§ Considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ [Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]
§ Clause 13:—
§ MR. ARTHUR LEE (Hampshire, Fareham)
moved to amend subsection (1) in order to provide that "every man of the Territorial Force shall on 698 enlistment undergo a preliminary period of continuous training of not less than two months in the case of the infantry and of three months in the cases of the cavalry and field artillery." He said these were far-reaching proposals, and the attitude of the Secretary of State for War towards them would be a test of the sincerity of his proposals for making the Auxiliary Army an effective fighting force. There could be little doubt that the Territorial Army under this Bill would be in almost all essentials unfit for the purposes of war. The object of the Amendment was to secure that the second line should be so trained that it could be made fit to fight within a reasonable period in the event of war. To that end he proposed that every recruit upon enlistment should have at least an elementary military training. Unless that preliminary training were given, the Territorial Army would not be able to take full advantage of the period of annual training, which should be devoted to tactical and practical field exercises. If this period of preliminary training was exacted, the Territorial Force, even if it was not an efficient fighting machine, would be a potential force requiring only an annual polish to make it more efficient, and, in any event, it would be a valuable reservoir of men trained to a certain extent upon which the country could draw in case of emergency. Another advantage of the preliminary training would be the removal of an uncertain liability, and the substitution for it of an immediate liability which it would be much easier for the recruit to accept. Uncertainty as to the future was a source of danger. It was disliked by the employers and commanding officers whom he had consulted were unanimous in the opinion that the recruit when he enlisted ought to understand he would have to undergo a certain period of training. In the Swiss Territorial Army the period of the soldier's training had been altered in the direction of lengthening the preliminary training, and diminishing the length of the annual training. That plan was more convenient for the population, and enabled them to get over the first serious liability and reduce the drain upon their time in subsequent years. In Switzerland sixty-five days training was the minimum necessary for infantry, ninety days for cavalry, and seventy-five days 699 for artillery. But with seventy-five days training the Swiss field artillery were admitted by competent observers to be not as efficient as they should be. The right hon. Gentleman had declared that we should have good artillery, and that nothing short of the best would do. In the course of a discussion at the Royal United Institution the right hon. Gentleman said the Swiss had an organised force of all arms containing artillery of which they were not ashamed. They had done that by a preliminary period of training which they thought was inadequate. The right hon. Gentleman was proposing only fifteen days annual training, with a, vague and indefinite period of preliminary training. Would the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what period of preliminary training he proposed to give? Upon what experience did he base the length of the preliminary training which ho proposed to give? The only example in this country was the Lancashire Field Artillery. But they had, in addition to twenty-eight days preliminary training, fifty-six days training every year, and 33 per cent. of their strength were Regulars. Even with those advantages he thought they maintained the minimum of efficiency which would justify the right hon. Gentleman in establishing any system of Volunteer Field Artillery for the Territorial Army. If the Amendment were accepted, they would have to face a probable reduction of the number of the Territorial Army as contemplated by the right hon. Gentleman. His reply to that was, he should face the consequences with absolute equanimity, because a small force comparatively efficient was worth more than an untrained mob, however numerous. Personally he had never had any idea what the Secretary for War wanted with this mysterious number of 300,000 men. He might have some vast plan, but he rather doubted it. He took it that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned a round number which was to cover all branches after he had finished his scheme, although if these changes were to be earned out, his round number would, he thought, be considerably decreased. In any event whether or not there would be a certain reduction in the strength of the paper force which was called the Territorial Army was comparatively unimportant. Whatever the result in that direction something of the kind proposed in the 700 Amendment was absolutely essential if the Territorial Army was to have any fighting value at all, and even if it was to have any value as a reservoir from which the country could draw for the purpose of reinforcing the Regular Army in time of war. He did not wish to dogmatise as to the amount of preliminary training to be given. He had put forward the figures in his Amendment for the purpose of argument. Possibly the right hon. Gentleman would be able to tell the Committee what preliminary training he proposed to give. If so, he would gladly welcome the announcement and withdraw the Amendment. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to enlighten them on that point.
