which it is now placed in this respect. In the past our Army has often suffered owing to a lack of foresight and deliberation on the part of the War Office and of those in authority. But I am glad to say that the officers, arid the rank and file generally, have by the exercise of their known ability been able to pull the country through. Matters in some respects are much better now as regards, at any rate, organisation for war, but I have a very great fear that, owing to parsimony, owing to insufficiency of funds available for the Service, we are going to find our Flying Corps very severely handicapped in making proper preparation for war. I have had the honour of serving in the
624
Army, and have been in possession of true facts in regard to questions which have been answered by the Secretary of State from time to time. Before I came down this afternoon I did not know that the hon. Member who discussed this question of the Flying Corps was going to make the statement he did. I came down thinking that when the Secretary for War made his statement that there were 130 flying machines ready and competent to fly, it was more than probable that fifty was the exact number that could fly at any one moment. That was the impression I had formed in face of statements, given perhaps perfectly truly, but at the same time not absolutely accurate. The right hon. Gentleman comes down here and says we have 120 flying machines which can fly if in proper order. That happens not to have been the question asked of him ire this House.
The Secretary for War always puts the extreme view of what is possible. It is, in my opinion, a wrong thing to do. It would be much better if he would tell the House what the facts really are, and the House would then be in a fairer position. It is most unsatisfactory that we should have been led to believe there were on a given day 120 machines competent to fly, in the sense that they could fly if in proper repair. It is obvious if we had only 150 machines not more than 50 per cent. could turn out on a given day. It seems to be a great misfortune that the country and the House should be misled by statements such as we get from the Secretary-for War, and I would urge that when answers are given here the House should have provided for it a true statement of the fact. I do not wish to suggest that untrue statements are made, but the statements are misleading, and both the House and the country are consequently pledged and induced to look upon things in a different light to that in which they should be seen. As far as the Flying Corps is concerned, in by opinion, it needs more flying machines. We ought to have more than fifty capable of flying at a certain moment. It is absolutely essential more money should be assigned for this purpose. I wish to support what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Leith Burghs (Mr. Munro-Ferguson). He told us that no money had ever been expended on a new Service without taking it from another Service. This is a very great misfortune. I think he said that when money was wanted for

625
the Territorial Army it had to be taken from the Regular Army. That should not be the case; if anything, the reverse policy should be pursued. But I do maintain that if an Aerial Service is to be set up, there must be an increased Army Estimate, and that increased Estimate should cover all the proper preparations for a sufficient aerial defence for this country. I have not the exact figures here, but I believe that, at the present moment, the increase in the Aerial Estimate is a negligible quantity, and the whole of the money has been obtained merely by robbing other Services. It is a most reprehensible course, and one that ought not to be pursued.
In several speeches to-day reference has been made to the Territorial Army. I am afraid I rather look upon that force merely as a very excellent means of inducing military ambition in our young men, and certainly I would thoroughly recommend it to those who feel that a fortnight's holiday spent in acquiring a certain amount of knowledge on military matters is a pleasant way of spending one's time. I fully admit there are a large number of men of enormous value to this country, who, for various reasons, are unable to go into the Regular Army, but who, having a love for military matters, are prepared to give time to the study of them, and are willing to undergo a fortnight's training either in the Yeomanry or in the Territorial Army. I wish to give these men every encouragement, and I agree that it should be made as little irksome as possible for them to undertake the duty. But I very much question in regard to this matter of the Territorial Force, whether we ought to try to get the numbers we do for that Service under the conditions we are able to offer. Undoubtedly, we have an enormoos number of Yeomanry and mounted men in the Territorial Force who are of immense value to this country for the defence of our shores, and who, if necessary, would be prepared to go across the sea to fight their country's battles. We have too, a great number of battalions also of immense value, and everything should be done to encourage them. But we make a great mistake in trying to get the number of battalions we do, because in some districts they are obtained only by securing what is not perhaps the class of men we ought to have in our Territorial Army. A Territorial ought to be a man of somewhat better education, and of more ability than
626
the class which may perhaps be better described as "corner boys," that is young men who have not settled down in any position, and who used, in the old days, to join our Militia, and go thence into the Army. I am afraid our Territorial Force is too much recruited from that source, with the result that we are not only not getting the class of recruits we ought to-have in our force of civilians, a force intended practically for the defence of these shores, but we are also losing those young men who should go into what is known as the Special Reserve, and we are also losing them for future enlistment in the Regular Army. As far as our Territorial Force is concerned, it would be far better if we confined our efforts to those regiments which we know are able to recruit up to strength, and to get proper officering. If we wish to go further in defence of the country, we ought to reinstitute our Militia. If we are not able to get enough men for defence in that way, then I think it would be up to the Government and to the country generally to realise the necessity for a certain number of men, and if we are unable to get sufficient volunteers other means should be adopted in order to obtain the forces required for the service of the Crown.
It being a Quarter-past Eight of the clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, under the Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  EAST HAM CORPORATION (RECOMMITTED) BILL.
  The following notices of Motion stood on the Paper in the name of the Chairman of Ways and Means:—
  "That, in the case of the East. Ham. Corporation (Recommitted) Bill, Standing Orders 84, 214, 215, and 239 be suspended, and that the Bill be now taken into consideration provided amended prints shall have been previously deposited." (By Order.)
  "That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.''
  The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Whitley): There are two Motions on the Paper relating to the East Ham Cor-

  627
  poration Bill, which was under the consideration of the House only a few days ago. The House will recollect that this Bill had the misfortune, on the two occasions when it was sent down for consideration, to be delayed by the course of public business, which prevented it from going on. When it did come on the House sent it back again to the Committee with an Instruction, and I have thought it, therefore, only justice to the promoters of the Bill that I should put down a Motion in order to some little extent to make up to them the time which has been lost by the delay. I hope the House will be ready to agree to those two Motions.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, in the case of the East Ham Corporation (Recommitted) Bill, Standing Orders 84, 214, 215, and 239 be suspended, and that the Bill be now taken into consideration provided amended prints shall have been previously deposited." (By Order.)—[Mr. Whitley.]
  Mr. BECK: I have no desire in any way to delay the business of this House, but as hon. Members know there was a very strenuous fight on this Bill, and many of us think that had the House been possessed of fuller knowledge at the time of the discussion the result of the Motion to recommit might have been very different. I would ask my right hon. Friend, the Chairman of Ways and Means, to give us some guidance as to the future course of this Bill if we consent to the very unusual course—I do not think it is unusual, but very drastic—to set aside a number of Standing Orders, and are asked to forego the three clear days' notice. We are also asked, in the second Motion, to allow two stages of the Bill to be taken. I understand that my right hon. Friend has an intimation to make to the House, and I merely content myself by asking him to give us some little guidance on this matter.
  Sir RYLAND ADKINS: I also wish to ask a question in reference to the business before the House. Some of the opposition to this Bill was from the point of view of Members who thought that a Bill like this, and also another Bill in regard to the borough of Cambridge, both of which raise a problem of local government, ought to be considered by a Royal Commission or by a Joint Committee. I was one of the Members who saw it from that point of view, and I was unable to vote on this Bill
  628
  before, and, therefore, I am very interested to know the procedure my right hon. Friend is going to recommend. If I am not asking too much, I should also like to know if he can state what procedure he is going to recommend in the case of the Cambridge Bill, which we know has been approved by the casting vote of the Chairman of the Committee upstairs? Our action on these proposals now appears to depend a great deal on what one knew would become of this Bill, and what stage the other Bill would be allowed to go through or stay at at the present time. As both Bills involve, in the opinion of some of us, general considerations of great importance, we should very much value the courtesy of my right hon. Friend if he will, in answer to the hon. Member, also give some idea of what his plan is with regard to the other Bill.
  The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS: In the case of the East Ham Corporation Bill, which is the subject of the Motion which I have to move, I anticipated that some such question as that put to me might be raised; therefore, I made it in my way to attempt to find out from the other House what the procedure would be likely to be if the Third Reading was given to the Bill here. I have it on the best authority from the other House that they do not think they would be able to provide a Committee to take a contested Bill -of this magnitude at this period of the Session, and that in that case they would propose to suspend its further consideration until next Session. I think that answers the point of my hon. Friend. In regard to the second question put by the hon. and learned Member for the Middleton Division (Sir Ryland Adkins), that Bill is at present outside my control and in Committee upstairs. How much longer it may be there I do not know, and, therefore, T must be cautious in anything I say on this matter. I can, however, give him this assurance, that I have doubt, in view of the substantial provisions of the Bill, of its being completed in the dying days of the Session.
  Mr. NEWTON: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I am quite prepared to join my hon. Friend opposite in withdrawing opposition to any further proceedings in this House.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question, "That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended,

  629
  and that the Bill be now read the third time," put, and agreed to."—[Mr. Whitley.]

  OXFORD UNIVERSITY (ST. EDMUND HALL AND GATCOMBE RECTORY) BILL [Lords].
  (By Order.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—[Mr. Whitley.]
  Mr. KING: I beg to move to leave out the words, "now read the third time," and at the end of the Question to add the words "recommitted to the former Committee."
  I wish, in the first place, to make my attitude on this Bill quite clear. I approve entirely of its main principle. I think in various provisions it might well be improved, but its main principle is, to my mind, a novel and extremely good one. It is to upset entirely the trust, which was created only 150 years ago and has not been in operation one hundred years, and to do that at the same time that it takes away a considerable amount of money from a richly endowed rural parish, which is endowed with ancient Endowments far beyond its modern requirements, and transfers a considerable sum to the needs of our ancient University of Oxford. That is an entirely novel principle, a principle which, I venture to say, has never found a place before in a private Bill. It was because of this that when I saw this Bill I blocked it on the Second Reading, and I believe it is entirely due to my initiation that we had a debate at all upon the Second Reading. The Bill was not opposed to the point of a Division on the Second Reading. When the Bill went to the Unopposed Bill Committee I sent a memorandum of my point of view to the Chairman of the Committee, who, very courteously, considered very fully the point of view I raised and laid it before the Committee and made certain inquiries. When the Bill came back unamended from that Committee I was ready, although I thought my point had not been fairly met or fully discussed, to see the Bill pass without further discussion, and when it was blocked on the Motion for Third Reading I appealed to art hon. Friend of mine to allow it to go through. I therefore, ought to explain why, in spite of that, I still think it my duty to discuss the Bill upon this occasion. I do so because it seems to me that if it is to be on the floor of the House again it ought to be discussed from the
  630
  point of view of one who desires that everything should be done for the students of the university first and foremost. This is a University Bill, promoted by the University of Oxford. It is a Bill which affects in certain ways the only remaining hall of the university. If discussion is to be raised upon it, let it be raised upon the educational interests and proposals. That is what I propose to do in moving the Amendment.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member would not be entitled to discuss the Bill upon that. The only thing the hon. Member would be entitled to do would be to give reasons why the Bill should be recommitted instead of going forward in the usual way.
  Mr. KING: That is what I intend to do. I intend to say—I suppose in this I am inorder—that the provision the Bill makes is not fair in respect to the scholarships.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That the hon. Member can say when the Bill is recommitted. He must now give reasons showing that the Committee have not dealt properly with the Bill, and therefore it must be recommitted.
  Mr. KING: I will briefly give reasons for that. I move that the Bill be recommitted because, in the first place, it is an unopposed Bill, and therefore could not be fully discussed in regard to all the interests it affects before the Unopposed Bill Committee. If we recommit the Bill and follow that up with an Instruction that the Bill be amended in certain particulars, the proposals which I have to put forward later will come up for review. I suppose it is quite in order to observe, in the first place, that the Unopposed Bill Committee did not realise that this Bill by a private Act of Parliament proposes to alter what was set up by a public Act of Parliament. That point was not raised on the Unopposed Bill Committee, but it is an extremely important one. If it becomes the practice to introduce private Bills—
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not seem to be relevant to the hon. Member's Motion. The hon. Member is really wishing to discuss the Third Reading, and at the same time is anxious to reserve himself for a second speech on the Third Reading.
  Mr. KING: I move formally, "That the Bill be recommitted."
  Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: I beg to second the Amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS: As I am the culprit, or shall I say the victim of the hon. Member's attack, for I was Chairman of the Unopposed Bill Committee which dealt with this Bill, perhaps I ought to say that I do not propose to commit a breach of order by going into the merits of the question. All I can do is to say to the hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King) that of the many Bills that came before the Unopposed Bill Committee this Session, I do not remember a single one which had more care given to it than this Bill. We had the benefit of the memorandum from the hon. Member himself, embodying all the points of objection that he raised to the Bill, and every one of them was most carefully examined.
  Mr. MORRELL: On a point of Order, Sir. Your ruling was that one cannot discuss the merits of a Bill on the Motion to recommit. May I remind you that about a year or two years ago I moved to recommit the Bill of the Corporation of London in connection with the St. Paul's Bridge scheme. You will recollect that upon that occasion the discussion certainly covered all the merits of the Bill and a good deal more besides. It was an extremely wide discussion, occupying the whole night, and then we went to a Division, arid finally the Bill was recommitted. It is certainly within my recollection that not only did I in my opening speech in moving the recommittal discuss the whole scheme, but every other speaker took the same course.
  Mr. SPEAKER: If that is so, I am afraid it was a breach of order. I have not had time to refer to that case, but I expect the discussion was taken upon an Instruction, and, therefore, it would, of course, be in order. I will not be sure, but my recollection is that it was so. It. may also have been a Motion to refer the Bill to some other Committee, not to the same Committee.
  Mr. MORRELL: My recollection is very clear that the Motion was to recommit to the former Committee. There was an Instruction upon the Paper, but the discussion and the Division took place upon my Motion that the Bill be recommitted to the former Committee, and after that the Instruction was moved.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I certainly deserve the severest censure if I permitted anything of the kind.
  Mr. DENMAN: I hope the few remarks. I wish to make are in order. The point I wish to bring before the House is that the Committee did not examine one aspect of the case to which I ventured to draw attention on a previous occasion when the Bill was before the House. I readily acquiesce in the suggestion that very great care was devoted to this Bill by the Unopposed Bill Committee. Indeed, I was the only Member of the House not on the Committee who was present and who heard what took place. The one point which ought to be considered, which was not considered, and, because it was not considered I support the Motion to recommit, was whether this re-allocation of ancient funds is really in the best interests of religion and learning, to which those funds were originally devoted. I am afraid the point I want to make is almost diametrically opposed to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Mr. King). I understand his objection has been that you ought not to take away money from the parish in order to endow other objects, such as a college at Oxford. I want to suggest that, so far from that being the case, to leave Gatcombe Parish with £350 is really very extravagant, and has not yet been justified in debate. The population we are told is about 183.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now discussing the merits of the Bill. He is really anxious to discuss it on Third Reading, and he should reserve his speech until we get to the Third Reading.
  Mr. DENMAN: That certainly is not my wish. My desire is that. the Committee should examine afresh the point whether the money is allocated in the best possible way. I am quite willing to defer my argument till the Instruction. I certainly want to vote on the question now.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: If this Motion is disposed of, shall we then be able to discuss. the merits of the Bill?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Yes, certainly.
  Sir W. ANSON: I think the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Denman) is mistaken in supposing that the matter which he suggests is appropriate for consideration by the Committee had not been considered by the Committee. I gave evidence for a considerable time, and a Fellow of King's College was also present and gave evidence at some

  633
  length, and the greater part of my evidence was devoted to showing that this money was properly applied and could be applied to no better purpose than the financing of religion and learning.
  Question put, "That the words 'now read the third time' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 178; Noes, 42.

  Division No. 235.]

  AYES.

  [8.38 p.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Adamson, William

  Hazleton, Richard

  Radford, George Heynes

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Arnold, Sydney

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Hewart, Gordan

  Reddy, Michael

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Jones, Leif Stratton (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshrire)

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Kelly, Edward

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

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

  Kilbride, Denis

  Robertson, Sir G. S. (Bradford)

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Boland, John Pius

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Robinson, Sidney

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Lyndon, Thomas

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Lyell, Charles

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

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  McGhee, Richard

  Sandys, G. J.

  Burt. Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Carr-Gomm. H. W.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.,E.)

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

  Sheehy, David

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Malcolm, Ian

  Shortt, Edward

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Clough, William

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Clynes, John R.

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Snowden, Philip

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Cotton, William Francis

  Meagher, Michael

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Cowan, W. H.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Spicer, RI. Hon. Sir Albert

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Molloy, Michael

  Sutherland, John E.

  Cullinan, John

  Mooney, John J.

  Sutton, John E.

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

  Morrell, Philip

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Dawes, James Arthur Denniss, E. R. B.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Muldoon, John

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Munro, Robert

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Doris, William

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Duffy, William J.

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Waring, Walter

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Webb, H.

  Esmonde. Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Ffrench, Peter

  O'Connor. T. P. (Liverpool)

  Whitley, Rt. Hon. J. H.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  O'Donnell. Thomas

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Gilmour, Captain John

  O'Dowd, John

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

  Gladstone. W. G. C.

  O'Malley, William

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

  Glanville, H. J.

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

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wood, Rt Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

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

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Yate, Col. Charles Edward

  Gulland, John William

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Young, William (Perthshire, East)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Hackett, John

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Pointer, Joseph

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.Maclean and Lord Hugh Cecil.

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

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

  Hodge, John

  Barnes, George N.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Hogge, James Myles

  Barton, William

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  Bethell, Sir John Henry

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Goldstone, Frank

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Brace, William

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

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

  Joyce, Michael

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Higham. John Sharp

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hinds, John

  Leach, Charles

  MacPherson, James Ian

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Whyte, Alexander F.

  O'Grady, James

  Rowlands, James

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Thomas, J. H.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

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

  Walsh. Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. King and Mr. Denman.

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps I may be allowed to make an explanation with reference to the conversation which took place between the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Morrell) and myself a few moments ago. I have now had an opportunity of referring to the case he cited, and I find that on that occasion he did not move for the recommittal of the Bill, but moved that the Bill be recommitted to the former Committee in relation to a proposed bridge between Black-friars and Southwark Bridges. He thereby stated precisely the point upon which he desired the Committee to reconsider the Bill, and therefore, any discussion which took place on that matter was clearly in order.
  Mr. MORRELL: I think you will find that on that occasion the Motion was to recommit the Bill in respect of certain Clauses, and the whole of the Amendments to these Clauses were then discussed in this House for some hours. I hold that if you move to recommit the whole Bill, you would be entitled to discuss all in it.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is where the hon. Member has fallen into error. If the hon. Member had moved on that occasion a general Motion to recommit the Bill generally, then the discussion would not have been in order.
  Mr. KING: May I say that when I handed my Motion in at the table, it was in the form of one Motion, namely, to recommit the Bill in respect of these scholarships. The Clerk at the table instructed me to divide the Motion into two —first, that the Bill be recommitted, and, secondly, in connection with the Instruction that stands in my name. It was my intention to raise the question which I wanted to discuss.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member was proposing to put something new into the Bill which is not there now. That must come in the form of an Instruction. The hon. Member for Burnley was not pro-
  636
  posing to put anything new into the Bill in 1911. As the hon. Member for Somerset (Mr. King) wished to insert something in the Bill which is not there already, of course it was necessary to do it by way of an Instruction. That is why his Motion was divided, and very properly.
  Mr. BOOTH: I beg to move, as an Amendment, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
  I hope the House will reject this Bill with contumely, if only in order to save the reputation, or what is left of it, of some of the advocates of this spoliation of the Church. I can quite understand how those who are in favour of the Welsh Disestablishment Bill might be tempted to vote for this measure, but I would plead with them not to do so, and I would urge that they should act in a more generous way in this controversy with respect to the Rectory of Gatcombe. What does this Bill propose to do? It proposes to rob the Church of God. Hon. Members opposite frequently use that phrase in Debate, but on this occasion the phrase is literally justified. Hon. Members opposite who represent Oxford University support this Bill. I do not challenge the view that they should do the best they can for their constituency until the day arrives when it will be abolished altogether. I do not challenge their motives. I believe that they sincerely desire to protect the revenues of their university, but I wish to point out the awful mistake into which they have been led in trying to do that. The Rectory of Gatcombe, in the Isle of Wight, has a certain income. By all the laws of common sense and business fair play, as well as religion, that income ought to be spent in spiritual administration. The fact that in the past there has been a lamentable state of things whereby there has been a rector in another place seeking to use the income from that living in order to save the university is no reason for this House at this stage identifying itself with this case of spoliation. The income pertains to this rectory and should go for spiritual administration, and I say; that the most suitable thing to be done with it, if the

  637
  income is too large, would be, as I suggested in an Instruction which it was not in order to move, to give it to some similar institution.
  Here is a case where the promoters of the Bill claim that there is £150 per annum of money more than is needed for this individual rectory. What do they do with that? They are perpetrating a most scandalous arrangement which I hope the House will resent. They propose to take it away from the rectory to which it belongs and spend it on St. Edmund Hall, in Oxford University. I have no doubt the proposal will be defended, as it was on the Second Reading, by the merest subterfuge. They are ashamed of this transaction. It will not stand the light of clay, but they cannot hide it away from the gaze of the Almighty, and in order to hide their wickedness from the House they cloak the proposal by the suggestion that the £150 must be spent upon the chaplain of St. Edmund Hall. There must be a chaplain anyhow. Edmund Hall has to comply with the provisions of the Statutes and the conditions of its own trust, and whether this £150 goes there or not, will make not the slightest difference of administration to the students in St. Edmund Hall. But they say, "We will give this £150 to the chaplain so as to release another £150 which can go to this institution. That is very much the same as saying that if we got —150 left to this House, and we decided that it should be used for spirtiual purposes, we therefore decreed that the sum should be given to the chaplain on condition that he gave up £150 to the Kitchen Committee. That would be exactly parallel, and we should then be able to say that these High Church Jesuits—[HON MEMBERS "Oh"]
  Mr. JOYCE: You should not insult my Church.
  Mr. BOOTH: I will put in qualifying words. I have not the slightest idea of insulting the Church of any hon. Member. I am dealing now with the members of my own Church. I think the word was ill chosen, and I wish to withdraw it. These High Church casuists would be able to say that the £150 was really going to spiritual purposes, because it was actually being paid to the chaplain who conducts the ordinances of prayer, but I must say that any business man, looking at a transaction of that kind, would give it its right name, and say that it was subsidising the
  638
  Kitchen Committee, instead of saying that it was going to be devoted to a religious, purpose. Hon. Members who have brought in this Bill know very well that if it passes, the £150 will go from the income of the rectory really as a subsidy to St. Edmund Hall. There will be neither more nor less religious administration so far as St. Edmund Hall is concerned whether they get the £150 or not. It would be very different if the £150 were used to supplement the income of those who required it. One of the most distinguished bishops said recently that very often parish clergymen were criticised with regard to their parochial duties, when really all that was the matter with them was that they were hungry. I do not know what hon. Gentlemen who represent the wealthy classes, and who are enjoying, themselves, as we all do, £400 a year, which I have no doubt they receive with an alacrity equal to that of myself, will say to the protest of the kind uttered by that bishop of the Church, that if any clergyman did not serve their parishioners fully, it was solely because they are going short of food. Yet when there is an opportunity to give £150 to help a few of these men to get a little. bread and cheese, then we have these hawks, these birds of prey, swooping down, and demanding the whole £150.
  9.0 P.M.
  The promoters of the Bill have taken up the position that there is £150 which can be spared properly from the Rectory of Gatcombe. If it cannot be spared, it is robbery of the most disgraceful character. But I am sure that they must have satisfied themselves that £150 can be spared, and therefore, I would appeal to them, before they present the Welsh party with a rod with which to thrash them severely, whether the suggestions which I have put on the Paper are not really more in consonance with the parable which represents our faith. I asked a clergyman friend of mine—I did not wish to take the responsibility on myself—who labours in one of the poor districts of London not very far from this place, to select two or three suitable objects connected with the Church of England, to which this £150 might be applied in some way better than is proposed by the Bill, and he selected three charities with which I think the right hon. Gentleman will not find a single fault, and' which are more deserving of support than St. Edmund Hall or Oxford University. He suggested that one-third should go to the Queen Victoria Clergy Fund. Surely no-objection can be taken to this. Then, that

  639
  one-third should go to the Curates Augmentation Fund. I dare say that the right hon. Gentleman would say that that was not quite logical, because we are taking money from a rectory and giving it to curates; but I would appeal to him to brush aside these technicalities, and extend his sympathy a little beyond that. After all, many of these curates are men advancing a little in years, men with families, and I should have thought that no one could question the application of one-third of this amount to the Curates'
  Augmentation Fund. I am sure that members of the Labour party would suggest that I have made a mistake, and that the whole £150 should go to the Curates' Augmentation Fund, and I candidly admit that I do not think I have a good answer to that if it were thrust upon me. Then another one-third should go to the Home Mission of the Church of England. The name of that shows its character and I need not dwell upon it.
  If hon. Members in charge of the Bill could only see their way to dissociate themselves from this deplorable transaction and devote the surplus money to these causes, they will carry a message of joy to hundreds of hard-working clergy, who will feel that their work has been appreciated. But for the House to pass a Bill like this seems to me beyond comprehension. I would make a final appeal to Churchmen opposite. Why they have chosen this particular time to bring the matter forward I cannot make out. I believe that their adviser must really be in league with the Welsh Nonconformists, and that they were advised to bring this forward solely in order to provide an argument for the Welsh Disestablishment Bill. There can be no justification whatever, in view of what they have said, for dipping their hands into the till of the Church of England for the benefit of the university. The university is a great institution, but how many men who are now blessed with the world's goods in abundance have received great benefit at that university? I feel sure that it could have no difficulty whatever in obtaining the sum of 2150, but the poor curates, who are, as the bishop tells us, without sufficient nourishment, are looking to this House to-night. They are looking to right. hon. Gentleman opposite who usually speak for the Church of England to have some little charity or kindly feeling for those who are labouring
  640
  week in and week out for our common Church, and I say that we cannot at this time of day, even at the request of the right hon. Gentleman or a distinguished university, take from this rectory in the Isle of Wight £150 to give to the rich University of Oxford.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: I beg to second the Motion. After all, if it was decided—I would not suggest that it is right—that this money should be taken away from the rectory at all, I think that it would be much better, unless there were some general squaring up of discrepancies of this description relating to the income of the Church in certain poor districts, as a general measure, to have left the subject as it was before. But if it must of necessity be forced upon us to take this £150 from the Gatcombe Rectory, I would suggest that in Oxford itself there are institutions to which the money might be devoted and which are much more deserving than the proposals made in the Bill. My Friends and I have no connection with the university, and yet we have made ourselves to some extent responsible for the beginning of a university that the working people should have something to do with —that is, Ruskin College, Oxford. It is hoplessly in debt and difficulties, and we are just on the point of trying to do the best we can to put it on something like a permanent basis. When one pauses to consider that most of this property was left to the Church, not so much for the purpose of preaching to the poor as of assisting the poor materially out of their difficulties and the poverty-stricken condition in which they find themselves, and that that was considered by many of these donors as really the work of the Church, and seeing that it was really to assist the poor, then, if this £150 per annum must be permanently alienated from the Gatcombe Rectory, I should have certainly thought that if it must go to Oxford in some shape or form it should be used for the poor. It would have been infinitely better if this money had been transferred to Ruskin College, which is a purely working-class educational institution, and more in keeping and in greater harmony with the original intentions of the donor. While the arguments of my hon. Friend were received with a certain amount of flippancy, I am bound to say that there is after all a very considerable and serious argument and principle underlying the suggestions that he made. I do not think

  641
  you should deal with these matters piecemeal, but if you do deal with a case like this, where it is admitted that the revenue for certain purposes is no longer required, then, apart from any other consideration, I suggest there are other parishes attached to the Church which require and would benefit immensely more from the transfer of a portion of this sum.
  I have no wish, nor do I suppose anyone here has, to offer any opposition whatever to the University of Oxford, and I have no desire to injure it in any way. In fact, I would do everything I could to assist any educational institution, but that is not the point involved here. You are really taking this money away from a certain purpose for which it was intended and giving it for a purpose for which it was never intended and to an institution that does not require the assistance, while there are hundreds of small parishes which are so poor that this assistance would be of the greatest possible value, or even the assistance of a £5 note or a £10 note, in the organisation of the church. Had this Bill been introduced as a public Bill and properly discussed, I imagine it would have been almost impossible to have passed it on its merits. If it had been properly discussed in one of the Standing Committees it would have been almost impossible to have got a measure like this through. But the private Bill procedure is so peculiar that if you only take the trouble to put a private Bill down on the Paper often enough and attend day in and day out and give it its lease for the following day, if someone happens to object, you can almost surely get it passed, anti it will slip through after a few months of strict vigilance, or want of vigilance, on the part of those opposed to it. Then it. goes to a Committee and has to be dissected by powerful interest, either for or against. In this case no such criticism was passed upon it, I understand it went before an Unopposed Bill Committee, who just looked through it to see, I suppose, that the ordinary rules of procedure were complied with.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Maclean): I do not think I ought to let my hon. Friend labour under that misapprehension as to the functions of an Unopposed Bill Committee. I did not sit on this Bill but I have sat on others. and I do know, from what the Chairman of Ways and Means has told me, that this Bill received most careful consideration when it came before that Committee.
  Mr. J. WARD: I am not imputing that the Committee, so far as they had information on the subject, did not take into account the position, but if there is no one to put the opposite side before them they cannot manufacture reasons for objecting to any of these Clauses unless some one has a locus standi to appear before the Committee and state a case. So I think we may take it for granted that this Bill on its merits could never hope to pass as a public measure and is going to be smuggled through, because I do not suppose there is any possible chance of defeating it now. [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes there is."] I shall vote against it, but the Bill will, I dare say, become law, and we shall have done something not to assist the church, not to assist even the institution to which it is to be devoted, because it does not require it, while there are hundreds of poor parishes to which the money would be of the greatest use. I most strongly protest against the Bill, and if my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) goes to a Division I shall unquestionably support him in the Lobby.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I do not at all complain of the speeches to which we have just listened. I am very glad that the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) is so enthusiastic a son of the Church of England and so zealous to watch even the slightest injury done to her interests. I do not complain either of the serious speech of the hon. Member who has just spoken and to which 1 listened with great interest. With many of the general propositions he advanced I should find myself able to agree. I think both hon. Members proceed under a misconception. They have not considered, although it is very distinctly set out in the Preamble, how the Endowment originated. It originated in a benefaction which nowadays would be thought undesirable. The benefactor left some money not directly to St. Edmund Hall, but in order to purchase the advowson of a living in order that the trust for the living should afterwards be bestowed on the principal of St. Edmund Hall. I do not think that is at all a desirable proceeding. I apprehend it would not now be a legal way of proceeding, but it was done. The effect, of course, was to deprive Gatcombe altogether of the services of a resident. rector, and leave them to be content with the services of a curate paid a curate's stipend.
  Mr. MORRELL: Did the principal never go to Gatcombe Rectory?
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I have no means of telling what the practice was, but he was not resident, and everyone knows in the life of a parish how serious a handicap that is to parochial church work. Therefore, though it may be said now to be an indefensible way of proceeding, in the day that the benefaction was made St Edmund Hall was a distinctly ecclesiastical institution in a sense that it is not and cannot be to-day.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: What is the date?
  Lord HUGH CECIL: The date of the will is 1763. The result is that the Endowment of Gatcombe Rectory was divided between two objects, both Church objects, but one academic and the other parochial. The main charge of the Endowment was made for the academic and the slighter charge for the parochial object. Nowadays that is all changed. I will not deal with the educational aspects of the case. I am not very competent to do so. [An HON. MEMBER "Hear, hear!"] Perhaps the hon. Member thinks I am not competent to deal with educational questions at all. That is not what I meant. I meant that my hon. Friend (Sir. W. Anson) is much more familiar with those points. This educational change having to be carried out, the question arose how are you to deal with St. Edmund Hall, which has now become an ordinary educational institution, in respect of this ancient benefaction? The solution propounded by the Bill is, on the whole, more beneficial to the parish and less beneficial to the hall than the existing arrangement. It respects, and I do not see how you can possibly avoid respecting, the wishes of the donor. You cannot very well treat his wishes with contempt. What it really does is to make the academic object the slighter and the parochial object the main charge on the endowment. That is a benefit to the people of Gatcombe, and I justify giving that advantage to the people of Gatcombe by the argument to which we have listened this evening—that it is not a desirable thing in general to transfer a parochial endowment to any other object. I think it is a reasonable modification of the scheme, and so far as it is a reasonable modification the parish as a whole gains by the reassignment and the hall loses. Therefore, the criticisms which have been made to night are founded upon a misconception.
  644
  The endowment is not changed at all so far as its general purpose goes. It still goes to Church objects, but as between the two Church objects there is a certain readjustment which on the whole is favourable to the parish and unfavourable to the hall. I hope, therefore, that this Motion will not be pressed, and that we shall be permitted to get the Third Reading.
  Mr. KING: I am sure the House is to be congratulated upon having another Debate on this Bill. Though small in itself, the measure embodies a great principle. We have on this occasion the great privilege and advantage of the presence of the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil). On the 12th June, when this Bill was first discussed, the Noble Lord had on the Paper a Motion for the rejection of the Welsh Disestablishment Bill, but although he was present in the Lobby one minute before the Debate began—I saw him—and came back to the Lobby somehow or other after the discussion had concluded, he did not venture for one moment within this Chamber.
  Lord HUGH CECIL Lord HUGH CECIL rose—
  Mr. SPEAKER: When the hon. Member makes a charge against the Noble Lord the least he can do is to allow the Noble Lord to intervene.
  Mr. KING: I most gladly give way.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: The circumstances-were these. I told six or seven of my Friends that the matter was going to be raised in Debate, but I had an engagement the breaking of which would have caused inconvenience to other people; therefore, to my great regret, I was absent. I came back at the earliest possible moment, just after the Debate ended. It is not true to suggest that I was absent from the Debate on purpose.
  Mr. KING: I accept the Noble Lord's. explanation. I am sorry I misunderstood his absence. I may observe, however, that the Motion had been on the Paper for several days, and if the Noble Lord had had any real respect for his duties to his constituents he might have' made arrangements by which they would have had the advantage of his presence at the Debate. I gladly support, though for totally different reasons from those which have been given, the Motion for the rejection of the Bill. The hon.

  645
  Member for Pontefract took a line which I cannot entirely endorse. He abused this Bill as a disendowing measure which really robs a parish of its old ecclesiastical endowments. When I see a, parish with an ancient ecclesiastical endowment amounting to —2 10s. per head of its population, I say that that parish is too richly endowed, and I want to take some of its money for educational purposes. Therefore I welcome the principle of this Bill that we can take £150 from a richly endowed parish and give it to educational objects. If the House rejects this Bill its object will be attained all the same. The real effect of this Bill will not be to add a single penny to the emoluments of St. Edmund Hall. St. Edmund Hall, owing to an arrangement made before the Bill was introduced between the Hall, Queen's College, and Oxford University is to receive £150 a year from the university until this Bill is passed. Therefore the University of Oxford introduces this Bill in order to take £150 from a rural parish to save itself having to pay that sum over to the hall. Hence, it is quite obvious that if we throw out this Bill the cause of university education at St Edmund Hall will not be one penny the worse off.
  I must briefly enlighten the House upon a subject with which obviously the Noble Lord was unable to deal; I mean the real history of the Bill. I will make the story, which is a rather long one, as short as possible, but I must make it quite clear. The history of this Bill dates from the time of the last University Commission, which was appointed in 1877. I have here the Act of 1877 which set up this University Commission and stated the lines on which it ought to go. In Section 22 it is provided that the Commissioners might make Statutes for the colleges and halls, and might unite colleges and halls together. Under that Statute there was actually, in 1882, a Statute made for the almost complete union of St. Edmund Hall and Queen's College. I have the Statute here, and I can give it to the House, but I wish to give only four provisions of that Statute which, let me observe, was in accordance with a public Act of Parliament, laid on the Table of the House, became law, and was operative until last year when another Statute was made. Observe that the other Statute made last year needs the ratification of a private Act of Parliament! The Statute which was made in
  646
  1882, which I hold in my hand, was made under the powers of a public Bill. We are, therefore, now trying to pass a measure which will do away with a Statute based upon a public Bill. I have not raised that point, but it is a very strong point indeed against the promoters.
  I throw out this challenge: Will they explain why they dare not come forward with a public Bill to do away with the provisions made by a public Bill? They know perfectly well such a Bill would never have obtained the assent of their own side of the House. I am quite confident myself that this principle of upsetting of a public provision by a private Act is a wrong one, and one which this House ought to watch with the greatest care and caution. I am now going to refer to four provisions only in the Statute of 1882. First of all, that Statute was only to come into full effect on the voidance of the office of principal of St. Edmund Hall, provided, firstly, that the Rectory of Gatcombe was to be separated from the principalship of the hall. Therefore that object of giving to the people of Gatcombe whole-time clergyman was already attained so long ago as 1882, as soon as there should be a new principal made. This Statute that we are proposing by this Bill is no good whatever to the people of Gatcombe. It takes away £150 which this first Statute would not have taken away. By Clause 4 it is quite obvious that Gatcombe Rectory was to be severed from the principalship of St. Edmund Hall, but no money was to be taken away from the parish. I would call attention to Clause 7 also, according to which—and which is a totally different point, but one to which I attach great importance—students at St. Edmund Hall were to get, under this new Statute, the full benefit of tuition in the college. Those who know universities know that halls are, as a rule, a secondary or an inferior kind of educational institution. This Statute provided that as soon as it came into full force at the death or resignation of the principal the students of the hall were immediately to get the full
  tuition benefits of the college. That is not attained under the present Bill. In fact, they are to be provided for as to their tuition by a totally new fund that will not be upon the same basis.
  The third point I wish to raise—and this is one which I have embodied in the Instruction which I was unfortunately unable to raise—is stated in Clause 16, which is that as soon as this Statute came into

  647
  full operation Queen's College was to have the old buildings of the hall, and therefore was to have certain properties which did not belong to them, but they were to establish no less than twenty-four exhibitions of £25 a year each--amounting to £600 a year—for poor students. Under this Statute and the Bill they are only establishing twelve. Therefore the poor students under this new Bill are to get off only half as well as they did under the old one. I, myself, regret very greatly that, owing first of all to my giving way on the Second Reading, and again under the rules of order, I have not been able to raise this question; but I most unhesitatingly say that the poor students come off much worse under this Statute and this Bill than under the older Statute. Had the present Bill, which we are now discussing, never been introduced there would have been twice as many scholarships. That is a point which I am quite sure the Noble Lord can in no way 'understand and is incompetent to discuss from an educational point of view, for he looks at the matter from an ecclesiastical point of view. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for the University will refer to this matter. I know the answer that will be made; but in my opinion you cannot get way from this fact: that under your present proposals you are endowing only half as many poor students as you would under the Act of 1877, and the scheme which started in 1888.
  One more point which also shows the real inwardness of this Bill, and the spirit behind it. It is this: that in future the repairs to the buildings and the hall are to come out of the emoluments of the hall, that is to say, that the funds which are provided by the students of St. Edmund Hall are to do all the repairs to the hall and to pay the insurance. Under the old Statute of 1882, that was all to be done by Queen's College. This rich Queen's College, which has an endowment of £50,000, is making an arrangement under this Bill to get out of half the exhibitions which it ought to give poor men, and it is driving a very hard bargain, and although it owns these buildings of St. Edmund Hall, it is not even going to repair or insure them. A more contemptible bargain put forward as a great educational advance I have not seen.
  There are aspects of this Bill which are very difficult to withstand. The proposal
  648
  that it is going to take money away from a very rich parish and give to the university which wants all the money that it can get is one of which I entirely approve. But let me again point out that if we throw out this Bill, St. Edmund Hall will not be worse off: it will be better off. Poor students will not be worse off: they will be better off; because they will have twice as many exhibitions as before. The one party that will be worse off will be the university itself, because it has to pay £150 to the head of St. Edmund Hall. It is costing, no doubt, many hundreds of pounds to promote a Bill to get that £150 for itself, not for poor students, but for its common chest. It is promoting this Bill to get out of an obligation that it owes, or rather to get money to pay an obligation which is incumbent upon it from the parish of Gatcombe. I will not say any more. I have said enough. I feel strongly enough about this matter. I feel that a matter like this ought to have had full and fair discussion.
  I am very glad to see the Deputy-Chairman in his place. Possibly he may reply on the discussion. He has been extremely pleasant and courteous to me in this connection. He accepted from me a short memorandum which he laid before the Unopposed Bill Committee on the point raised. Let me observe that there was present at the meeting of that Committee a right hon. Gentleman representing the University, and also a representative of the Queen's College, who gave evidence in support of the Bill. I was never invited to that Committee at all. I did not know that I had the privilege of attending, or I certainly would have been there. Even if I had been there I could not have given first-hand evidence as to the feeling in the university. I could not have spoken as to the poor students. I could only have pointed to the Statute and the various Acts of Parliament which are affected. I could not have given sworn evidence or first-hand evidence in the way the promoters of this BM' were allowed to put their evidence. It was not the fault of the Deputy-Chairman. It was the fault of the procedure. I do most earnestly affirm that if hon. Members go really into this question, as I have taken the trouble to go into it, they will see there is not a shadow of ground for any real bargain under the provisions of this Bill, and the House would do well to throw it out this Session, and to let it

  649
  come up again next Session. Therefore, sorry as I am to oppose a Bill containing the principle of disendowment, I shall certainly go into the Lobby against the Third Reading of this Bill.
  Mr. MORRELL: I am rather surprised that the right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for the University of Oxford (Sir William Anson) did not rise to reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, who has just sat down, but my object in rising is to deal with the position taken up by the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil). Anyone who listened to the Noble Lord must have observed a certain embarrassment in his defence of this Bill. He defended it as far as I could see on the ground that it was not a disendowment Bill, and he said that the benefactor made his benefaction in a very undesirable way. He left to the University of Oxford £1,000, in such a way as to involve certain disendowment for Gatcombe. If the Noble Lord took the trouble to read this Bill, he would see he was extremely unjust to the benefactor who created the endowment. The bene factor never suggested that the living of St. Edmund Hall, half a day's journey away from the Isle of Wight, should be endowed out of it. He had in his mind that the university should apply for advowsment in Oxford or near Oxford, and that the principal of this hall should hold the living with the headship of the hall, which is not a very burdensome matter. It is an extremely small hall for services on Sundays. There is a living five miles away from Oxford held in the same way, and obviously the benefactor must have had something of that sort in his mind. At any rate what I put to the House is that under the benefaction as it stood, there was not necessarily any measure of disendowment whatever. The whole of the income from the revenue could have been expended for the benefit of the inhabitants of Gatcombe.
  What are we now asked to do? We are asked to review a. trust created, and, surely, we are entitled to ask, as my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset did ask: Is this the best way of spending the money from this revenue? Are we entitled to take this £150 away from Gatcombe and spend it upon the principal of St. Edmund Hall? What I would point out to the Noble Lord is that they are entitled in Oxford University to deal with this money in another way altogether. They might have said, "The present practice is unfair to the
  650
  parishoners, and therefore let us use the revenue for something else, and let the principal of St. Edmund Hall go on with his administration as before. "I suggest to the Noble Lord that obviously in taking £150 a year away from this revenue and giving it to St. Edmund Hall you are doing an act of disendowment. I approve of the disendowment; I think it is an excellent thing to do; I was very glad the Noble Lord did not take the point taken by the senior Member for Oxford University when the Bill was last before the House, a point which was disposed of by the hon. Member for Somerset. A chaplain must be maintained under the Statutes of the university in St. Edmund Hall whether he gets this £150 a year out of this revenue or not. I am a supporter of this Bill. I believe it is on the whole a good proposal, but I do want the House to see what are the principles involved in it.
  This, after all, is not the only college or hall in Oxford University. The Members for Oxford University represent twenty of them. Supposing every year we had a new Bill suggesting we should take part of some other revenues in order to endow the chaplain of another living or hall with £200 a year, you would then get twenty times £200 a year; and you might have Cambridge University coming in in the same way. And not only are there university chaplains, but there are Army chaplains to be maintained under Statutory obligations. Supposing this House were, in effect, to say "let us take some of the rich endowments of the bishoprics and spend the money upon Army chaplains, and thus save the taxpayers of this country." What
  would be the result? Then again, there is the President of the Local Government Board who has chaplains to the workhouses. Why should not he take spare money from the Church of England to pay these workhouse chaplains and spare the ratepayers' pocket. It is quite obvious that you are here taking £150 a yea for the benefit of the University of Oxford. I am not surprised that the Noble Lord should do what he can for Oxford University, but I do not think he behaved quite frankly in stating to the House as he did that this involves no measure of disendowment. I should think there was never a clearer case of disendowment than this Bill, and though I heartily support it, I think the House should be very careful in seeing how far it is ready to go with hon. Members opposite in these matters.
  The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS: I hope the House will shortly be prepared to come to a decision upon this question, because it was discussed in almost the same manner upon Second Reading, and the House will recollect that a few days ago I had to appeal to hon. Members not to take up, unnecessarily, time over private business, because of the serious effect on the public business in the House. I unfortunately have the delicate duty of piloting Bills through the House and securing for them a fair opportunity, and if any hon. Member tried to put himself in my place he would realise some of the difficulties which have to be overcome. Perhaps I may say a few words on the merits of this Bill, because I was the Chairman of the Committee which had to deal with it. My hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset has shown no doubt great industry, but he seems to think, judging from his speech to-night and the one he made earlier, that no Chairman of a Committee can give the attention to the matter which he himself has given to it. I think before he has been in the House much longer he will learn that it is necessary to credit all our fellow Members with attention to the business we are charged with. I made it my business to look into the matter of this Bill largely on the appeal of the hon. Member himself, and at my invitation there was written a long memorandum raising the points which he wished to look into. Every one of those points was examined in detail. I had as a colleague one of the hon. Members for Norwich, who is a Member of the Labour party, and he gave his attention to the matter from the point of view of the poor student. I ask the House at least to give the hon. Member for Norwich and myself the credit that we gave equal care to the subject as would have been given if the hon. Member for North Somerset had been on the Committee. I will not ask the House to nut it any higher than that.
  With regard to the two points raised on the merits of the question, one is the question of the poor student anti whether he is dealt with fairly under this Bill. We had evidence, we put many questions, and we examined very carefully the position of the poor student at present and his position after this Bill becomes law, and we were convinced that the position of the poor student, in so far as he is affected by this Bill, is protected, and he will be better off after this Bill has
  652
  passed. It is quite true that a small number of persons might receive a greater advantage if the policy of the hon. Member for North Somerset were adopted, but, on the other hand, nearly twice as many poor men will get benefits from this endowment under the Bill as it now appears before the House. On these grounds I ask the House to support the decision of the Committee. The other question is what has been called disendowment. The hon. Member for Burnley will forgive me if I do not follow him into that aspect of the question, which was a very interesting one and was raised in an interesting speech by the hon. Member for Bedford on the Second Reading, which I recollect very well. The Committee upstairs do not consider questions of that kind, but I may say that the real parallel with this case, and the best way to understand it, is to remind hon. Members of something which they arc all probably familiar with. When disendowment was created by a pious founder, it was at a time when the headmastership, for example, of a grammar school was usually connected with the living. In modern days all new schemes have separated functions of that kind, and we are glad to see any advance in that direction. This is one more step in the direction of separating secular from purely religious duties, and the Committee thought it was a good plan. The money was not given for the endowment of a particular living, but to the college, and the living was only the means by which the endowment was invested; and, therefore, there is no injustice done to the particular parish when, under the Bill, £150 a year additional is applied for the purpose of education. I think the House may rest satisfied that the Committee did full justice to this Bill, and T, as Chairman, can say that it is a Bill which I think ought to receive the assent of the House.
  Mr. KELLAWAY: The Chairman of Ways and Means has told us that the Committee did not go into the question of disendowment. So far as this House and this Bill is concerned, the real point of interest is the question of disendowment which this Bill raises. It is not the slightest use for those promoting this Bill to make any pretence about that. This is a matter for the partial disendowment of a parish of the Church of England. I am glad that a precedent is being. set from so distinguished and yet

  653
  so unexpected a quarter. This is a disendowment measure. The Noble Lord opposite (Lord Hugh Cecil), in the interesting and ingenious speech which he made, pointed out that this trust had become anomalous. Admittedly the trust has become anomalous, but there were many anomalous trusts in connection with the Church in Wales, but the Noble Lord was not prepared to deal with them in this way. Now we are asked to deal with one anomaly which suits the Noble Lord's purpose, but he refuses to deal in the same way with those which do not suit his purpose. Hon. Members opposite and in another place have refused to pass a Bill because they say it only deals with one anomaly which suits our purpose. That is precisely what you are doing with this Bill. You are supporting it because it will benefit your own constituency. We have a right to say that you should not deal with this question piecemeal. If you believe when trusts become anomalous they ought to be brought into accord with modern conditions, then let it be done honestly, as it is being done in connection with the Church in Wales. This is a sensational Bill, having very, far-reaching consequences, and when I first saw the Noble Lord's name behind it, I was inclined to say, what is the Noble Lord doing in that gang? On principle the Noble Lord objects to disendowment, and his view may be summed up in the phrase, "You are robbing the Church and robbing God." I think the Noble Lord has been so overcome by the opportunity of doing some good to his own constituency that he does not object to tearing up trust deeds and depriving the Church of part of its income when the benefit goes to a part of his constituency. Those who take that attitude on a Bill like this ought to be a little more charitable as to the language they use towards those who on grounds of principle advocate the same thing on a larger scale. If it is right for the Noble Lord to do this in regard to his own con-
  stituency, by what right does he deny the same privilege to the people in Wales?
  Mr. DENMAN: No one speaks with greater persuasiveness than the right hon. Gentleman who has appealed to us to stop this discussion, and I wish to add my testimony to the thoroughness with which he examined the case which was raised in. debate on the Second Reading. There is one point which has not been raised. The House will remember the facts as stated by the Noble Lord that hitherto all the fee endowment has gone to the principal who has kept a resident curate. What this Bill now does is to alter that, and instead of having a person whom we had reason to think was inadequately paid he must have a rector and pay him £350 a year, and therefore we arc endowing this parish with the sum of £350 a year. We are told that the population of this parish is some 180 persons, man, woman, and child, and I venture to suggest that so large an endowment is very hard to justify when you have regard to the fact that so many curates in the Church of England are very much underpaid. I have taken the trouble to look up the endowments of neighbouring parishes around Gatcombe. Carisbrooke I find has a population of about 4,000 persons, a living of £245 and a residence with 53 acres of glebe, and Arreton has a population of 1,767, a rectory and a living of £220. Why on earth should this House deliberately endow Gatcombe with this figure of £350? That has never been defended, and I frankly do not think that it is defensible. I wish it were possible to recommit the Bill to have this question considered, because it puts us in a difficulty on the Third Reading. My vote certainly depends upon what justification there is for endowing this parish with a population of 180 persons with £350.
  Question put, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  The House divided: Ayes, 215, Noes, 56.

  Division No. 236.

  AYES.

  [9.59 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Barnston, Harry

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Alden, Percy

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Cave, George

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

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

  Cawley. Harold T. (Lancs, Heywood)

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

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Boland, John Plus

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Bridgeman, William dive

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Crumley, Patrick

  Baring, Major Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

  Bryce, John Annan

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs, Louth)

  Barnes, George N.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

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

  Dawes, J. A.

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Dillon, John

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Doris, William

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Robinson, Sidney

  Duffy, William J.

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Duke. Henry Edward

  Lundon, Thomas

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

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

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Lynch. A. A.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  McGhee, Richard

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

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Maclean, Donald

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

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

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Fenwick. Rt. Hon. Charles

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Sandys, G. J.

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Ffrench, Peter

  Manfield, Harry

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Field, William

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Sheehy, David

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Silent, Edward

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Meagher, Michael

  Smith, Albert (Lancs, Clitheroe)

  Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

  Snowden, Philip

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Molloy, Michael

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Glanville, Harold James

  Mooney, John J.

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Morrell, Philip

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

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

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

  Stanier, Beville

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

  Morison, Hector

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Gulland, John William

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Muldoon, John

  Sutherland, John E.

  Hackett, John

  Munro, Robert

  Swift, Rigby

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

  Harmswerth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Tennant, Harold John

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Hayward, Evan

  Norton, Captain Cecil William

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Hazleton, Richard

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  Hunan. Harry

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Henderson. Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  Henderson, Sir A. (St. Geo., Han. Sq.)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Waring, Walter

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

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Webb, H.

  Henry. Sir Charles

  O'Dowd, John

  Weston, Colonel J. W.

  Hewart, Gordon

  O'Malley, William

  White. J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

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

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

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Whitley, Rt. Hon. J. H.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

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

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

  Jones, Leif Stratton (Notts, Rushclifle)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Wood, Rt Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Kelly, Edward

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Kilbride, Denis

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

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

  Reddy, Michael

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord Hugh Cecil and Sir Henry Craik.

  Lambert. Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  NOES.

  Adamson, William

  Goldstone, Frank

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Arnold, Sydney

  Hancock, John George

  O'Grady, James

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Barton, William

  Higham, John Sharp

  Priestley, Sir W. E. R. (Bradford)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Hinds, John

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Hodge, John

  Radford. George Heynes

  Brace, William

  Hogge, James Myles

  Rattan, Peter Wilson

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Rowlands, James

  Clough, William

  Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  Sutton, John E.

  Clynes, John R.

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Taylor, T. C. (Radcliffe)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Thomas, James Henry

  Cotton, William Francis

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Cullinan, John

  Joyce, Michael

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

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

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  White, Patrick (Meath, N.)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Leach, Charles

  Whyte, Alexander F.

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. King and Mr. J. Ward.

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Needham Christopher Thomas

  Bill read the third time and passed.

SUPPLY.

  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1913–14.
  Considered in Committee.
  Postponed proceeding resumed on Question proposed on consideration of Question, "That a sum, not exceeding £443,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the War Office, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1914."
  Question again proposed. Debate resumed.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Owing to the extraordinary interest taken by hon. Members opposite in the affairs of the Church and the universities I have not very much time, and I will therefore deal with only two or three points. I should like to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that the whole burden of the song of every single hon. Member on this side has been nothing personal against himself, nothing against the way in which he is trying to help us, but rather that he does not trust us, and that there is a want of frankness in the statements he makes in his answers to questions. This want of frankness is making the country more nervous than the speeches of other people who, in various parts, are preaching, rightly or wrongly, compulsory service. If the right hon. Gentleman will tell us exactly how we stand in this country, he will find that everybody is willing to help him. We should know exactly where we are, and then the nervousness of which I have spoken will disappear, because the people will really realise their responsibility. Will he tell us what he considers to be the establishment of the Territorial Force? Does he consider the present establishment is adequate, and does he view the enormous shortage of numbers in the force with equanimity? If not, how does he propose to remedy it? That is what I ask. He inquired what were our plans? We really want to know what his plans are.
  I come next to the question of aeroplanes. I do not want to spoil the admirable speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset (Mr. Sandys), who touched upon the question in dispute as to the number of aeroplanes, but I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us how many
  658
  squadrons he has got really fit to be mobilised for war, because, in my humble opinion, it is not so much the number of aeroplanes we ought to have—although that is important, of course—but it is that the aeroplanes we have got should be effective and we should be able to use them at a second's notice. I admit he has had rather bad luck. That is not our fault, nor is it his, but if he had spoken more strongly of his requirements in the matter of aeroplanes, I believe he would have got a better backing up. As to the aeroplane loan, money is put down for buildings, for land, for transport, and for one hundred and one other things. My contention is that it should be a separate Vote, and that it should have been differently allocated. If he had a thousand aeroplanes ready for war he could not mobilise them, because he has got neither the transport nor the separate parts. If he will try and impress upon the country what he wants more than numbers is actual efficiency, I think the people would soon understand and back him up. I do not desire to diminish anything my hon. Friend said upon what I may call an almost personal question. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman thinks he will be able to demolish the case put forward by my hon. Friend, seeing that he was so optimistic during the delivery of that speech. I do not, however, see how he is going to demolish it.
  I wish also to touch upon a minor question, but it is important from the fact that it shows exactly the sort of method pursued by representatives to the War Office in this House in answering questions. I asked a perfectly innocent question intending, however, to get information on a minor point of some importance. The question was why were the Yeomany not armed with another weapon? If they are going to be armed with another weapon, what weapon would it be, and when would they be armed with it? Time will not permit me to deal with the question of how they ought to be armed. I have very strong opinions on that matter, opinions which coincide probably with the views of the great majority of those at the War Office, because I am perfectly certain the general trend of opinion in the War Office is that the Yeomanry Force is not sufficiently efficient to use the sword, and would probably make better use of the bayonet which takes less training. But a much more serious point arose out of my question, which I never anticipated, and

  659
  which I cannot believe to be true. It was this:—
  The Yeomanry are armed with swords Ian mobilisation. The right hon. Gentleman has carried a sword as long as I have, and he knows that it is a most difficult weapon to use, and it is only used in attack. We do not want swords for defending Cavalry, for that would spoil the whole Cavalry arm. There is no possibility of the Yeomanry being trained in the use of the sword during a fortnight's training. I am perfectly certain that not to give the Yeomanry their arms until the enemy are on our shores is an absolute mistake. If you are going to follow the system of not arming the troops with weapons that it is very difficult to use, and which require a lot of training, you are simply going to turn this into a cemetery instead of being a field of victory; our homes will be destroyed, and our men killed, leaving widows and orphans. That is what will happen if you pursue this policy of keeping swords in store, and not give the troops an opportunity to be trained in the use of the weapon, more especially when the men have to carry the rifle on the right arm so that they cannot use it freely with the sword.
  Dr. ESMONDE: I wish to call the attention of t he Secretary for War, before he replies, to the position of the Royal Army Medical Corps. I think every Member, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the health of the Army was never better than at the present moment. It is a number of years since an increase of pay has been given to the Army Medical Department, and I have not the slightest doubt that owing to the National Insurance Act there will be considerable difficulty in getting the best of the medical men to join the Service. Everyone will agree that it is absolutely necessary that our troops should be the pick of the profession in order that their health should be maintained in time of peace, and that the members of the Army Medical Corps should be well equipped surgically where operations are necessary. Though I cannot expect the right hon. Gentleman to make any suggestion tonight, yet I hope he will sympathetically consider the position of the Royal Army Medical Corps, so that it may be enabled to look after and maintain the health of the troops in both times of peace and of war.
  Colonel SEELY: The Debate has ranged over a large number of subjects. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken gave me notice last night that he wished to say one word about the Army Medical Corps, and I have one word to say in reply. It is quite true that the health of the troops has never been better, and one cannot but attribute it in a considerable measure to the remarkable services rendered by the Royal Army Medical Corps. It is not so very long since the Army doctor was regarded as inferior in technical and scientific attainments to members of the medical profession elsewhere. But now that is all changed, and I have it on the authority not only of those who direct that corps themselves, but of medical gentlemen of great distinction on the civil side, that the Royal Army Medical Corps is second to none in its scientific knowledge, its attainments, and its devotion to its work. Seeing that this great improvement in their knowledge has coincided with this remarkable improvement in the health of the troops, as to which I gave figures in March. I think it is not unreasonable of the hon. Gentleman to ask that we should carefully consider any grievances that they may have, and I promise to give them sympathetic consideration. To mention only one other minor point before I reply to the principal points raised, there is the point, raised by the Noble Lord (Marquess of Tullibardine) with regard to the Yeomanry and the sword. The most careful consideration was given to that question by my military advisers. They are of opinion that the plan they have decided upon is the best. I need hardly say that I take full responsibility for that decison. I think the Noble Lord will find upon consideration that the arrangements made are not unreasonable, and that in the case of the corps he commands, which is without doubt one of the very best corps that has ever been raised in this country— one may say that without wishing to pay him a compliment—they will not be seriously jeopardised by the arrangements made, and that his anticipations of disaster to the country are quite groundless. More than that I can hardly say without injustice to those to whom I have to reply upon other points.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why it is decided to issue on mobilization?
  Colonel SEELY: That is just the point. We have decided to issue on mobilisation for reasons I could give at greater length did time permit. The hon. Member who opened the Debate in a speech to which we all listened with great interest, was not quite so gloomy as on previous occasions, but he did tell us that he seriously believed the country was in great danger. I gathered that he thought our principal danger was the danger of an attack from overseas upon these islands. I may say at once that I join issue with him on that point. I do not believe, and I speak after the fullest, consideration, that that is the principal danger against which we have to guard. I shall have a word to say in a moment about the Territorial Force, but I frankly join issue with the hon. Gentleman, speaking with such knowledge as I have been able to acquire during the years I have been in office, in his assumption that Home defence—Horne land passive defence, if I may use that phrase, is our most vital need. I do not believe that is so. There are many great problems that confront us, but I do not believe that the defence of this country against invasion upon a large scale by land forces is the principal danger against which we have to guard.
  Mr. LEE: I did not say that it was.
  Colonel SEELY: No, but I gathered it from what the hon. Gentleman said. He devoted most of his speech to the question of Home land defence. I have been asked this definite question by him, and more than one other speaker in this debate: "When you fixed the numbers of the Territorial Force at 330,000, did you fix that as a maximum or a minimum; and are you satisfied when the force is not at its full strength?" I answer that at once in this way: When the numbers were fixed my predecessor in office indicated upon snore than one occasion and definitely stated in his speeches that it might be anticipated that the numbers would not often, I think the phrase was, be above 250,000. I am not going to accept my predecessor's dictum if by it he meant to say that we are satisfied with the 250,000. We are not satisfied. We wish the numbers to be brought up to their full strength, and we shall take whatever measures we think best to secure that result. But if I am asked, "Do you not consider, when your forces are so much below strength, that the country is in imminent danger" I reply that in our judgment that is not the case. The fact
  662
  that the forces are below strength is no cause for serious alarm of invasion from overseas. That brings me to the next point.
  I should have been glad, if time had permitted, to have stated fully our views on Home defence, but the Committee will appreciate that it is really impossible to do so now. I told the Committee in March that the Prime Minister had decided to appoint a special inquiry into this important matter. That inquiry is now proceeding. It has held meetings, it has had the advantage of hearing the very best military opinion, and it has the advantage of having as one of its members the late Leader of the Opposition. Its sole object is to get at the truth, and a good deal has already been ascertained that required learning, and on which action has been taken. The inquiry is not concluded, though it will be within a reasonable time, and for me to state now what measures we are to take and what rearrangements we should have to make—and we should certainly have to take measures and make rearrangements— would be impossible while the inquiry has not concluded, and to anticipate in any way what those conclusions will be would be most undesirable and contrary to all precedent and not in in the interest of the State.
  On the question which has been put in all quarters of the House as to what steps we intend to take, apart from rearrangements and reconstructions with regard to more money for the Territorial Force in order to pay the men for their loss of time, we are satisfied that in many cases men who serve in the Territorial Force suffer as a consequence of their service financially. We are satisfied that that is not reasonable. The suggestion has been put forward that we should take the money from the Regular Army and give it to the Territorial Force. I will dispel that illusion at once by saying that so long as I hold my present office I have no such intention and shall certainly do nothing of the kind, because I do not consider that our Regular Army is more than adequate to the vital needs of the Empire. It has been suggested that we should pay the insurance contributions of the men, and their employers, who belong to the Territorial Force. A memorial was most influentially signed by hon. Friends of mine, and, I understand, would have been signed in almost equal numbers by hon. Members opposite urging that solution. I am not clear that that is the best solution.
  Mr. J. WARD: So far as I and some of my hon. Friends are concerned, we signed it under a misapprehension. I meant for the time they were in training.
  Colonel SEELY: That has already been done. The suggestion was, I think, understood by most of my hon. Friends that it was to be for the whole year, the advantage being that you did by this in some way recompense the employer for the loss he sustains as well as the man. I am not clear that that is the best way. There are manifest advantages, but there are manifest disadvantages, and therefore perhaps it will be better to adopt some other method by which we could compensate the man who takes up the burden of national service for the loss of time and money he sustains by belonging to the Territorial Force. I do not wish to go further to-night as to the methods we shall adopt, but some such methods we shall adopt, and I shall propose at the proper time next year.
  I turn from the question of Home defence to the question of aviation. With regard to the matter of aeroplanes, I said to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lee) that it seemed to me that the whole controversy was uninteresting, and I think so still. The interest would lie if the hon. Gentleman could suggest that I had endeavoured to conceal the true position from the House, but, as he himself is the first to admit, the exact contrary is the case, because it was at my invitation that he and the hon. Member (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) went to see all there was to be seen without detriment to the public interest and, as he himself told us, he had access to all official documents, some of which he has misread in the most comical fashion. But it is quite clear from what he has told us that my sole object was to dispel the illusion that we have no aeroplanes at all to speak of, or only twenty or thirty, as has been suggested in some newspapers. My object was to let these two hon. Gentlemen, or any others, see for themselves what there was. My instructions to General Henderson were that the flying was to go on just the same, that no aeroplanes were to be stopped in their work on account of their visit whenever it took place, and that every facility should be given to them, and every material document, other than those of a secret nature, was to be shown to them. All that was done, and now you have the hon. Gentleman coming down here and trying to make the House believe that I have been trying
  664
  to deceive the Reuse, while all the time the House has had the advantage of all the information we could possibly give it. May I explain to the hon. Gentleman how it comes that he has fallen into error. He has fallen into error as among the documents he has received was a document showing the number of aeroplanes in flying order, under repair, and under reconstruction. I have these documents brought to me every week, and it is on these documents, one of which he holds in his hand, and on these documents only, that I have given information to the House. I have disclosed to the House the full number of aeroplanes of which we are in possession, and I shall continue to do so, so long as the House insists upon it, as I think it is their right to get the information. But I do suggest to the House that it would be wise to call a halt in making public the actual number of aeroplanes we have, not now, but for the future, for these reasons: No other nation does it, as I shall show in a moment. They take the greatest care not to give that information.
  In order to make the Committee understand how the matter is dealt with, I would say that since the Royal Flying Corps was started on 13th May last year we have bought, paid for, and had delivered 130 first-rate aeroplanes—the best we could find. Of these a small number have been damaged past repair, and many of them have been reconstructed from time to time. An aeroplane is totally different from a gun, with which the hon. Gentleman compared it, inasmuch as it has to be repaired frequently. The revolving engine is an extraordinary efficient engine, but it has this drawback—all good things have drawbacks—that every thirty hours you have to dismantle it and take it down. Another has to be taken down every forty hours, Moreover, owing to the exceptional strain and the elaborate precautions necessary in order to secure safety, tests have to be made of wires, struts, and stays. All that is going on day by day. The hon. Gentleman says he did not see them flying. Does he suggest that they do not fly? I can assure him that every day our flying men are flying over the country, and I am glad to think, with surprisingly few accidents. The Central Flying School at Salisbury Plain has a record now of 100,600 miles flown, apart from short distances, without a single accident of any kind, that is to say, serious accident involving loss of

  665
  life. That is a most remarkable record. The Military Wing have a record of 135,000 miles flown, and the accidents there have been of a similar proportion. Considering the dangers run, and the dangerous nature of the country, accidents have been less than in the case of any other country. All that will tend to show the Committee the immense amount of work that has been done. Aeroplanes have to be constantly repaired and overhauled, and at any given moment of the aeroplanes which are fit for flying—it is difficult to give a precise figure—I should be on the safe side when I say that at least 40 per cent, ought to be under supervision or repair in order that flying may be conducted in safety. Had I given orders for the hon. Gentleman to go down on a day when there would have been no flying for a week, he would have come down to this House to make a humble and ample apology, which I assure him I do not want, because all the machines then available would have been in flying order. As it was, everything went on just the same.
  Mr. SANDYS: It was quite obvious to us that everything was not going on just the same. I should like to have made that clear. It was an inspection.
  Colonel SEELY: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that he is quite wrong. It is not a fact. I have more official knowledge than he has.
  Mr. SANDYS: I was there.
  Colonel SEELY: But perhaps he may not be aware that I am often there myself, and possibly know more about aeroplanes and flying and going up than moat people, because it is my duty. However, the whole matter is a barren controversy. It became a barren controversy from the moment that the hon. Member for Brent-ford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks), whose absence from this House I greatly regret, though I am glad to hear that he is on the high road to recovery, said a month or two ago that he never suggested that he did not believe me personally, but that I was, he assumed, acting on information supplied to me by my officers. The same thing came out in the speech of the hon. Gentleman to-day, and I ventured to interrupt him at once, and was very properly called to order, but I could not refrain from at once protesting against the statement of the hon. Gentleman. He said that it wars an advantage to me in this controversy
  666
  that he had not got his own experts, and that therefore he accepted the statements of the officers.
  Mr. SANDYS: That was not the point.
  Colonel SEELY: That was what the hon. Gentleman said.
  Mr. SANDYS: I said nothing of the kind.
  Colonel SEELY: Yes. The hon. Gentleman said that he had to accept the words of the officers, and had no independent verifications.
  Mr. SANDYS: I did not draw that conclusion.
  Colonel SEELY: He doubted the words of our officers.
  Mr. SANDYS: I must protest very strongly against this entire misrepresentation. What I did say was that we were deprived of the assistance of experts, which would have been most valuable. I then went on to say that as we had not got that expert assistance we decided not to take into consideration those requirements which we first wanted, namely, as to whether the machines could fly 50 miles an hour and ascend 3,000 feet, and I said that that decision to minimise our requirements was to the advantage of the right hon. Gentleman.
  Colonel SEELY: I wrote down the words at the moment as they came from the lips of the hon. Gentleman. He accepted the officers' statements. He will find that in the OFFICIAL REPORT; and it is all of a piece with the other statements that I have acted on information wrongly supplied by my officers. I cannot tell those two hon. Gentlemen how deeply those officers resent these imputations upon them. I speak here of what I know, and they do deeply resent it. Whatever they say against me I do not mind, I assure you, but for them to assume, as has been assumed, that officers are giving me wrong information, here it is: "Wrong information supplied by your officers "— that I do protest against most strongly, and especially as to those men, of all others, who are running such great risks and doing the country such admirable service. I do protest and in future let them attack me. What is it all about. It comes to this that you want a great many aeroplanes, and if you want to have a hundred aeroplanes ready to fly

  667
  at any given moment you would be wise to have two hundred. It seems to have been assumed we have not got the number because we have not got the money. That is a complete delusion. At this very moment there are on order over ninety aeroplanes, and although there was a delay with the engines and a very large. proportion are overdue, that is so in every other country to-day. The science is so new that you have not got the number of men who can really construct these delicate machines in which the least mistake would mean loss of life. You have not got them in sufficient numbers to construct them in anything like the numbers we want. I am glad to say that that difficulty is drawing to an end in this country, and I foresee that in a very short time we shall be able to get not all the aeroplanes we want, nor all the aeroplanes I have got money for, but more rapidly than we can get them now, and of the very best type.
  I am also glad to say I have been able to make arrangements with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to accelerate considerably our aeronautical programme. I have been able to arrange for a greatly increased supply of spare parts, to which the Noble Lord the Member for Perthshire (Marquess of Tullibardine) drew attention. I have been able to arrange for completion of the squadrons at an earlier date than originally intended. All this will be carried out by the new Aviation Department under General Henderson, which I announced to the House the other day. This will be an experiment in War Office administration. General Henderson will have the staff, both materiel and personnel, and all the services connected with aviation under his supervision. As the Committee knows in other matters, the materiel, the men, the guns, and the contracts are all in different departments. In this case General Henderson will have supervision of the whole. That is the plan which France adopted some little while ago. I believe it will be best for this entirely novel kind of service. I think we are fortunate in having obtained the services of a man like General Henderson who, in addition to being a distinguished soldier, was one of the first to actually pass his brevet as a certificated pilot. We must have a practical flying officer and a general as well to supervise the whole of this complicated business
  668
  I may be asked how many men we have. Though in the matter of aeroplanes one can ask as to the different types, in the matter of men there is no difference. We have 191 officers and men in the Royal
  Flying Corps who are certificated flyers, and this time last year, I forget how many
  there were—about twenty, or something of that kind, so that the advance has been remarkable. Of these, eighty-two have passed the highest military certificate, which involves a long course of the most arduous kind. More are under training, and I anticipate that a further twenty-five will have passed this certificate in the course of the next fortnight. These trainings of officers will go on. We know that we are a nation which can produce flying men of the highest type and ability. We have a type of man who knows how to do desperate things without becoming a desperate character. That is the problem which others have had to face but which all nations have not been able to solve. It is remarkable that our flying officers have shown exceptional attainments in other directions, both intellectual and otherwise.
  I can promise the Committee that no effort shall be spared to continue and accelerate our aviation programme. I announced to-night an acceleration and the increased money for that purpose. I hope to be able next year, if I am so fortunate as to have to submit the Estimates then, to give a satisfactory account of the progress of this new science. In conclusion on this branch I would utter one word of warning as to the statements which have been madecomparing ourselves with foreign Powers. If anyone wants to understand aeronautics he cannot do better than read some remarkable articles which appeared in the "Times" a short time ago. I say
  this with the more readiness in that the "Times" has not always supported my administration of the War Office. Those articles contained a better and fuller statement than any I have read elsewhere of the progress in aeronautics in this and foreign countries. I have now been responsible for this business for about two years. I do not know who the writer is, but the articles are certainly written with more. knowledge than any others I have read. Here is what the writer says about France:—
  "The Army is credited with the possession of 585 machines. The last sentence is thus cautiously worde t for the sake of drawing attention to the fact that many figures relating to pilots or machines are entirely untrustworthy. A year ago the French Army wag

  669
  officially said to possess 208 aeroplanes susceptible of being utilised. As a meater of fact, it possessed under 100 which were fit to take the field."
  I commend that to the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Sandys) as being the opinion of one who obviously has very good knowledge of the subject. I do not say that it is true, but that a well-informed person should say that only a year ago France had less than 100 machines fit to take the field shows that one must accept with caution statements as to the number of aeroplanes in the possession of foreign Powers.
  With regard to Artillery reorganisation, the question as to numbering the batteries has nothing whatever to do with increase or decrease of the strength. It is purely a matter of the numbers to be allotted to different batteries. So far as war efficiency is concerned, there is no reason why the old cumbers should not have been retained. Artillerymen themselves objected to that, because it would have meant that batteries with an historic past would have remained in the training brigades. Therefore, we decided, in deference to Artillery opinion, to renumber the batteries. We could not make a "general post" of the Artillery, quite apart from any question of money, without impairing efficiency. I had the advantage of a conference yesterday with Lord Roberts, who was good enough to come specially to London to see me on the point, and other Artillery officers. Although I do not think they were quite satisfied with any of the solutions suggested, because any solution is so difficult. I think, on the whole, the best plan will be to adopt the solution I have announced to-day at Question Time, of allowing a nucleus or delegation of one of the older batteries to proceed with the records to the renumbered battery, and thus you will retain continuity of history.
  I think that will be a solution which will commend itself to my hon. Friend behind me, and to the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench opposite.
  In regard to the rifle I had notice that this question would be raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Finsbury. I had intended, in any case, to say a word about it. We have carried out the programme announced by my predecessor two years ago with regard to the new rifle. A thousand rifles were issued to the troops for trial. In many respects the rifle has fulfilled expectations, and in some respects it has more than fulfilled them; but in one particular, namely, sus-
  670
  tained rapid fire, the ammunition shows a failure in that excessive heat is produced. The hon. Member for Sussex had one of these rifles for practice, and brought this to my notice; at the same time it was also brought to my notice by the experiments of the troops. This difficulty is not insoluble. But it is very real, and we cannot proceed as rapidly as we intended with the proposal laid down. Apart from these considerations facts have come to our knowledge which show that there may be considerable further developments and advances in rearmament with small arm weapons. Our policy has been, and must be, never to be behind others, but in so far as may be to be in front of all others in Army matters. Our Army is so small in comparison with other armies that it should be our duty always to have the very best weapons, and I go so far as to say, the very best weapons irrespective of cost. Active steps have accordingly been taken to ensure that we shall not behindhand in this matter.
  I will ask the Committee not to press me further on this most important subject, but to accept this assurance which I now give on behalf of the Government as a whole—and the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whom I have specially consulted on this matter—that nothing shall be left undone and that no consideration of expense shall stand in the way of securing that the Army shall be provided with the very best possible weapon at the earliest possible moment. The new ammunition, that is the Mark 7 ammunition, for the old rifle has shown much better results than we anticipated, for we anticipated that there might be difficulty. We have got a much lower trajectory—which, no doubt, the right hon. Gentleman will be glad to hear of—for he rightly attaches importance to it—and we have retained rapidity of fire, and that is in itself satisfactory for the new bullet. In all respects the ammunition is quite excellent. I am glad to tell the House that that is the result of prolonged trial, for the Musketry Returns of the Army have come in, to a. large extent, already, and they show that the Mark 7 ammunition has been a complete success. When saying this I do not wish to detract in the very least from what I have previously said as to every effort being made to provide the best possible weapon at the earliest possible moment. I am prepared to satisfy the request of the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Hunt), but in view of the shortness of time,

  671
  perhaps he will allow me to circulate the information in reply to a question that perhaps he will put down?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in leaving me a few minutes in which to reply, but the time is so short it is quite impossible even to attempt to deal with many of the questions be touched upon. I shall, therefore, confine myself to what took place between the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset (Mr. Sandys). I always had this opinion, at least, of the right hon. Gentleman, that he intended to be fair, but I never heard a statement of a more deliberately misleading kind of what had been stated by an hon. Member of this House than that made by the right hon. Gentleman. He accused my hon. Friend of saying—
  Colonel SEELY: On a point of Order. May I ask is the right hon. Gentleman in order in saying I deliberately misrepresented what the hon. Member said?
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not think it should be said the right hon. Gentleman intentionally misrepresented what the hon. Member said. I think the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to say there was misrepresentation, but we should not accuse one another of intentional misrepresentation.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I bow at once to your ruling, and perhaps I may make the further apology that I was hurried in what I said, otherwise I should have put myself in order. The point is he did unintentionally most seriously misrepresent what was said by my hon. Friend. He accused my hon. Friend of saying he doubted the word of the officers. No one who heard the speech of my hon. Friend, in my opinion, could accept that as a correct statement of what he said. What my hon. Friend said was this: that instead of having expert advice which would enable them to decide whether the machines fulfilled the tests laid down by my hon. Friend and the hon.
  Member for Brentford, they accepted the statements of the officers that the machines were ready to fly, and that that was a great concession to the right hon. Gentleman. So it was, and my hon. Friend immediately proceeded to explain and the right hon. Gentleman could hardly fail to understand it that it was a concession made to him for this reason that he waived the other tests that they could rise 3,000 feet and fly fifty miles an hour. It was in that sense and that sense only that my hon. Friend said that in accepting the word of the officers he made a concession. Let me carry that a little further. The right hon. Gentleman said we did not accuse him of intention to deceive. We certainly did not; but when he claims all this was done on his own initiative he entirely forgets what happened. My hon. Friend made a challenge and he accepted it. What was it? The challenge was that there were now not 120 aeroplanes, but eighty which could efficiently fly. That was the test, and what happened? They went down and found that the total number that could fly was not eighty, but fifty-one, on a most liberal compulation. And more than that; the right hon. Gentleman said that he had 120 machines in first-class working order. What did they find? They found from an official statement that, included in that 120, were some described as damaged, others waiting instructions as to their disposal, others wrecked and only waiting authority to be knocked off. The whole of that does not prove there was intention to deceive, but it proves the right hon. Gentleman is rash in the extreme in the statements he makes in this House, and further, if in a. case of that kind we cannot accept a, deliberate statement made in that way, how can he expect us to accept any assurance made by him in other matters in which it is impossible to have a test?
  Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £442,900, be granted for the said Service."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 247; Noes, 280.

  Division No. 237.]

  AYES.

  [11.0 p.m.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Baring, Major Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Archer-Shee. Major Martin

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Astor, Waldorf

  Barnston, Harry

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Baird, John Lawrence

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

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

  Bathurst. Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Bigland, Alfred

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Bird, Alfred

  Blair, Reginald

  Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

  Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffiths-

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Boyton, James

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

  Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

  Bridgeman, Wiliam Clive

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Bull, Sir William James

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Pete, Basil Edward

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Butcher, John George

  Henderson, Sir A. (St. Geo., Han. Sq.)

  Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

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

  Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

  Handles, Sir John S.

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Campion, W. R.

  Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

  Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

  Cassel, Felix

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hills, John Waller

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Cater, John

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Ranaldshay, Earl of

  Cave, George

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Royds, Edmund

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

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

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Salter, Arthur Clovell

  Chamberlain. Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.,E.)

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Chambers, James

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Sassoon, Sir Philip

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'pool, Walton)

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Keswick, Henry

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Stanier, Beville

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Kyffin-Taylor, G.

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Croft, H. P.

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Larinor, Sir J.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Denison-Pender, J. C.

  Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)

  Stewart, Gershom

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Swift, Rigby

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

  Duncannon, Viscount

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  Lansdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Faber, Captain W. V. (Hants, W.)

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

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droltwich)

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

  Fell, Arthur

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

  M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  M'Mordie, Robert James

  Valentia, Viscount

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

  Walker, Colonel William Hall

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Fleming, Valentine

  Malcolm, Ian

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

  Warde, Colonel C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Forster. Henry William

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Weston, Colonel J. W.

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Whaler, Granville C. H.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

  Dibbs, George Abraham

  Moore, William

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Gilmour, Captain John

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

  Wills, Sir Gilbert

  Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

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

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Mount, William Arthur

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Newman, John R. P.

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Grant, J. A.

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Wright, Henry Fitzherbart

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Tate, Colonel C. E.

  Gretton, John

  Nield, Herbert

  Yerburgh, Robert A.

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

  Norton-Griffiths, J.

  Younger, Sir George

  Guinness, Hon.W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

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

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Hunt and Mr. Sandys.

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Arnold, Sydney

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Adamson, William

  Alden, Percy

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Addison. Dr. Christopher

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

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

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  674

  675

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Barnes, George N.

  Harvey. A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  O'Connor. T. P. (Liverpool)

  Barton, William

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Hayward, Evan

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Hazleton, Richard

  O'Dowd, John

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  O'Grady, James

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

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Bentham, G. J.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Malley, William

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

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

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

  Boland, John Pius

  Henry, Sir Charles

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Booth, Fredrick Handel

  Hewart, Gordon

  O'Shee, James John

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Higham John Sharp

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Hinds, John

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Brace, William

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Hodge, John

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Hogge, James Myles

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Howard. Hon. Geoffrey

  Pointer, Joseph

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

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

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

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

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Radford, G. H.

  Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Joyce, Michael

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Keating. Matthew

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Clough, William

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Reddy, Michael

  Clynes, John R.

  Kelly. Edward

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Kilbride, Denis

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  King, Joseph

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

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

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Lardner. James C. R.

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Craig, Herbert James (Tynemouth)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Leach, Charles

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Cullinan, John

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Robinson, Sidney

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

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Davies, Ellis William (Elfion)

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Lundon, Thomas

  Roe, Sir Thomas

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

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Rowlands, James

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Lynch. A. A.

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  De Forest, Baron

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

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

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  McGhee, Richard

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Maclean, Donald

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Dillon, John

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

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Donelan, Captain A.

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

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Doris, William

  Macpherson, James Ian

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

  Duffy, William J.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Sheehy, David

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Shortt, Edward

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

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

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Manfield, Harry

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Esmende, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

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

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Meagher, Michael

  Sutherland, John E.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Sutton, John E.

  Field, William

  Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Millar, James Duncan

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Molloy, Michael

  Tennant, Harold John

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Thomas, J. H.

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

  Mooney, John J.

  Touimin, Sir George

  Gill, A. H.

  Morgan, George Hay

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Morrell, Philip

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Glanville, H J.

  Morison, Hector

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Goldstone, Frank

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Muldoon, John

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Munro, Robert

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Grey, Rt. Han. Sir Edward

  Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

  Wardle, George J.

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

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Waring, Walter

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

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Webb, H.

  Hackett, John

  Nolan, Joseph

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Hancock, John George

  Norman, Sir Henry

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

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  676

  677

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Young, William (Perthshire, East)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs, N)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Wing, Thomas Edward

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

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Wood, Rt Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

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

  Original Question put, and agreed to.

  It being after Eleven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Resolution to be reported to-morrow (Thursday); Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for to-morrow (Thursday).—[Mr. Gulland.]
  PUBLIC BUILDINGS EXPENSES BILL.
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

  CLAUSE 1.—(Appropriation of Surplus under 8 Edw. VII c. 16, s. 9.)
  (1) The sum of six hundred thousand pounds applicable under Section nine of the Finance Act, 1908, for or in connection with public offices on land at Westminster may, so far as not required for that purpose, be applied to the extent of one hundred and forty-five thousand pounds in defraying any expenses incurred by the Commissioners of Works in erecting buildings and executing other works for or in connection with the museum, office, and college mentioned in the Schedule to this Act, and the said Section nine shall have effect accordingly.
  Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEY: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words, "Provided that the designs for the proposed new buildings which are not completions to existing blocks shall be thrown open to fair public competition, and that the choice of the selected designs shall be decided by the First Commissioner, with the assistance of a body of persons equally competent to adjudicate upon architectural questions of the kind, and that the architectural staff in the employment of the Office of Works shall be permitted to compete on equal terms with other competitors."
  678
  At this late hour I must ask the indulgence, even of this smiling House, while I appeal to every Member of every party to give undivided support to this Amendment. I have no desire to throw any difficulties in the way if this very reasonable Amendment is accepted. The justification for it is too obvious to require explanation. We have only to use our eyes to see the indubitable necessity of the Amendment and the principles which it involves. By this apparently innocent little Bill it is proposed to spend £145,000 of public money upon public buildings. But in the Estimate which has been prepared so far no vestige of any design whatever of elevation or of style of architecture has been presented either to this House or to the Department which is responsible for the spending of the money. It is perfectly true that upstairs it was hurriedly suggested that the designs of these public buildings, costing the State a vast sum of money, should be left to the permanent staff of the Office of Works. But what are the reasons which are adduced for this very peculiar state of things? The only reason given is that the permanent staff is a singularly expensive staff and the head of that staff is a very amiable and very estimable public official. Although there are Members here who jeer, yet the public will treat this question more seriously than they do. An enlightened public opinion, supported by an unanimous Press, demands that our future public buildings shall be more worthy of the capital of the Empire and more worthy of the great Department which is responsible for building them.
  I ask every Member of this House, even at this moment of levity, to support this Amendment. You may go to any part of London, you may go to any town and see public buildings of which every Englishman who understands anything about architecture is absolutely ashamed. I do not want for one moment to blame the present Government any more than to blame past Governments. You have only to look at the pepper boxes, as I believe they were called, on the top of the National Gallery, or, to come down to mid-Victorian days, at the Albert Hall and the Albert Memorial. There is not an hon. Member

  679
  who does not remember the remark made by an eminent German statesman when he was being shown round London and was asked what he thought of its buildings:—
  "Yes, yes. Very good, but why not place the ornament upon the top of the cake?"
  The time has come when we should insist upon every design for great public buildings being thrown open to competition. It may be said, with perfect truth, that where that has been done the results have not always been satisfactory. We know that was the case with the Admiralty Buildings. It was not because those designs were thrown open to competition that we were given that ridiculous block of buildings, but because there was no proper body to judge the designs when they were sent in. I believe that if the First Commissioner of Works would only combine with the Institute of Architects and the Royal Academy, he would easily be able to bring together a body of men who would be able to adjudicate fairly and squarely between the different designs sent in for competition. Although I cannot expect at the present moment to obtain the serious attention of the House, I hope every Member will agree that in future, so far as public buildings are concerned, the designs shall be open to competition, and judged by an unbiassed and competent body of men. Upon these grounds I hope that the hon. Gentleman who is responsible for the Government in this particular matter will accept the Amendment, and that we shall not have reason to be so ashamed of our public buildings which are erected in the future as we are of those which have been erected in the past.
  Mr. MacVEAGH Mr. MacVEAGH rose—
  Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Gentleman rise to second the Amendment?
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Yes, Sir, I beg to second the Amendment, because as far as I could hear his arguments I should be inclined to agree with them. But I am not convinced that I see my way to support him in the Division Lobby, because I do not agree with the methods which he and his Friends have adopted to secure a majority in the Division. I have here a copy of a document in the following terms:—
  "Private and confidential. Please come—"
  Mr. SPEAKER: That has nothing to do with this.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: It is a circular inviting Unionist Members to be here this evening.
  Mr. SPEAKER: It has no relation to this Amendment.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: It does not say so.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I will call on some other hon. Member to second it if the hon. Member does not take it seriously.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: May I submit that this document does not state for what purpose—
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is quite irrelevant.
  Mr. A. F. WHYTE: I beg to second the Amendment.
  This proposition deserves some consideration, and I believe the Office of Works may be disposed to accept it in view of what has happened in relation to this question in Scotland. The Office of Works refused for some time to consider the question of throwing open to competition the designs of proposed new buildings in Scotland, but under considerable pressure, both inside and outside the House, they agreed that open competition would probably result in the selection of better designs than the Office of Works itself would produce, and in consequence of that decision I believe my hon. Friend who represents that Department may be not unwilling to accept this reasonable Amendment.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: I hope the hon. Member will not press the Amendment. These are not very big public buildings, and they are not very expensive buildings, and although it is the practice of the Office of Works to throw open to public competition large and important buildings, they also retain a staff of architects for the purpose of designing and carrying out smaller buildings of this kind. The objection I have to the Amendment is that it is unnecessary and would involve considerable expense.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I am of opinion that the course pursued by the hon. Gentleman is the right one, and I could not vote for the Amendment. I believe a considerable sum of money is saved for the State by the methods which are pursued by the Office of Works, and I shall be obliged to support the Government.
  Mr. KELLAWAY: I am inclined to support the Amendment because everyone

  681
  who is acquainted with the public buildings in London knows their deficiencies not only in regard to outside design but inside accommodation. I am assured in regard to this palace in which we are met that six hon. Members opposite have been
  forced to-night to make use of one bathroom.
  Question put, "That those words be there added."
  The House divided: Ayes, 90; Noes, 244.

  Division No. 238.]

  AYES.

  [11.30 p.m.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Gardner, Ernest

  Mount, William Arthur

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

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

  Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Barnston, Harry

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Gretton, John

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Beach. Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Gwynne,.R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

  Scott. Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Bigland, Alfred

  Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Cassel, Felix

  Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hills, John Waller

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Cator, John

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

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

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Thynne, Lord A.

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Hunt, Rowland

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Lloyd. George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Locker-Lampoon, G. (Salisbury)

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

  Denison-Pender, J. C.

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Wills, Sir Gilbert

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  MacCaw, Wm, J. MacGeagh

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Fell, Arthur

  Malcolm, Ian

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.Bennett-Goldney and Mr. Whyte.

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

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

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Adamson, William

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Cecil, Lard R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Gill, A. H.

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Glanville, H J.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Clough, William

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

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

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Guinness, Hon.W.E. (Bury S.Edmunds)

  Arnold, Sydney

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Hackett, John

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Hancock, J. G.

  Ballour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Rossendale)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cullinan, John

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

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

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton. Beds)

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Barnes, George N.

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

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

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Barton, William

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  De Forest, Baron

  Hayward, Evan

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Hazleton, Richard

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

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

  Dillon, John

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Doris, William

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

  Bird, Alfred

  Duffy, William J.

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

  Boland, John Pius

  Edwards. Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Hewart, Gordon

  Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Higham, John Sharp

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Hinds, John

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Hodge, John

  Brace, William

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Hogge, James Myles

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Ffrench. Peter

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Field, William

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Rowlands, James

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

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

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Sandys, G. J.

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Kelly, Edward

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Sheehy, David

  Kllbride, Denis

  O'Donnell. Thomas

  Shortt, Edward

  King, Joseph

  O'Dowd, John

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

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

  O'Grady, James

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Lardner, James C. R.

  O'Malley, William

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Larmor, Sir J.

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

  Stanier, Beville

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  O'Shee, James John

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Sutherland, John E.

  Lundon, Thomas

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Sutton, John E.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Lynch, A. A.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Tennant, Harold John

  McGhee, Richard

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

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

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

  Pointer, Joseph

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

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

  Walters. Sir John Tudor

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Waring, Walter

  Manfield, Harry

  Radford, G. H.

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Webb, H.

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  White J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

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

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

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Meagher, Michael

  Reddy, Michael

  Wiles, Thomas

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrlm, N.)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

  Redmond, Wiliam (Clare, E.)

  Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

  Molloy, Michael

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Rendall, Athelstan

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

  Mooney, John J.

  Richardson, Alblon (Peckham)

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Morrell, Philip

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Wood. Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

  Muldoon, John

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Young, William (Perthshire, East)

  Munro, Robert

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Younger, Sir George

  Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Robinson, Sidney

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

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Question put, and agreed to.

  POST OFFICE BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for tomorrow (Thursday).

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ADJUST MENTS) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  CLAUSE 1.—(Amendment of Law as to Adjustments on Alteration of Local Government Boundaries, and Extension of Matters in respect of which Adjustment may be made.)
  (1) On any adjustment under Section 32 or Section 62 of the Local Government Act, 1888, or under Section 68 of the Local Government Act, 1894—

  (a) Any adjustment of the Local Taxation Licences, the Estate Duty
  684
  Grant, and the residue under Section 1 of the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Act, 1890, shall be carried out in accordance with the rules contained in Part I. of the Schedule to this Act:

  (b) Provision shall be made for the payment to any authority of such stun as seems equitable in accordance with the rules contained in Part II. of the Schedule to this Act, in respect of any increase of burden which will properly be thrown on the ratepayers of the area of that authority in meeting the cost incurred by that authority in the execution of any of their powers and duties as a consequence of any alteration of boundaries or other change in relation to which the adjustment takes place.

  (2) This Section shall applyto any adjust-merit made (otherwise than by agreement) under any of the said Sections 32 and 62 of the Local Government Act, 1888, and 68

  685
  of the Local Government Act, 1894, whether as originally enacted or as applied by any other Act, or by any Provisional Order, or by an Order made or confirmed by the Local Government Board under the Local Government Act, 1888, or the Local Government Act, 1894, and consequent on an alteration of boundaries or other change effected after the passing of this Act.
  Mr. DAWES: I beg to move at the end of the Clause to add the words "Provided that this Section shall not apply to any adjustment necessitated by any alteration of the boundaries of the Administrative County of London."
  This Bill is, I believe, the result of a Joint Committee of this House and of the other House, presided over by the Duke of Devonshire. It is quite obvious that no alteration in the boundaries of London could be effected without legislation, and if the President of the Local Government Board assures me that the adjustments shall not apply to any alteration in the County of London I will ask leave to withdraw the Amendment which I formally move.
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): London was not exempted from the consideration of the Joint Committee. But the difficulty my hon. Friend apprehends is not likely to arise, because if the boundaries of London were altered it would not be done by a Provisional Order Bill. Such an alteration, if undertaken, would necessarily be on a large scale, and a public Bill would have to be introduced. If my hon. Friend requires an assurance from the Local Government Board that a public Bill would be introduced I will give that assurance.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: This is a very important Bill and Clause 1 is the operative Clause. It deals with adjustments between counties and boroughs, and modifies two Sections of the Act of 1888. I want to know whether it is an agreed Bill between counties and boroughs. If it is I shall not oppose it; if it is not I think it ought to stand over so that the boroughs may consider it.
  Mr. BURNS: I can assure my hon. Friend that both the County Councils
  686
  Association and the Municipal Corporations Association are willing that this Bill should pass, and up to this moment I have not heard a word of protest from either side.

  CLAUSE 2.—(Short Title and Repeal.)
  Agreed to.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Application to Scotland).
  In the application of this Act to Scotland—
  "(1) In lieu of reference to the Local Government Act, 1888, and the specified Sections thereof, there shall be substituted reference to the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889, and Sections 50 and 51 thereof, and to the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894, and Section 46 thereof;
  (2) In lieu of reference to the Local Government Board there shall be substituted reference to the Secretary for Scotland;
  (3) Sub-section (1) (a) of Section I, Part I., and the proviso to paragraph 1 and paragraph 3 of Part II. of the Schedule, shall not apply."
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time.''
  The Scottish question was fully gone into by the Committee equally with the case in England, and the Committee pointed out that the case in Scotland presented fewer difficulties than the case in England. The Exchequer contributions do not enter into the question and in the case of the two most important burghs, Edinburgh and Glasgow, contributions under statute are made towards the upkeep of the road and so forth. Since then there has been an adjustment of boundaries as between Glasgow and the county, upon the basis of the recommendations of the Committee. I think that the Bill is just as much in the interests of burghs as of counties. There is great difficulty in getting an extension of burgh boundaries, as I have found quite recently in the case of my own municipality, and the difficulty is very general in Scotland. Though the difficulties will continue I think there is an

  687
  equitable basis of arrangement. The proposal to extend the Bill has been supported by the County Councils Association of Scotland. Some opposition has been offered to it by the Convention of Burghs. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, Hear."] That is quite true. On the other hand I believe it will be found that a good many burghs are in favour of it. I speak as the Provost of the burgh. I do not know any other hon. Member that can do that.
  I certainly say without any hesitation that it would be to the interest of the burghs if extensions of the boundaries were facilitated by the extension of these proposals to Scotland. So long as no equitable basis for extension is provided so long will counties oppose every extension of borough boundaries. Opposition in many cases is successful, and it usually costs a great deal of trouble and money. I will not labour the question because a statement of the case has been admirably put forward by the Secretary of the Association of County Councils. I may add that not only in the case of Glasgow but also in the case of Dundee the basis of the Report of this Committee was accepted. I do not know what reasons can be urged against it except that certain burghs are opposed to it. I see no logical, and, what is more important, no practical grounds, on which an extension of this Act can be referred to Scotland. The whole of the question has been exhaustively considered by the Joint Select Committee, and since the Committee have pointed out that the application of these proposals is more easy in the case of Scotland than of England. I certainly hope that no opposition will be given to this proposal; that the time of the Committee will not be thrown away, and that this advantage will be given to Scotland.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite that we most distinctly need in Scotland some arrangement of an equitable kind for adjusting the differences between those concerned in the case of boroughs applying for extensions. As a chief magistrate I have had a good deal of experience. Opposition on the part of the counties has brought many burghs to Parliament at great expense. There is the recent case of Stirling which cost thousands of pounds. They did not succeed in the end largely owing to the fact that there was really
  688
  no visible means of adjusting the differences with regard to voting and financial responsibilities. My name is down as a supporter of the Clause, and I have received a letter from the Town Clerk of one of my chief burghs asking me to vote against the Clause. I have replied that I could not do so, as I thought the proposal a perfectly proper one. As to Glasgow and Dundee, the Report of the Committee was acted upon. Extensions would be very much more readily secured in future if a basis of this kind were made; if the rule were quite consistently applied in cases of extension. I am informed, I do not know with what truth, that the Scottish Office thinks that if a Bill of this kind is passed there ought to be a separate measure applying to Scotland. I do not know whether that is true, but perhaps the Secretary for Scotland would tell us later on. I think the burghs of Scotland are extremely ill advised in not availing of the opportunity now. It is all very well to talk about a separate Bill, but it is very difficult to get a Bill through this House, and in my opinion they are making a great mistake in not availing of this opportunity to have this matter settled now.
  Dr. CHAPPLE: I support this Clause. I think it is very unfortunate that Scotland should be excluded from this Bill after a Joint Committee, having in its reference a specific question as to Scotland and having a Scottish member upon it, brought in a report covering Scotland as well as England and Wales. Upon that report this Bill is founded. The report is very lucid and comprehensive and it specifically states and shows conclusively that not only do defects exist in Scotland, but that they could be redressed as easily and simply as the defects in England and Wales. I should like to know what the Secretary for Scotland was thinking of when he allowed the President of the Local Government Board to bring in a Bill redressing evils in England and Wales and leaving Scotland out. We, do not require a separate Bill for everything
  in Scotland. When the differences are so great and the terminology is so different that it is impossible to adjust evils in Scotland in the same Clauses that adjust evils in England and Wales, then I believe in having a separate Bill for Scotland; but in this case the report shows that the difficulties are just as great in

  689
  Scotland and could be easily remedied. The remedy laid down in this Report applies equally to Scotland as to England.
  12.0 M.
  If the grievances of Scotland can be remedied by the same Bill as those of England I see no valid reason why Scotland should be excluded. It is said the burghs have not had time to consider the question. The Report was brought in in August, 1911; it has been circulated in Scotland and published in Scotland and the Lord Advocate committed himself to it and expressed the opinion that if the views of the Committee should be made statutory for England they should without doubt be made statutory for Scotland. Not only is that so, but I asked the Secretary for Scotland nearly three weeks ago whether he would bring in a separate Bill for Scotland or if he would extend this Bill to Scotland, and he said he would consider the question. Here we have a Report issued two years ago, and we have had this question discussed in the Press and raised by questions in the House, yet we are told the burghs have not had time to consider it. Evidence for the Royal burghs was given before the Committee, the County Councils Association gave evidence, and the whole thing happened two years ago. Yet we are told they require more time. What chance is there of getting any legislation at all in such circumstances? I think this a very serious thing for Scotland.
  The Report simply establishes a formula by which financial differences will be adjusted when the boroughs extend their boundaries.
  Mr. MUNRO: I do not oppose this as an English Bill, but I desire to place one or two considerations before the Committee which seem conclusive against the suggestion that this Bill should apply to Scotland. Apart from the merits of the question, I really think that this method of legislation for Scotland is highly objectionable and scarcely a decent method. You introduce an English Bill and after it has been some time before the House a proposal is made that it shall apply to Scotland with certain modifications. I have never seen a worse case than this. It consists of 153 lines and the proposal is that about forty of them should apply to Scotland. That from any point of view is a highly undesirable method of legislating in the interests of Scotland, more especially
  690
  when we remember that there is a separate Bill dealing with Scotland before the House. The burghs in Scotland have had no opportunity of considering this particular Bill. It is idle to refer to the Report of the Commission two years ago, before which Scottish evidence was given. This was a purely English Bill until four or five days ago and the result is that no burgh in Scotland has had the opportunity of bringing this Bill before the local town council and asking whether or not they think it is desirable to apply it to Scotland.
  I do not believe that a single town council has had that opportunity, and, in these circumstances, and looking to the enormous importance and complexity of the subject Which is dealt with and involved in the provisions of this Bill, I for one, quite apart from the merits of the Bill, will certainly resist any proposal to apply the measure to Scotland, and, if this Amendment goes to a Division, I shall vote against it.
  Colonel GREIG: I am quite in favour of this Amendment, because those who are interested from the point of view of county government, are desirous that the principles of this English Bill should also be adopted for Scotland. I quite admit that it is not a very draftsmanlike way of dealing with the matter, and that it would be a piece of Chinese legislation, but rather than not have it apply to Scotland I would have it done in this way. There is, however, actually a Bill on the Order Paper for Scotland alone for this particular purpose. It is a very much shorter Bill than the English Bill, and I would suggest, as a matter of compromise, that that Bill should be given a Second Reading, made a Government Order, and sent to a Scottish Grand Committee where the burghs could be heard. It could then be dealt with before the end of the Session. If we are tacked on to the end of the English Bill, I am afraid that there will be difficulties for us. I therefore make that suggestion as the most workmanlike way of dealing with the matter.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I feel sure that the Scottish Members are unanimous in not wishing to injure the English Bill in any way, but there is a good deal Of dissension among them with regard to this sudden proposal to add to an English Bill dealing with local administration a Clause dealing with local administraton in Scotland. It was only put down this morning

  691
  and I only heard of it this afternoon, and I have had no opportunity of consulting the burghs of my Constituency in regard to it. I therefore think that we ought to get an assurance from the Secretary for Scotland that he will use his best endeavours with the Prime Minister to allow us to get the Second Reading of the Scottish Bill dealing with this very question either to-night or in the near future.
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): I think that the argument that has been used against introducing in an English Bill at the eleventh hour a Clause applicable to Scotland is one rather difficult to answer. I would point out that to apply this Bill to Scotland even by the methods of the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Stirlingshire means that you take out of it three pages out of the four. This shows that the application to Scotland of this English Bill is not a very pretty piece of legislation. It is quite clear that the circumstances of Scotland and England differ so much that it is not fair to the Scottish burghs to treat them with surprise, as my hon. Friend has done, seeing that he only put down his Amendment yesterday.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: The Bill itself has been on the Paper four or five days.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I have received telegrams from several Royal burghs, and from an important city like Edinburgh, protesting against this Bill being applied to Scotland. The hon. Member for Ayr Burghs says his own burgh—of which he has been chief magistrate—objects.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: No, the burgh I have the honour to represent—Ayr.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: That ought to be a quite sufficient argument. It is true no adequate notice has been given of the intention to apply this Bill to Scotland. I congratulate the President of the Local Government Board for England on having secured unanimity on his Bill. But we have no such unanimity in Scotland. The Members for the counties are supporting it, but the representatives of the burghs are not satisfied, and until we have something approaching unanimity I do not think it would be fair to force its provisions upon them by surprise.
  Dr. CHAPPLE: It is said it is unfair to spring this proposal on the Scottish burghs at the eleventh hour, but is it not still more unfair that the discussion of Scottish matters should be delayed until so late in the Session, and that in the early days of the Session the affairs of Scotland are so totally overlooked? They ought not to be ignored in that way, and it certainly is not our fault that this proposal is brought forward at so to speak the eleventh hour.
  Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSON:I had hoped that when the Secretary for Scotland spoke he would have given some indication of his intentions to follow in the footsteps of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board for England.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Oh, yes, I will follow in the footsteps of my right hon. Friend, and when there is agreement in Scotland I will introduce a Bill.
  Mr. MUNHO-FERGUSON: When the right hon. Gentleman has shown himself as desirous as the President of the Local Government Board in trying to bring about an understanding, and as competent in taking the initiative we shall have some confidence that that understanding will be come to. But meantime under the circumstances I cannot see my way to withdraw my Amendment and I must press it to a Division.
  Mr. BOOTH: I wish to raise a point of Order. Can you accept this Clause? This Bill, as read a second time, was a purely English Bill; there has been no Second Reading of any proposal that it should be made to apply to Scotland. I submit, with all respect, that Mr. Speaker will, when this Bill goes back to the House, have to carefully consider it in the light of his ruling on this point; he will have to consider whether this extension is covered by the Second Reading of the original Bill.
  The CHAIRMAN: I think there is very good reason for taking care not to wreck this Bill on the Committee stage. In reply to the point of Order, I have to say that the title of tie Bill is a general one, but I had great doubts myself when I saw the Amendment on the Paper. It begins by offering in the second line of the Bill its adaptation to Scotland, and it is almost the introduction of a new Bill

  693
  alongside the English Bill; still, I did not see sufficient ground for saying it was out of Order.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: I would suggest to the right hon. Member for Leith that as the Secretary for Scotland realises the importance of this question, and has promised, so soon as agreement has been obtained in Scotland as in England, that he will introduce a Bill, it would be well to withdraw the Amendment.
  Sir RYLAND ADKINS: I wish to join with the hon. Baronet opposite in his appeal. In this matter we were supported by the Scotch counties, and I should be extremely sorry to be obliged to vote against anything which represented what the Scotch counties ask for. In view of the fact that, rightly or wrongly, this proposal is not at present acquiesced in on all sides in Scotland, we are wishful that the matter should be allowed to stand where it is, and we are anxious in England to stand by our Scotch friends in order to get some agreement arrived at in Scotland, and I hope the Amendment will not be pressed to a Division.
  Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSON: I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

  NAVY AND ARMY EXPENDITURE (1911–12).
  Committee to consider the surpluses and deficits upon Navy and Army Grants for 1911–12, and the application of surpluses to meet expenditure not provided for in the grants for that year, this day.—[Mr. Gulland.]
  Ordered, That the Appropriation Accounts for the Navy and Army Departments, which were presented on the 30th and 29th January last, respectively, be referred to the Committee.—[Mr. Gulland.]

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT (1911) (AMENDMENT) BILL

  STANDING COMMITTEE C.
  Ordered, That Standing Committee C have leave to sit this day after Four o'clock, notwithstanding the sitting of the House.—[Dr. Macnamora.]
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 22nd July, proposed the Question: "That this House do now adjourn."
  Adjourned accordingly at Eighteen minutes after Twelve a.m.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  TREATMENT OF TUBERCULOSIS.
  TREATMENT OF TUBERCULOSIS.
  LIST A.
  LIST A.
  LIST B.
  LIST B.
  List A.
  List A.
  List B.
  List B.
  HOSPITAL NURSES.
  HOSPITAL NURSES.
  DIVISIONAL INSPECTORS.
  DIVISIONAL INSPECTORS.
  National United Insurance Society.
  National United Insurance Society.
  Pensions (Commutation).
  Pensions (Commutation).
  Howth Harbour.
  Howth Harbour.
  Sub-Postmasters (Pay).
  Sub-Postmasters (Pay).
  Royal Dockyard (Petitions).
  Royal Dockyard (Petitions).
  Rifle Brigade (Meritorious Service Medal).
  Rifle Brigade (Meritorious Service Medal).
AIRCRAFT.
  LONGEST NON-STOP FLIGHT.
  LONGEST NON-STOP FLIGHT.
  Sale of Drugs (India).
  Sale of Drugs (India).
  Religions Troops (India).
  Religions Troops (India).
  Vaccination Officers' Fees.
  Vaccination Officers' Fees.
  Accidents (Hyde Park Corner).
  Accidents (Hyde Park Corner).
  Vaccination Standards.
  Vaccination Standards.
  Education Department.
  Education Department.
  Foreign Office Staff (Promotion).
  Foreign Office Staff (Promotion).
  Court of Criminal Appeal (Appeals).
  Court of Criminal Appeal (Appeals).
  Criminal Conviction (India).
  Criminal Conviction (India).
  Irish Industrial Minerals, Limited.
  Irish Industrial Minerals, Limited.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES CONTRIBUTIONS (CRYSTAL PALACE) BILL.
MENTAL DEFICIENCY BILL.
Brought from the Commons.

ARIGNA VALLEY RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
The consent of the Prince of Wales signified, and Bill reported with Amendments.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 12) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 22) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 13) BILL.
(MANCHESTER ORDER.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 5) BILL.
WESTERN VALLEYS (MONMOUTHSHIRE) RAILLESS ELECTRIC TRACTION BILL.
Committee to meet on Wednesday next.

ALDBAR TRUST ESTATES BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL. [H.L.]

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendment considered (according to Order), and agreed to.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): The Amendments proposed by the Committee made: The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow.

BRITISH INDIANS IN SOUTH AFRICA.
LORD AMPTHTLL*LORD AMPTHTLL rose to call attention to the fact that the Immigrants Regulation Bill, which has passed through the Union Parliament of South Africa, has received
1508
the assent of the Governor-General and is to become law on August 1, is not in accordance with the Provisional Settlement of 1911 or with the stipulations of His Majesty's Government; and to inquire whether His Majesty's Government will request the Government of the Union of South Africa to suspend the operation of the Act in order to give opportunity to such amendment thereof as will be more satisfactory to the Indian community in South Africa and less injurious to British prestige in India.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will not measure the importance of this question by the insignificance of the individual who has so often felt it his duty to address you on the subject. I hope also that your Lordships will not be misled by the fact that the Press of this country has given but scanty attention to the question. I will not venture upon any conjecture as to why this should be. I will only remark that this is not the only question of importance which has not received full and adequate attention from the newspapers. Of one thing I am certain, and it is this, that sooner or later, probably sooner, this question will compel widespread attention in every quarter unless it is very soon and satisfactorily settled. It is not I who say so. It has been said by all the responsible statesmen of this country at one time or another; and even the present Colonial Secretary has declared that it is a matter of "Imperial importance"—he could hardly have used a stronger term than that—that the claim of the Indians, the just claim of the Indians, should be conceded. I refer your Lordships to Mr. Harcourt's telegram of May 8, which you will find on page 17 of the Blue-book. I say that this matter has received very little attention from the public in this country. If I had the arts of a Birrell or the resources of a Cocoa Press I could have made a great deal more of it than the Party opposite managed to make of the "Chinese slavery" business, for there can be no doubt that there is far more occasion for national shame and national indignation at the mismanagement which has kept Indians waiting ten long years for the justice which the British Government was bound to secure for them and which British statesmen again and again pledged themselves to secure.
Let us not forget that the South African War was fought ostensibly to secure redress of the grievances of our Indian fellow-subjects in the Transvaal. That was one of the main causes of the war. The late Mr. Alfred Lyttelton, whose loss we all so deeply deplore, stated very clearly in au important speech that it was part of our ease against the South African Republic. I should also like to remind your Lordships of the memorable words used by the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, who, speaking at Sheffield in 1899, used the following language—
"A considerable number of the Queen's Indian subjects are to be found in the Transvaal, and among the many misdeeds of the South African Republic I do not know that any fills me with more indignation than its treatment of those Indians. And the harm is not confined to the sufferers on the spot; for what do you imagine world be the effect produced in India when these poor people return to their country and report to their friends that the Government of the Empress, so mighty and irresistible in India, with its population of 300,000,000, is powerless to secure redress at the hands of a small South African State."
Those were indeed prophetic words, for we now know what the people of India say of this lamentable impotence on the part of the Imperial Government. I see that my noble friend Lord Sydenham is here. He has arrived from India more recently than myself, and he can tell your Lordships, and I hope he will do so, of the deplorable and alarming effect which has been produced in India. I hope that he will tell your Lordships from his own experience how men who are not political agitators, leading men in Bombay and indeed all over India who usually refrain from taking part in public affairs, were impelled to hold public meetings in order to protest. The South African Republic has, since the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, spoke, been under the British Flag, and surely it ought to be easier for the Imperial Government to get their way under the British Flag than when they have to deal with a foreign State, even though it is a small one.
Then I hope that the noble Marquess he Leader of the House will tell us what the Government of India have reported en this subject, and what he himself has been able to say. I could quote the sayings of many other leading men, but I will content myself with only repeating the words which my noble friend Lord Selborne used at Dumfries in the year
1510
1899, and I quote them because he has a very special responsibility in the matter. Lord Selborne said—
"Was it, or was it not, our duty to see that our dusky fellow-subjects in the Transvaal should be treated as the Queen in our name had promised they should be treated?—
He was, of course, referring to the celebrated Proclamation of Her Majesty Queen Victoria.
"We were trustees for our brothers all over the world…trustees also for our fellow-subjects of different races and different colours. Was the British Government going to make its name respected and to have the pledges given by it faithfully observed? Was it going to see that the British subject wherever he went all over the world, whether he Were white or black, was to have the rights which his Queen had secured for him?"
My Lords, that was true Imperial doctrine, and it is to me incomprehensible that, after language of that kind had been used by the responsible statesmen of the day and by Ministers of the Crown, ten years should have elapsed without the wrong having been righted. Surely His Majesty's present Ministers are not, going to say that they are not bound by the pledges of their predecessors in a matter of this kind, a matter affecting the Governments of the Empire, affecting our rule, our honour, and our good faith in India. They cannot say so. Indeed, His Majesty's Ministers have renewed those pledges. I have only to refer your Lordships to a Despatch written by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, in October, 1910, in which he very clearly stated the position and took up an altogether unexceptionable attitude on behalf of His Majesty's Government.
Yes; but ten years have passed away, and those grievances which were referred to in such emphatic language have not yet been redressed, and those rights which were due to our Indian fellow-subjects have not yet been secured. On the contrary, the position of Indians has undoubtedly been worse during that period than it was under the old South African Republic. I have often given your Lordships proof of that, and I am not going to take up time by doing so again. I will only point to the fact that the Indians were obliged to resort to passive resistance and to voluntarily undergo untold suffering for the sake of these principles for which they were contending, and that a feeling has arisen in India for which there has been no parallel before. Well, my Lords,

1511
what have we to say to India? How are we to justify this long delay? And what does India say to us? The Imperial Government obtained power to settle this question eleven years ago by the arbitrament of war. They obtained the power which they had had by Convention before, but which had been muddled away. Why have they not exercised that power? Again and again they have had special opportunities of settling this question, opportunities when they were in the position of being able to make the settlement of the question a part of some bargain which our friends in South Africa were obliged to make with them. Why have those opportunities not been used? My Lords, the whole thing is a chapter in the history of the Empire over which, perhaps, it is best to draw a veil.
On this occasion we had better confine our attention to the actual present situation. The position is this. The British Government have declared that certain things must be done, and those things have not been done. The Government have accepted this Immigrants Regulation Act which does not fulfil the conditions without which they said that no solution of the problem would be acceptable. I beg your Lordships' attention to the facts, which I will state as briefly as possible. Let us once more go back to the noble Marquess's Despatch of October 7, 1910, which is to be found in Cd. 5579, and which, as I just said, clearly defined the position of His Majesty's Government. The noble Marquess, after expressing the opinion that it would be best to treat the whole of the Union as one immigration area, wrote as follows—
"I ought to add that any solution that prejudices or weakens the present position of Indians in the Cape Colony and Natal would not be acceptable to His Majesty's Government."
Those are the words on which I pin my faith. Nothing could be more explicit. Those words embody the policy which the Indian community in South Africa have been contending for and which their friends in this country are advocating. It may be briefly summarised as the removal of a racial bar and the maintenance of existing rights. That is all they have been asking for. They are not asking for votes or political rights, or for any things which it is not possible in the circumstances of South Africa to give them. They are
1512
merely asking that they should not be treated as an inferior race, and that the rights which they have hitherto enjoyed for many years past should be preserved to them and not taken away. That is the policy to which my noble friend Lord Selborne committed himself. He said very clearly that while he felt obliged to advocate the restriction of immigration into South Africa—and the Indians themselves have never wavered in their opinion that that is necessary and that they must acquiesce in it—he was determined that the Indians in South Africa should be treated as well as possible and should not be deprived of any of their rights.
The next point is what is called the Provisional settlement of 1911. This miserable passive resistance movement had gone on for very nearly four years. It had become a scandal which the South African Government could not ignore. It had aroused the bitterest indignation in India, and it was a disgrace to the whole Empire. A Bill to remedy the grievances and to fulfil the former pledges of the South African Government had been introduced, but it proved to be unsatisfactory and was withdrawn. It then became necessary to bring about an armistice with the Indian leaders, and a correspondence took place between Mr. Gandhi, the devoted patriot who is at the head of the Indian community in South Africa, and General Smuts, the Minister of the Interior. I should like to call your Lordships' attention incidentally to the fact that the whole of that correspondence—indeed very essential parts of it—has not been published in the former Blue-book No. 6283. Anyhow, in this correspondence a provisional settlement was arrived at, and the terms were as follows—(1) that legislation should be passed in the next session repealing Act 2 of 1907, subject to the reservation of the rights of minor children; (2) that there should be no racial bar in any future legislation for the whole of the Union; (3) that existing rights should be maintained; and (4) that there should be an amnesty for passive resisters. The two essential points are the removal of a racial bar and the maintenance of existing rights. Passive resistance was accordingly suspended, and a second Bill was introduced into the Union Parliament, but it was not passed in the next session, nor did it fulfil the essential conditions. The Bill was eventually withdrawn.
A third Bill was introduced this year under the title of the Immigrants Regulation Bill, the Bill to which this Blue-book refers. It was introduced on April 14, passed on June 13, and received the assent of the Governor-General on the following day. This Act comes into force on August 1, but under the South Africa Act, Section 65 (2), the King may disallow any law within one year after it has been assented to by the Governor-General. This Act, which will come into force the day after to-morrow, fails to carry out the agreement which was made in the Provisional Settlement, and fails to fulfil those conditions which His Majesty's Government have repeatedly and explicitly declared to be essential. What I want to know is, Why have His Majesty's Government given way? Why have they not stuck to the conditions which they declared to be essential? Why was the Governor-General allowed to assent to this Bill the very moment it passed through its final stage without any opportunity being given to the Imperial Government, who are equally concerned, to make sure that the provisions were satisfactory? Why was the Bill not reserved, as it might well have been under the South African Act, for the consent of the King? And what have His Majesty's Government got to say to India in order to explain the fact which they themselves admit, that the Act cannot be entirely satisfactory to the Indian community? Those are the questions which I hope the noble Marquess will be able to answer. But I regret very much that the answer is to come from the Leader of the House. He is, of course, not personally responsible in this matter. On the contrary, the Blue-book reveals that the noble Marquess has shown much anxious concern for a fair settlement of this question from his position as Secretary of State for India. I wish, therefore, it did not fall to his lot to apologise for the other Department.
My Lords, what will His Majesty's Government do if passive resistance is renewed, for that is a contingency which must certainly be taken into account? How are you going to meet the untold scandal which will be created if there should be a renewal of passive resistance? The answer which the noble Marquess will give me cannot possibly be that the conditions have been fulfilled and that the grievances have been redressed, for all the
1514
proofs are to the contrary. I certainly cannot get that answer from the noble Marquess, who, if I read the correspondence aright, has himself entertained grave doubts as to whether the settlement was satisfactory or not. But let me give your Lordships proof of what I have just asserted. I say a racial bar is still maintained in regard to the Free State, for under Section 7 of the Act Asiatics alone, not any other people but only Asiatics, will be required to make a declaration on entering the Free State which is humiliating to them, absolutely unnecessary for the purpose which the Free-Staters have in view, and, in fact, an entirely wanton imposition. It may be replied that this is a small matter, that it is a mere handful who ever wish to enter the Free State. But, my Lords, it does not matter how small the evasion of a principle may be if the principle is evaded at all. It is exactly analogous to any crime or offence. The theft of twopence is just as reprehensible as a theft, of £5, and if you once concede that it is not an absolute principle that there is to be no racial bar, you have no security that a racial bar will not be introduced in future legislation. And there is further legislation in prospect in the near future in which there will be every temptation to widen the rent which has been made by the small wedge of the Free State, and once more introduce this racial bar in respect of which our Indian fellow-subjects have contended so long and suffered so deeply.
I say, further, that existing rights have not been maintained, and I say so because in the first place the right of South African-born Indians to enter the Cape, a right they have always enjoyed without question, has been taken away. This will be seen if Section 5 (e) is compared with the proviso at the end of the same clause. I do not think there can be any question about it. Secondly, the right of domicile after three years' residence without indenture, which has hitherto been enjoyed by the Indians of Natal, has also been taken away. This has been effected by the definition of the term "domicile" in Section 30 of the Act. Thirdly, the right of appeal to the Supreme Court has been "prejudiced and weakened"—to use the language of the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe—so far as Cape Indians are concerned. The Indians of the Cape have hitherto enjoyed an appeal on facts as well

1515
as on law, but this right has been lowered to the standard of Natal and has been reduced to an appeal on law only. So much for the two essential conditions.
But the Act is unsatisfactory in other respects. For instance, it makes no provision for the recognition of marriages solemnised in South Africa according to Hindu and Mahomedan rights. Here I should like to ask why the Despatch of the Secretary of State, dated March 14, on this most important subject—I need hardly explain or dwell upon the importance of this marriage question—was not printed in the Blue-book. If your Lordships will refer to page 16 of the Blue-book you will see a footnote to the effect that it was not, printed. Again there appears to have been a letter from the India Office, sent, no doubt, by direction of the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, a letter dated March 12, which seems also to have referred to this question but which is not printed. I refer your Lordships to page 24 of the Blue-book. Another unsatisfactory feature of the present position is that the £3 Poll Tax has not been abolished, in spite of a very clear understanding, indeed a definite promise, that this should be done. The promise was clearly made to Mr. Gokhale, a member of the Council of the Viceroy of India, who, as your Lordships will remember, undertook a most public-spirited and patriotic mission on his own account to South Africa in order to try and arbitrate on this question. He had no official status, but he went with the blessing of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, who did everything to facilitate his journey and recommended him to Ministers in South Africa. He was received by them with kindness and hospitality and courtesy, which greatly encouraged those who are advocating the cause of our Indian fellow-subjects, and he was able to go on to India and hold out hopes that the question would be settled. The Ministers in South Africa definitely promised Mr. Gokhale that this £3 Poll Tax should be repealed, and Ministers told the Governor-General that they had given him this promise. If your Lordships want a proof, I refer to telegram No. 2 in the Blue-book, which seems, in spite of any omissions that may have been made in the editing, to refer to that point. The Bill for this purpose which was introduced into the Union Parliament and immediately dropped only applied to women, whereas the
1516
promise to repeal the tax was that it should be of general application.
The fact is that this Poll Tax is required as an instrument for driving Indian labourers into reindenture, and from that point of view, if there is any sincerity at all about politicians, it ought to be utterly abhorrent to those who professed to be scandalised by what they called "Chinese slavery." The Tax is worth only £10,000 to the South African Government. The number who are liable to pay it is 20,000 and of that number only 3,000 ever manage to pay it and that with the greatest difficulty. The rest are far too poor to raise the sum of £3, and I leave your Lordships to imagine how they avoid payment and escape imprisonment. It is well known to those who are acquainted with South Africa. Those who have read the Blue-book cannot fail to be struck by the fact that the Imperial Government took very little trouble about this matter in spite of all our anxieties in regard to India, in spite of all the scandals of passive resistance, in spite of all the protests which they have received not only in Parliament but also outside. If you will refer to page 17 of the Blue-book you will see that the present Secretary of State for the Colonies sent a telegram on May 8, a telegram which is very curiously worded. In regard to that telegram I should like the noble Marquess, if he is in a position to do so, to tell me how it came about that there were any doubts in South Africa in regard to the attitude of His Majesty's Government. How could it be that there were any doubts? What business had the Colonial Office to allow any doubts to exist? If there had been no doubts—and this is certain—the matter would have been settled very differently. There was a body of men in the Union Parliament who were thoroughly alive to the Imperial aspect of this question and were doing their best to maintain intact the principle of avoiding a racial bar, but men in South Africa cannot be expected to run Party risks—and we all know in this country what Party risks are—if they think that the Imperial Government are not really in earnest, and if the attitude of the Imperial Government is such as to make doubts as to their state of mind at all possible. It was the Members of the Opposition in the Union Parliament who proposed the Amendments which have made the

1517
Bill at all possible, and none of these Amendments were suggested from the Colonial Office. The Colonial Office does not seem to have watched the Bill when it was in course of progress; it does not seem to have offered any guidance or advice; and, finally, it does not seem to have even taken the trouble to examine the Bill when it had passed through its final stages.
Mr. Harcourt, in his telegram of May 8, declares that the matter is of Imperial importance, and admits that the present position of Indians is extremely unsatisfactory. He repeats that differentiation before the law must be abolished without further postponement. All that is good enough; but he goes on to add that "Indian opinion cannot be expected to be wholly satisfied by the present Bill." My Lords, he knew, then, that Indian opinion could not be satisfied by this Bill. It is evident that there must be omissions in the Bluebook. The protests made by the Indian community, I fancy, are not fully reported. But knowing that, why did he say that the Imperial Government were prepared to accept the Bill as a settlement? And worst of all, why did he accept it before he was even acquainted with the text of the Bill as amended in Committee? If your Lordships will look to the chronology of the Blue-book you will see that that is the case. His telegram saying that the Government accepted this Bill as a final settlement was sent before the Bill was amended in Committee and certainly before the final text reached this country, and that in spite of the fact that he had received a telegram saying that there was a clear understanding that Amendments were to be made in Committee. He had every right and opportunity to ask for delay in order to examine the text of the Bill from the point of view of our Imperial obligations. Why, then, should be allow the Governor-General to give assent on the very day after the Bill had passed? And, finally, what requires a great deal of explanation is why the Governor-General did not telegraph the protest of the British Indian community. If your Lordships will look at No. 19, dated May 7—that is the day before Mr. Harcourt's telegram was sent—page 26, you will see that there was a very strong and forcible resolution passed by the British Indian community at a meeting, which resolution was communicated to
1518
the Governor-General, who only sent it home by post. He surely ought, if he was at all alive to the duties of the Imperial Government and to his duties as a representative of the Imperial Government, to have telegraphed home an expression of opinion of such immense moment. My Lords, the whole attitude of, I will not say His Majesty's Government, but of the Colonial Secretary as revealed by the Blue-book is one of "We do not want to be bothered any longer with this question."
There is no sign whatever of any conception on the part of the Colonial Secretary of his duty as an Imperial Minister. A great deal can be clone at once without actual further legislation in South Africa, and I happen to know that loyal attempts at arriving at a compromise are being made at this moment. But to help those attempts, to help those on the spot who can further compromise, it is absolutely necessary to show that the Imperial Government is not satisfied, that the Imperial Government is really concerned for our good name and prestige in India, and that the Imperial Government is not regardless of the honour and credit of British rule. I hope I shall not be given the answer, the rotten answer, that this is a self-governing Colony, and that we cannot interfere in the domestic affairs of South Africa. That answer won't wash with anybody nowadays, because the people in this country have seen that the South African Government cannot even maintain law and order without the assistance of British troops. And as for saying that it is a domestic affair, I only call to witness the fact of the feeling which this question has aroused in India, the admission of the Colonial Secretary that this is a matter of Imperial importance, and the fact that the noble Marquess has anxiously concerned himself about it. My Lords, I believe to a great extent there is fear of offending the susceptibilities of statesmen in South Africa, and if that is the case I really cannot understand it. Surely it is easier to come to an agreement with friends than it is with strangers. Surely it is easier to make a bargain with our kith and kin in the Dominions across the seas than it is with foreign nations. Would we hesitate for a single moment to tell any foreign nation, whether it be great and powerful or small and feeble, what we demanded on

1519
behalf of British subjects residing within its borders? Well, then, why should we be afraid to tell South Africa what consideration we deem to be due to His Majesty's Indian subjects who live there?
Again I must repeat that this is not merely an opinion of my own. I am only repeating what responsible statesmen have said in regard to the rights of our Indian fellow-subjects ever since this question was first raised. Cannot we tell our partners in the Empire, for that is what the people in South Africa are, freely, frankly, but firmly, what conditions would be fully acceptable to us in the matter, which they do not deny to be one of mutual concern, or, as the Colonial Secretary rightly puts it, of Imperial importance? My Lords, I do know this, and I have felt it all these years that I have endeavoured in vain to attract attention to the cause of our Indian fellow-subjects—I know this, that ten days of Mr. Chamberlain would have settled this question, but the lamentable fact remains that ten years of Mr. Chamberlain's successors have only made the matter go from bad to worse.
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, I cordially agree with the noble Lord who has brought forward this subject, that it is one which ought to be discussed in your Lordships' House because it has long been an Imperial matter of high importance. No one who has not lived in India during the last few years can realise how wide and deep is the feeling which has been aroused by the treatment of Indians in South Africa. To the irreconcilable class, of course, this treatment has provided serviceable weapons for attacking our rule, weapons which they well know how to use. They could, and did, represent the grievances of their fellow-countrymen in South Africa as proof alike of the impotence and of the neglect of the British Government. But far more important is the painful impression which has been produced among the loyal majority upon whose support we are able to count, and upon whose support we may have to count still more in the difficult years that lie before us.
I am speaking from personal knowledge and with vivid recollections of the great public meetings held in Bombay when I say that this impression, which has now
1520
ranged right across India and which covers alike native States and British territory, is a very serious matter in its bearing upon our rule and our position in India. Indians of all communities actively engaged in business, who take ordinarily no part whatever in political movements, have been profoundly touched by the grievances of which they have heard, and the great masses who are quite unable to judge legal technicalities are perfectly capable of understanding when they are told that injustice is being done to their brethren in South Africa. It is not easy, as I have found, to explain to an Indian why it happens that we are not able to secure for our Indian fellow-subjects as much consideration in some parts of our Empire as in foreign countries, and yet this is a melancholy fact.
I do not propose to refer to the early history of a long controversy, which may be traced back to the London Convention of 1884. Since the establishment of the South African Union this controversy has assumed a new aspect, and the most important document bearing on the present situation is the Despatch of the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, dated October 7, 1910, when the noble Marquess was Secretary of State for the Colonies. That Despatch deals categorically with the grievances under existing laws and plainly indicates the views of His Majesty's Government not three years ago. It points out that this long outstanding controversy—
"has led to the imprisonment of many Asiatics who are normally self-respecting and law-abiding British citizens and to the deportation of a considerable number, and it has been a source of very grave embarrassment to His Majesty's Government in their relations with the Indian Empire."
The Despatch pointedly refers to a "pledge" given by Indian leaders that as regards the Transvaal they would be satisfied if three specific concessions were made to them. Dealing with the grievances in Natal, the noble Marquess trusted that Ministers—
"will recognise the great services of the Indian population in developing that province, not only by remedying specific grievances so far as possible, but also by exerting the whole power and influence of the Union Government to secure considerate treatment of them, especially by the municipal bodies with whom they are brought into contact."

1521
While the noble Marquess commended the treatment of the whole of the Union as one immigration area, he was careful to add—
"Any solution which prejudiced or weakened the present position of Indians in Cape Colony and Natal would not be acceptable to His Majesty's Government."
The noble Lord has drawn attention to this plain statement, which has special significance at the present juncture.
At the risk of wearying your Lordships, there is one other passage which I should like to read, because it sums up the views of His Majesty's Government in regard to the question of immigration in terms which I venture to think are unexceptionable. The Despatch says—
"I need hardily repeat in this connection that His Majesty's Government, while strongly urging that the proscription by Act of Parliament of the inhabitants of one part of the Empire by another is open to the gravest objection both from their point of view and that of the sufferers, fully recognise the right to a self-governing community such as the Union to choose the elements of which it shall be constituted, and it is in no way their desire to press upon your Government to admit immigrants whom the people of South Africa are resolved to exclude. They only ask that the exclusion of such immigrants shall not be provided for in a manner which subjects them to unnecessary humiliation."
I think it is a great pity that the Government of India were not able to publish this Despatch soon after it was sent. Blue-books do not always reach India and are not closely studied by Indian editors, and this particular Blue-book was published a year and a-half after the Despatch had been written. I do think that an announcement of the views of His Majesty's Government as expressed in this Despatch, if made by the Government of India, would have done much to mitigate the resentment so widely felt. At least it could not then have been said, as it was said, that His Majesty's Government were not championing the cause of British Indians in South Africa. General Botha's Minute of December 10, 1910, on the Despatch from which I have quoted was eminently reassuring. He wrote—
"Ministers consider that Lord Crewe's suggestions in reference to the three points afford a fair and reasonable basis for action."
He concluded with the following words—
"Ministers venture to express the hope that the solution of the difficulties which have surrounded the residence of free Indians in South
1522
Africa which has been suggested by His Majesty's Government and agreed to by Ministers will be accepted as final by all parties concerned."
I fear that I have given a dull recital of past proceedings; but I want to make it clear that His Majesty's Government carefully explained what they were prepared to accept, and that there was an agreement on the main points of the controversy to which both parties might be expected to adhere. As the noble Lord has said, the Bill of 1911 failed to pass. Another attempt to legislate in 1912 also broke down, and we are now face to face with the Immigrants Regulation Bill of the present year. It is impossible not to be struck with the contrast of the treatment of this latter Bill with that accorded to its predecessor. The one was carefully examined and commented upon. It was also sent to the India Office for criticism. The draft of the other Bill was sent from Cape Town on April 9 last and passed its Third Reading in the House of Assembly on May 26. On May 8 the Secretary of State for the Colonies telegraphed that—
"While Indian opinion cannot be expected to be wholly satisfied by the present Bill, His Majesty's Government, having regard to all the circumstances, are prepared to accept it as a settlement of the Indian immigration question."
It is true that the time was short, but it was not impossible to hold back assent to allow for necessary consideration.
The noble Lord has explained his reasons for holding that the new Bill conflicts in some important points with the views of His Majesty's Government in 1910 and with the agreement thus apparently reached. I agree with the noble Lord that the provisory note attached to Clause 5 will have the effect of prohibiting South African-born Indians from entering Cape Colony. This right they now have, and it seems unfortunate that it should be taken away by law; more especially since no trouble has arisen in Cape Colony. The second point is that, under the definition of "domicile" in Clause 30, as I understand it, an ex-indentured Indian in Natal who has paid £3 tax and acquired rights of domicile under the existing laws may find himself a prohibited immigrant. It is said that another interpretation is possible; but in such an important matter there should be no ambiguity whatever. If this clause had been examined in the Colonial Office the flaw would certainly have been discovered.

1523
The main question now is whether the stipulations made by His Majesty's Government in 1910 have been carried out. I have quoted the important passage in which it is stated that any weakening of the position of Indians in Cape Colony or Natal "would not be acceptable to His Majesty's Government." My Lords, this position is weakened by the Bill which has now been passed. I do not know the precise interpretation of the words "not acceptable." They may mean only that a measure is not liked by His Majesty's Government, or they might mean that the measure is one to which His Majesty's Government would never agree. But at least the use of these words might have been expected to be followed by some protest when "not acceptable" measures were adopted by the Union Government. My Lords, we have to consider the situation as it stands to-day and to arrive at the best way of dealing with it. The cardinal fact is that the Indians have now accepted the principle of the exclusion of future immigrants. Mr. Gokhale, after visiting South Africa, informed me that he had come to the conclusion that it was useless to press for the right of free admission, and his Majesty's Government have stated that they have left this matter in the hands of the Union Government. I think that we ought not to lecture that Government on its duties to the Empire. But surely we may say to them this, "You are putting a stop on future immigration. You cannot any longer say that you are in danger of being swamped by an influx of Asiatics. This being so, is it not absolutely incumbent upon you sympathetically to treat all the Indians who have the right to live in your territories, to administer your laws with generosity, and to end the pin-pricks which, perhaps more than your actual laws, have produced the grievances from which Indians have suffered? "I believe that a policy of this kind consistently enforced would be in the best interests of the South African Union itself.
Is it not an axiom of economics that every intelligent, industrious, and law-abiding citizen adds something to the strength of the State to which he belongs? His Majesty's Government have borne strong testimony to the vitally important part played by Indian labour in the development of Natal. And is there not a lesson to be drawn from the work done in Natal? The present grave troubles
1524
on the Rand are not unconnected with the prevalence of abnormally high prices of the necessaries of life, and high prices may be due to the lack of workers or of the means of distribution. The economic progress of the Union is not so satisfactory that it can afford to dispense with any industrious workers. I believe that the flaws in the present Bill, to which the noble Lord has referred, could be removed with positive advantage to the Union if its Ministers would take a broad view of the problems which lie before them. I imagine that this Bill cannot now be disallowed; but its operation might, perhaps, be postponed by mutual agreement. It was suggested some time ago, I think by the noble and gallant Earl who was a distinguished Commander-in-Chief in India, that if the Indian Government would send one of their high officials, who would be trusted by both parties, a settlement might be negotiated. Now that the issues have been narrowed and simplified, I venture again to put forward this proposal. It seems to me that the present Bill could be amended without great difficulty in such a way as to bring about a settlement of this long and most disturbing controversy—a settlement that would be for the common good of both parties in South Africa and would heal the running sore which has too long afflicted the body politic in India.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, the noble Lord opposite expressed regret, which I fully share, that it has fallen to my lot and not to that of my noble friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies to make the official answer on this occasion. Obviously it would have been infinitely more pleasant for me, as Secretary of State for India, to confine myself, if I had to speak, to sympathetic generalities on behalf of the Indian community in South Africa, and to express my sympathy with the undoubtedly deep feelings which my noble friend on the Cross Benches has described, which are held throughout India with regard to the troubles which South African Indians have undergone. But it is not possible, as the noble Lord knows, for my noble friend to be here; and therefore I must do the best I can, bearing in mind, of course, as the noble Lord will, that in a matter of this kind His Majesty's Government can only have

1525
one policy, that policy being conditioned by the circumstances of the case. Consequently it does not, in effect, greatly matter by whom it is stated. I entertain to the fullest degree the sympathy of which I have spoken, and I entertain it particularly for this reason, that it is altogether impossible for most Indians in India who consider this question or who hear vaguely of it to realise in any degree the difficulties which confront either His Majesty's Government or the Ministers of the South African Union in dealing with it, and it is not indeed easy even for those Indians in South Africa who are the subject of the legislation to look at the matter from the large standpoint from which we are compelled to regard it.
The noble Lord opposite has spoken of the various discussions and the failures of legislation which have taken place on this question for the last few years. What he describes as the Provisional Settlement embodied three things—first, that there should not be any exclusion or discrimination against Indians or Asiatics as such, though exclusion or discrimination might be brought about by administrative means; secondly, that there should be a clean slate for those who had engaged in passive resistance owing to their objections to the laws or regulations of South Africa; and thirdly, that there should be every year an admission into South Africa of a certain number of professional Indians, lawyers, or doctors, or priests, as the case might be, whose services could not be supplied from the Indian community in South Africa itself. I should like to say that I am quite certain, to a great extent from personal knowledge, that it has been the keen desire of General Botha and of General Smuts, with both of whom I have had many conversations on this question of the Indians, and also, as I think is evident from the Blue-book, of Mr. Fischer, with whom I did not at any time discuss the question because when I saw him he was not immediately concerned with it—I am certain that there has been a general desire on the part of those three public men in South Africa to meet the desires of the Indian residents so far as public opinion in South Africa will let them. When we talk, as my noble friend did, of a broad view being taken by the Union Ministers and of their regarding the question of Indian immigration or residence from a liberal point of view and in its
1526
economic aspect, it must be remembered that Ministers there have to contend with a vast amount of personal and racial prejudice, a great deal of which they would no doubt themselves regard as unwise, although perhaps in arguing from the African point of view they cannot be expected to admit it. I should also like to say that I am certain that Lord Gladstone has done his very best to place the Indian claim in the fullest and fairest light before the South African Government and that no shortcomings can be complained of on his part any more than on the part of the Ministers themselves.
Both noble Lords who have spoken have alluded to the visit of Mr. Gokhale to South Africa. I cordially approved of that visit, and I fully hoped that its results would be, as indeed I hope they have been, good in more ways than one. In the first place, it was an advantage for a distinguished Indian politician like Mr. Gokhale to see for himself on the spot what the difficulties are of meeting to the full the desires of the Indian community, and it was not less a marked advantage for the South African Ministers; and I was glad to observe that the noble Lord opposite stated what I am able to confirm, that those Ministers received Mr. Gokhale with all the distinction and kindness which was due to his position and character. It was of the greatest possible advantage for them to have the benefit of hearing the views of an Indian gentleman of such eminence who was able to impress upon them what the weight of Indian public opinion generally is on this particular subject.
The noble Lord opposite, Lord Ampthill, called attention to the fact that this Immigrants Regulation Bill is not in accordance with the Provisional Settlement of 1911 or with the stipulations of His Majesty's Government, and my noble friend on the Cross Benches has also pointed out certain particulars in which, in his opinion, it fails to carry out that settlement. The noble Lord drew attention to the correspondence between Mr. Gandhi and General Smuts, in which Mr. Gandhi mentioned the removal of the racial bar throughout the Union as a necessary concomitant of legislation, and General Smuts replied that there should be legal equality for all immigrants, although I think he went on to qualify that by excepting mere administration front this

1527
necessity of equality. It is maintained by the noble Lord opposite that Section 7 of the Act contravenes that arrangement or engagement by maintaining in the Orange Free State the law which forbids any. Asiatic to carry on business there; and both noble Lords have pointed out that my Despatch of October 7, 1910, was opposed to any differentiation of the kind. That is quite true, and it is also true that we did desire at that time, and I should desire still if I was in a position to enforce it, the obliteration of all the provincial boundaries in South Africa for this purpose. It would be far more agreeable from the point of view of the Indian population there if the South African Union could be regarded for this purpose as simply one. But I am afraid at the time I wrote that Despatch the idea of the Union was new, and possibly we were somewhat carried away—I have no doubt that I myself was—by the belief that the result of the Union Act would be the practical elimination of those provincial boundaries. Such has not proved to be the case, either in reference to this particular Indian matter or in reference to a great many other matters. Natal is still Natal, and the Orange Free State is still the Orange Free State, or the Orange Colony as it was at one time. I do not believe that it will be found possible to compel the inhabitants of the South African Union, either for this purpose of the migration of Indians from one province to another or for a great many other purposes, to bring about the complete absorption of their various provinces into the Union. It appears as though the Orange Free State, sooner than admit the repeal of their old law, will do their utmost to wreck in the Union Parliament any design of this kind for the amelioration of the inhabitants generally.
LORD AMPTHILL: It is quite unnecessary for the Orange Free State to repeal their old law in order to adjust this matter. It can be adjusted without that.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I should be exceedingly glad if it could, and I should not at all despair of an arrangement being come to on this particular point. I think it is by no means impossible that such an arrangement might be achieved. The noble Lord opposite went further than I should venture to go, while admitting that, as a matter of reality, very few Indians have ever desired to go into the
1528
Orange Free State. He stated—I am not attempting to quote his words, but I think I am not misquoting him—that the important point was the principle of admission, and that whether Indians actually wanted to go there or not was a matter of unimportance. There I cannot quite agree, because to be debarred from going to a place which one particularly desires to visit is surely a greater hardship than being excluded from a place to which one at no time desires to go. I do not by any means, I hope, underrate the feeling of soreness which is, in my opinion, quite legitimately felt by any exclusion of a kind which can be described as purely racial, and I agree that the maintenance of this provision, although I cannot regard it as crucial in itself, is a distinct blot upon the Bill.
LORD AMPTHILL: I am sorry to again interrupt the noble Marquess, but I must venture to correct him. It is not a question of exclusion; it is a question of making the Indians who enter the Free State by right sign a humiliating declaration, a declaration which is quite unnecessary for the purposes of the Free State Government. It is not a question of excluding them.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: The noble Lord is quite accurate in saying that it is not a question of excluding them. It is a question of forbidding them to engage in particular occupations, and that, I have no doubt, they regard as quite an equal, if not a greater, grievance. When you come to the difficulty affecting Natal and the Cape the matter is, no doubt, a more difficult one, and is less likely, I fear, to be got over by compromise and arrangement than the difficulty in relation to the Orange Free State. The number actually affected is also a small one, but it might potentially be considerable. In the year 1912, twenty-nine Indians went into Natal and seventeen went into the Cape. Those were all educated immigrants, because the old laws of the Cape and Natal, which have not been repealed, maintained the education test for admission to those Colonies and forbade the admission of those who are only in South Africa by temporary or conditional residence, so that labourers actually under indenture have never been able to pass from Natal into the Cape Colony. It is true that persons born in South Africa

1529
were admitted into the Cape Colony, but there never has been any real migration of such persons from one province into another, and it is safe to assume that if there had been under the older conditions, some regulations would have been passed by the Cape parallel to those which obtained in the Orange Colony as it then was, or possibly to those which obtained in the Transvaal. But that, again, we are obliged to regard as a blot on the Bill. Although I do not think that the practical grievance can be regarded as a grave one, yet there is a differentiation the existence of which cannot be disputed.
Then the noble Lord complained of the £3 tax in Natal, against which it is charged that it does not give the right of domicile in. South Africa. But the noble Lord will remember, I am sure, that it was understood that it never did, at any rate as regards the vast majority of those subject to that tax. There was a Natal law, I think of 1895, which involved the acquisition of an annual pass for leave to remain in the Colony for all those whose indentures had expired and who were subject to the £3 tax. That is an un-repealed law, and it was understood to affect the very large majority of those who are now subject to the £3 tax. Then the noble Lord spoke of the right of appeal. In one respect I think noble Lords will agree that there has been an improvement in the practical position of the Indians in the appointment of Immigration Boards. It was a frequent matter of complaint that Indian residents were subject to the control and the possible caprice of an immigration officer who might not act on any defined principle and from whom appeal was difficult. The Immigration Boards, presided over, wherever possible, by a magistrate—and I take it that in the vast majority of cases there would be a magistrate to preside over them—surely offer an improvement upon that personal control; and although there is no appeal from those Boards on a question of fact, yet there is upon questions of law, and questions of law include, perhaps, the most important consideration of all—namely, that of domicile. So that an appeal can, at any rate, be said to lie upon a great proportion of questions which to an Indian resident are of the greatest possible importance.
The noble Lord opposite seemed to think it possible that this Act might still
1530
be disallowed, while my noble friend on the Cross Benches considered that that was hardly a practicable course. The noble Lord opposite blames the Colonial office for having stated that His Majesty's Government were prepared to accept the Bill when it had not yet been through the Committee stage and was therefore liable to some alterations. It was, of course, clearly understood that the acceptance of the Bill was in the form in which His Majesty's Government had seen it. As a matter of fact the particular points of the enactment, both those which were unquestionably an improvement from the Indian point of view and those which might be held to be prejudicial to the Indians, were carefully considered by the Government of India and ourselves; and we concluded that the balance of improvement in the condition of Indians in South Africa was such as to make it advisable not to refuse this particular Bill. I think, therefore, that the blame which the noble Lord opposite has lavished rather freely on His Majesty's Government is not altogether deserved. He argued that there have been many occasions in the past when, in consideration, I suppose, of the desire of the South African Government, or the South African Governments before the Union, to obtain some concession from us, we might have made a bargain which should have unproved the condition of the Indian community. I can understand that being a tempting course to take, but I question whether an operation of that kind is ever a wise one. I doubt if it is ever wise to force upon a community like the white voters and administrators of South Africa a policy in regard to another race which they hate and which they only accept because they are obliged; and that in the interests of the race itself; because the Government of South Africa and their officers have to administer whatever laws are framed under the policy which is adopted, and in the administration of laws it is possible to make the lot of such a minority as that of the Indians in South Africa far less pleasant than it would be under a system of law which may seem in itself to be more severe but which is at any rate kindly and sympathetically administered by those who have charge of it.
I entirely expect the Government of India and Indian opinion generally to go

1531
on urging further relaxations in the law as it will stand after this Act has become part of the South African system. It is quite right that they should; that where it is found that any particular provision operates harshly upon the Indian community in any particular district attention should be drawn to it with a view to its being relaxed. The places where the shoe pinches most under an artificial system of this kind can, as a matter of fact, only be found out by experience. It is therefore reasonable, I think, to look forward to further amendment and relaxation of this Act and not to regard it as necessarily a final charter or settlement of the position of Indians in South Africa; to express our sense of approbation of such changes as it makes as are to the advantage of the Indian community, but not to cease to draw attention to the points as they emerge from time to time in which we believe some amendments might be made. That, I am convinced, affords the best chance in all the circumstances of obtaining a satisfactory and permanent solution of this intensely difficult question.
The noble Lord opposite resented bitterly the use of the argument that a self-governing Colony or Dominion could not. be brought to book if it in any way departed from the standard which we ourselves might desire to see adopted, although what would be the precise standard which we ourselves should adopt in this country if we were liable to large immigration either from Asia or from Africa it is not altogether easy to say beforehand. The noble Lord on the Cross Benches has been Governor himself of an important Dominion, and he knows very well what the limitations are and what the possibilities are where these racial questions arise, and he, I am sure, will agree that a policy of patience, but at the same time of plodding attempts towards the improvement of conditions, is the only practical policy which we can pursue. The noble Lord opposite speaks of the injury which is inflicted on British prestige in India, and it is no doubt a most serious matter that Indian opinion should be stirred by the complaints of their fellow-countrymen in another part of the Empire. I feel great sympathy with my noble friend on the Cross Benches in his expression of the desire that there had been a fuller circulation throughout India of some of the
1532
Despatches in which the Government here stated its views and desires, but I think the best service that anybody can render to Indian opinion in this regard is not to overstate the disadvantages of the position of the Indians in South Africa, however serious they may be, but to fix rather upon real and positive grievances than upon those which, however seriously they may be felt by some, are not widespread in their operation, and which do not inflict practical injury upon those who suffer from them.
LORD AMPTHILL: May I ask the noble Marquess who has overstated the case?
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I say it is quite possible that the case may be overstated in India—I was not accusing the noble Lord of having done so—by some of those who are not acquainted with the difficulties with which the whole matter is surrounded. The valuable criticism is that, to my mind, which fixes itself upon positive disabilities and injuries from which a considerable number of persons may suffer, rather than upon isolated cases or those disabilities which involve more injury to sentiment than in actual practice. It seems to me that by far the best chance of a friendly solution of the whole question—I do not say a final one, because the word finality is, I think, not suited to the situation—can be best arrived at by a policy of patience and moderation of the kind which I have attempted to indicate.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, although the condition of this House but imperfectly reflects the importance of the subject, I am sure your Lordships will agree that the discussion has been one of great weight and moment, and that each of the three contributions that have been made to it has contained declarations of much value and significance. The noble Lord who opened the discussion, Lord Ampthill, made a very clear and forcible statement of the case, which he has often before championed with so much sincerity and vigour during the past seven years. The noble Lord on the Cross Benches, fresh from a successful career at Bombay, made, I think, a most powerful appeal, a legitimate appeal, on the ground of the feelings excited among important classes of the native community,

1533
not only ill Bombay but throughout the whole of the India Peninsula. He addressed an appeal to His Majesty's Government to adopt a reasonable and a moderate attitude on this question which I thought was very praiseworthy in its argument and eloquence. And, lastly, we have had the speech of the noble Marquess who leads the House. That speech was characterised, as are all the utterances of the noble Marquess, by a tone of sympathy, although I confess I rather doubted at moments whether that sympathy can have extended to some of the arguments which, out of loyalty, no doubt, to his own colleagues, he felt himself obliged to employ. There was a note of extreme candour about certain admissions in his speech to which I shall call attention, because practically on many of the issues he conceded the case made by my noble friend who sits behind me. In other parts of his speech there was a tone of apology which was equally significant, and if he ended on rather a doubtful note, there was, perhaps, in the concluding portions of his speech some message which may be regarded as one of encouragement to those who feel strongly on this matter, both in India and here. Each of these parts of the noble Marquess's speech I will venture very briefly to touch upon in the order in which they were delivered.
On one point I am quite in accord with the noble Marquess, that we must, of course, make allowance for the difficulties of Ministers of the Government at the Cape. They have difficulties, not only with the different States that form the Union, but they have difficulties with each other, or at any rate with those who have lately been united with them. For that an allowance must be made. I am sure the noble Marquess spoke no more than the facts when he said that both General Botha and General Smuts are actuated by a warm and sympathetic desire to settle the matter. I name those two statesmen in particular because I happen myself to have enjoyed opportunities, both in Capetown and when they were in England, of speaking to them on the subject, and I am certain that the noble Marquess did them no more than justice when he said that they were desirous of arriving at an equitable solution. That being so, how much easier ought it to be for His Majesty's Government to address to them the appeals advocated by Lord
1534
Sydenham, and which I gather the noble Marquess himself conceives to be not impossible?
What is the case as it has emerged alter the speech of the noble Marquess? I think it is a very clear and intelligible one. As Lord Sydenham told us, the field of controversy has been very much narrowed in recent years. The Indians themselves do not claim or desire more rights of immigration than those at present enjoyed. They do not claim rights of unrestricted immigration into South Africa. They have been prepared to surrender any feelings or desires that they may have had on that aspect of the case in order to get easier and better conditions of residence in the country itself. Therefore the ground of action has been very much narrowed—I think the phrase has been more than once used in this debate. But what I understand they do attach importance to now is the removal of what they continue to regard as unjust and humiliating disabilities, and what they resent is the idea of legislation pretending to be a settlement of the matter when it seems in certain respects to deprive them of rights and privileges which they already enjoy. That, I think, is a fair statement of the present position.
The noble Marquess seemed to me to deal rather cavalierly in his reply with the grounds upon which the South African Indians base their hopes. I gathered from the speech of Lord Ampthill that they attach very great importance to certain phrases in the particular Despatch of the noble Marquess himself when he was Secretary of State for the Colonies, in October, 1910. The noble Marquess made some attempt to explain away his own Despatch, and he told us that he was rather carried away when he wrote it. I must confess, ordinarily speaking, that I have never met a noble Lord who is a more effective custodian of his own emotions and powers of utterance than the noble Marquess, and it would be very unfortunate, indeed, if this single aberration on his part took place at the expense of these unhappy persons of whom he is at the present moment the official protector. But I do not think the explanation of the noble Marquess is an adequate one, because the failure of his attempt to secure the elimination of provincial boundaries in South Africa has nothing whatever to do

1535
with the particular conditions which he laid down. These are the words, which have nothing to do with provincial boundaries, that the Indians lay stress upon—
"I ought to add that any solution which prejudiced or weakened the present position of Indians in the Cape Colony or Natal would not be acceptable to His Majesty's Government."
That is a quite clear statement unattended by any qualification, and I do not think the noble Marquess can ride away from it in the somewhat easy manner he attempted to do just now.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I might explain that the special complaint made by the noble Lord opposite as regards the Indians in the Cape and Natal is that they have not free access to the other provinces of the Union. That is why I brought in the question of provincial boundaries.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I quite follow, and I am coming to the point of the Cape and Natal in a moment. The second point upon which the Indians rest their case is the terms of the settlement, the temporary settlement—I think somebody used the word "armistice"—concluded by Mr. Gandhi with General Smuts in 1911. The noble Marquess, in referring to that, omitted to mention that there, again, Mr. Gandhi, speaking for his clients, stipulated—and, as far as I know, the stipulation was accepted by the other party—for the maintenance of existing rights, again raising the point which I named just now as being the gravamen of the present case of the Indians in South Africa. Their case, I understand, is that the settlement in this Bill is not in thorough accord with the impressions they were allowed to derive from the emphatic language of the Secretary of State (the noble Marquess) in the Despatch I have alluded to, and is not in accord with the terms of the settlement which was provisionally concluded between Mr. Gandhi and General Smuts. I can only, of course, deal very briefly with the three or four points on which they allege that this departure has taken place, but I will deal with them as the matter is left after the remarks of the noble Marquess.
First, as to the question of the right of the South African-born Indian to enter the Cape, a right which has been taken away by this Bill, the noble Marquess said that this would only affect a very few persons,
1536
and I think he gave the numbers of those who in recent years have entered the Cape in this way. But the number of those whom it might affect of the South African-born Indians is very large indeed—the figures have been given to me as from 30,000 to 40,000. The objection of the Indians to the Bill in this respect is not one that is affected in the smallest degree by the question of numbers; it is, of course, an objection of principle. They think that the Act in this respect stamps an inferior status upon them, and that it takes away a right, as it obviously does—
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: That 30,000 or 40,000, I think, must include a number of people under indenture.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I cannot be certain of that, but it may well be so. I perhaps need not argue this particular point about the right to enter the Cape any further, because the noble Marquess himself admitted that it did create a differentiation and that it was a blot upon the Bill, and as I shall come presently to the manner in which he proposes to deal with the blots on the Bill I will say no more at the present moment than that we are grateful for that frank admission on his part.
The next point is the right of appeal to the Supreme Court, which has hitherto been a right of appeal on questions of fact as well as of law, but in future is to be a right of appeal on questions of law only. The noble Marquess defended this change in the practice by pointing out that under the new legislation there will be set up Boards, I think he called them Immigration Boards—
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Yes.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Boards to which the appeal on points of fact will go, appeals on questions of law being taken, if so desired, to the Supreme Court later on; and he seemed to think that the creation of these Immigration Boards ought to satisfy all legitimate desires on the part of the Indians. But I am told that that is not the case. I believe that in South Africa, as in other parts of the Empire, they regard with peculiar respect and reverence the decision of the

1537
Supreme Court, and that it is no consolation to them when they lose the protection of the Supreme Court on questions of fact to be told that a new board, a board of inferior status and authority, called the immigration Board, is to be set up to satisfy their needs.
Then I take the third point, which is the racial bar. This is still, under the Bill, going to be maintained in the Free State, because the Asiatics will have to make a declaration on entering the Orange Free State which they are not called upon to make when they enter other parts of the South African Union. That, again, may be in actual operation a small matter. It may not affect a very large number of people; but, again, although it is a small point it is unquestionably a point of principle, and I can fully understand their objections upon the matter. They are fully entitled to say, "If this racial bar which we were told was to be removed everywhere is going to be maintained in this form in this particular part of the Union, what guarantee have we that in future legislation there may not be an attempt to extend the area of operation and to subject us to more penalties of this description?" It does not seem necessary for me to elaborate this point, because the noble Marquess again admitted that this was a blot on the Bill, and this time he carried his admission a little bit further. I was glad to notice that he said he hoped an arrangement might be achieved about it, which leads me to think that it is a matter to which, as Secretary of State, he is about to devote his earnest attention.
Then there is the fourth point as to the right of domicile in Natal, after three years' residence, of the ex-indentured Indian, a right at present enjoyed, but which is being taken away by this Bill. As I understand, the case is really stronger than Lord Sydenham put it, because not only does it apply to the Indian, the man who, after serving five years under his indenture, then settles down in the country to some occupation, paying his £3 a year, but it applies to his wife and family, and it applies to all of them in a very invidious form. What does it mean in operation? It means that if the man of whom I am speaking, in the interests of his business or for whatever reason it may be, wishes to leave the country for the purpose of seeing his friends or relatives in India, or goes
1538
to any other part of the South African Union, he thereby loses his right of domicile. That is a very serious thing. And it means, in the ease of his wife and family, supposing his wife goes home to see her relations in India, or supposing he sends his children out to Bombay to be educated, that they lose their right of re-entering the country. Again that seems to me to be a very serious disability.
What the Indians feel about the matter is this. They feel, not only that they are losing a right in Natal which they at present enjoy, but they regard it as an attempt to force them back into indentured labour, or, if they are not willing to go back into indentured labour, then to drive them out of the country. That is a quite legitimate feeling on their part, and I am not surprised that they should regard it as a somewhat insulting provision in the Bill. I wish the noble Marquess had shown a rat her greater appreciation of this part of the case, which really seems to me to be one of the strongest.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: The noble Earl speaks as though this was an entirely new provision. I was endeavouring to show that it was the maintenance of a provision which may be regarded as invidious, but in practice it is not a new one.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I now pass to the attitude of His Majesty's Government on the whole case. I confess I did not think, with all respect, that the noble Marquess made a very successful defence of the attitude of himself and his colleagues with regard to the manner and the time at which the Bill came to them in this country. What does the evidence of the Blue-book show? The Bill was sent to them from South Africa, and reached this country on Saturday, April 26. Obviously nothing could be done till the next week, and presumably the officials were at work examining the Bill and then reporting upon it to the Government in the course of that week. But as early as May 8 His Majesty's Government had made up their mind, and were able to send back their approval to the Governor-General in South Africa. The noble Marquess defends himself by saying that he consulted the Colonial Office, and they were satisfied that nothing more was to be done. Why

1539
did they not consult the Governor-General in South Africa? Why did they not ask, "What is going on in South Africa? How is the Bill received? What is the attitude of the Indians themselves towards it; and what amendments, if any, are going to be made?" I think my noble friend was justified in saying that the various protests of the Indians in South Africa which took place immediately after the publication of the Bill, instead of being telegraphed to this country, were only sent by post, so that they did not get here until after the consent of His Majesty's Government had been given to the Bill without any knowledge of the feelings it had excited. I must say that that is rather cavalier treatment to have given to the Bill.
Then, again, with regard to the action in South Africa. I can well understand the desire of His Majesty's Government to bring the matter to a speedy conclusion, but it does seem to me to be rather a tall order that, while the Bill passed the Second Chamber in South Africa on June 12, the Governor-General should have given, no doubt under instructions, his assent to it, without the slightest delay, on June 14, before the Despatch giving the final text of the Bill to His Majesty's Government had reached this country. I quite agree with the noble Lord that any sense of sympathy or desire to help the community in South Africa during the passage of the Bill appears to have been wanting, and such changes as were made in the shape of amendments they owe, not to anything done by His Majesty's Ministers here, but, as Lord Ampthill said, to the efforts of certain gentlemen belonging to the Opposition in the Parliament in South Africa.
I now come to the point of what His Majesty's Government are going to do. In the first place, I am sure we shall all agree that it would be a pitiable thing if, after all these years of exhausting struggle, after the promises of settlement and compromise, after the successful stages that have been reached in those efforts at compromise, the matter were again to assume a serious form, and these unhappy Indians in South Africa were to be driven to resume that most odious of all forms of conscientious objection—namely, passive resistance. Surely we must do all we can to avoid that. What are His Majesty's Government going to do? The noble Marquess admits the blots and inequalities
1540
in the Bill. He says that an agitation is already going on and will continue to go on, and he regards it apparently as legitimate. It is a most interesting thing to find His Majesty's Government preaching to us the doctrine of the legitimacy of conscientious agitation. It is a point of which we shall take note. But, my Lords, we want not merely the Indians in South Africa to agitate, or the public at large to agitate, but we want His Majesty's Government to agitate. They are the people who have the only really effective voice in the matter. I hope I am not wrong in thinking that, when the noble Marquess talked about patient and plodding attempts to put things right, he was referring to action about to be taken by himself and his colleagues. I ask him not to be too patient or too plodding, or rather he may be as patient as he likes if he does not merely plod. I would urge a rather more rapid pace. I appeal to His Majesty's Government to realise with satisfaction in the first place that the field of controversy has been enormously restricted; and, secondly, that in the part of Africa concerned there is a legitimate feeling still existing. And I would ask the noble Marquess to address himself, if not to the suspension of the Bill, to urging the Governor-General to use his influence with Ministers in South Africa to take early steps to meet the objections and by amendment to take the few remaining stings out of the Bill.

AFFILIATION ORDERS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD: I think it necessary to say a few words in explanation of my motion to insert, after Clause 1, the new clause standing in my name on the Paper. The Intermediate Education Board which controls and directs the administration of secondary education in Ireland was created in 1878. In the Act creating the Board no power was given to provide pensions for the staff of the Board, but this difficulty was remedied by an Act of 1900, in which the following section was introduced—
"The Board may, if they think fit, out of the funds placed at their disposal, grant, with the approval of the Treasury, superannuation allowances to the assistant commissioners, inspectors, clerks, and other officers of the Board, not exceeding in amount the allowance provided in the scale contained in the Superannuation Act of 1859."
In course of time doubts arose as to the competency of the Board to create a pensionary scheme under that Act. They were entitled to give pensions to individuals, but the question was raised whether they could make a pension scheme which would be binding upon their successors. These doubts remained unsolved, and in the year 1909 an Act was passed by the Imperial Government to amend the Superannuation Act of 1859.
The officers of the intermediate Education Board who bad been allowed pensions wished to take advantage of the Act of 1909, which differs from the Superannuation Act of 1859 in this respect, that the officer is allowed to capitalise, as it were, a portion of his pension. Under the Act of 1859 the officer gets one-sixtieth of the pay which he draws per annum on retirement, but under the Act of 1909 he gets one-eightieth, but is entitled or allowed to take in a lump sum what really represents the difference between those two fractions. The officers of the Intermediate Board desired to make use of that privilege, but they were informed on legal advice that the Act of 1909 did not apply to them. Shortly afterwards they came to learn that the National Insurance authorities in Dublin were doubtful whether the Act of 1900, which enabled the Board to grant them pensions, did secure them immunity from the obligations which fell upon them under the Insurance Act. If they got their pensions, of course, they would be exempt, but those of them who did not happen to get pensions
1542
but looked forward to getting them were not exempt. These circumstances caused a great feeling of unrest in the minds of the establishment of the Intermediate Board, and they approached the Irish Government with a view of amending matters. The Irish Government recognised the substantiality of the grievance, and in the Bill to amend the Intermediate Education Act which they introduced last session they made provision precisely in the words of my Amendment. That Bill was not proceeded with for reasons unconnected with the question of pensions; but a smaller Bill, a Bill of a very moderate character, was introduced in its stead, which merely provided that children under the age of 14 should not be subjected to the system of examination which the Intermediate Board provides in Ireland.
In these circumstances the officers of the Intermediate Board approached me and asked if I would move to introduce into this Bill the clause regarding pensions which appeared in the preceding Bill but which has been dropped out in this one. On receiving the expression of their wishes I put myself in communication with the Chief Secretary, and on his expressing his willingness and readiness to allow the Amendment to be made in this Bill I gave notice of the Amendment which appears on the Paper of your Lordships' House. So far as I understood from the remarks of Lord Ashby St. Ledgers yesterday, there is no opposition on the part of the Irish Government to this proposal, and I do not think that any opposition in another place need be anticipated. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 1, insert the following clause:
"2. The Board shall, in addition to the powers given to them by section three of the Intermediate Education (Ireland) Act, 1900, have power, with the approval of the Treasury, to make a scheme providing for the grant of superannuation and other allowances or gratuities to or for the benefit of such of the assistant commissioners, and of the inspectors, clerks and other officers employed by the Board, as may be from time to time approved by the Treasury, and may out of the funds at their disposal, pay to such persons on retirement, or to their legal personal representatives on death, such superannuation and other allowances or gratuities under the scheme as the Treasury may sanction in each case, and the Treasury may determine those funds to be public funds for the purposes of the Superannuation Act, 1892."—(Lord MacDonnell of Swinford.)
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: As I stated yesterday, the Government have no objection to this Amendment. It merely deals with a subject which has been recognised as one that should be dealt with, and the manner in which my noble friend proposes to deal with it meets with our approval. As I stated yesterday, my only fear is, this being an agreed Bill, that there is just the bare possibility of this Amendment being objected to in another place. But subject to that one proviso the Government have no objection to the noble Lord's Amendment.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: I have no special interest in this subject, and I dare say it is right that these persons should be pensioned. But it does seem to me, merely reading this proposal, that it trespasses on the privileges of the other House, and that it will probably meet with that kind of reception when it gets back there. I do not understand why, if the Government did not object to it, they did not insert this Amendment in the Bill which they proposed this year.
LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD: May I explain that the pensions do not fall on provided moneys, but on the endowment of the Intermediate Board. There will be no additional taxation necessary for the purpose of meeting these pensions.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: That may be; but it diverts to those pensions money which otherwise would go to the ordinary work of the Intermediate Education Board.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: As far as I understand it, the Board have power to grant pensions. What they have not power to do is to make a scheme by which those who enter the service of the Board may know at the time they enter how they will stand at the end of their period of service. It certainly does divert money to pensions which at present goes to other purposes, but if your Lordships accept the Amendment of my noble friend it will enable the Intermediate Board to make a. scheme so that anybody may know when entering the service what they are entitled to by way of pension at the termination of their service. There is another difference, and it is this: The old Superannuation Act made no provision for the grant of a lump sum as a pension either to the pensioner or his relatives on his retirement. He got a
1544
larger annual pension, but no lump sum. The Superannuation Act of 1892 enables a lump sum and a smaller annual sum to be paid to the pensioner. It is for that reason that my noble friend introduces the words that "the Treasury may determine those funds to be public funds for the purposes of the Superannuation Act, 1892." But there, again, that involves no charge on the taxpayer; it is merely a different allocation of the same sum of money. In those circumstances I hardly think it could be sustained in another place that this Amendment would be a breach of their privileges, because it really involves no additional cost to the taxpayer. I hope, therefore, that the noble Viscount will take no objection.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: I do not in the least wish to stand in the way of the Amendment of the noble Lord being inserted here, but as it seemed to me to be a very doubtful proposition I thought from that point of view it was wise to offer a word of warning.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2:
Power to make rules.
2.—(1) Board may, with the approval of the Lord Lieutenant, make rules for carrying into effect the objects of this Act, and in particular for prescribing and satisfying themselves as to the observance of conditions upon which managers of schools may receive payment of fees.
(2) All rules made in pursuance of this section shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament within twenty-one days next after the same have been made, if Parliament is then sitting, or if Parliament is not then sitting, within twenty-one days after the commencement of the then next ensuing session, and if any such rules are disapproved by either House of Parliament within forty days after the same have been so laid before Parliament, such rules, or such part thereof as may be so disapproved, shall thereupon become void and of no effect.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: The Amendment I have to propose is consequential on the Amendment that has been accepted, and it is practically a verbal one. It is to insert the words "Section 1 of" after the words "the objects of" in subsection (1) of Clause 2. This is to make it clear that the rules which are dealt with in this clause should apply only to Clause 1 and not to the new clause that we have just accepted.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 5, after ("of") insert ("Section 1 of").—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow, and Standing Order No. XXXIX to be considered in order to its being dispensed with: Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 145.)

LOCAL AUTHORITIES CONTRIBUTIONS (CRYSTAL PALACE) BILL.
Read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Wednesday the 6th of August next (The Lord Dunmore (E. Dunmore)). (No. 146.)

MENTAL DEFICIENCY BILL.
Bead 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday the 7th of August next (The Lord Chancellor). (No. 147.)
House adjourned at twenty minutes before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.