Amendment proposed —
In page 11, line 32, to leave out all the words after 'shall,' to the end of line 4 on page 12, and insert the words, 'on enlistment, undergo a preliminary period of continuous training of not less than two months in the case of the infantry and of three months in the cases of the cavalry and field artillery.' "— (Mr. Arthur Lee.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
§ The SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE, Haddington)
said the hon. Gentleman had stated his criticism to the clause as it stood in a very moderate way. It was without precedent to put into an Act the purpose of which was to confer military powers provisions limiting the discretion of the authorities as to the standard of training. The standard of training varied very much from generation to generation, and was never embodied in detail in these Acts. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said, truly enough, that ho had put down two months and three months as a basis of criticism and as a standard which he thought would be a proper standard. It must be remembered, first of all, that this was a force primarily for home defence, and that it consisted of people who were giving their services on a purely voluntary basis. The Amendment implied that no cavalry force was worth anything unless it had had a training of three months' continuous work. Would the right hon. Member for Dover endorse that? A great deal had been heard lately of what an efficient force the Yeomanry was, and yet by this Amendment 701 it would appear the Yeomanry were no good, because they had not had three months' continuous recruit-training. The principle of a Volunteer army was to get what training they could from the men consistent with their following their ordinary avocations. The class of young men whom he hoped to get in the Territorial Army would not be able to give throe months for continuous training, and if he insisted upon three months' continuous training it would cut down the force to one-tenth. It was not young men who were unemployed that ho was aiming at. He quite agreed with the hon. Member that if they could got the standard asked for in the Amendment they would get better-trained soldiers; but a man who could afford to give three or six months to training had better become a professional soldier. In the Territorial Force the Government asked the manhood of the nation to come forward for home defence and to give as much time to training as the men could spare. The amount of training must be sufficient to make the men useful for the purpose the Government had in view. The question of training was being worked out in great detail just now by the General Staff, and the hon. Member might rely upon it that the War Office would get as much training as they could from these men of the Territorial Army. They would have to attend a certain number of drills, but the authorities had never yet been able to get continuous training for such a long period as that now suggested from Volunteers. It was no use talking of the Territorial Force as if it were to have a large regular training and full preparation for war in time of peace. Its very purpose was that, while there was a large expeditionary force at home, these people might be embodied, and as much time as possible would be do voted to putting them through the mill. The continuous training he contemplated should not be less than six months before they took the field. The Government hoped to have a large part of the expeditionary force at borne and available in the meantime. The Government relied upon this embodying training, which was to commence on general mobilisation, in order to make the training as a whole satisfactory. But the recruit training would certainly be better than the Volunteers got at the present time. The artillery training would be as good as the War 702 Office could make it. The hon. Member, who was a distinguished artillery soldier, held strong views on the subject of training Volunteer artillery. But educated men, the skilled artisans whom they hoped to get, would learn more quickly than the ordinary recruit in the Regular artillery. He had always thought, and he had said before, that about the matter of artillery training there was a vast amount of misapprehension in the House. A skilled man would learn in a far shorter time than the unskilled man. It was no use taking as a standard the time required for training Regular soldiers.
§ Mr. ARTHUR LEE
said he had not brought up the question of the Regular Artillery. He gave the only analogy there was to Volunteer Artillery, the Lancashire Field Artillery, which consisted of the educated men to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred.
§ MR. HALDANE
said that was Militia artillery, a very different class. The Honourable Artillery Company gave an example of a force which it was well worth while trying to reproduce. Ho was quite aware that the artillery problem was the most difficult, and it would probably require a long time before they could produce anything of a good standard, but he relied much on this, that his advisors and those with whom ho was dealing in connection with Volunteer artillery were of opinion that they could produce something well worth having in this force. As, therefore, they intended to have Volunteer artillery in the force, they would be acting very foolishly if they fixed conditions which would shut out the class of men on whom they relied most. That was why it was impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment.
§ *Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER (Croydon)
said that the reply of the right hon. Gentleman showed the inconvenience of discussing the Bill in its present shape. It might be, as the right hon. Gentleman told them, that certain reasons of convenience prescribed a limitation with regard to training for the purposes of the Bill, but the real question they had to consider was whether there was any evidence in the history of the world that this amount of training would suffice to enable men so trained to 703 be successful in war. To that question, one of the most material in the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman had not addressed himself. It was obvious that some period of training must be necessary to make a soldier efficient for war, whether five years or five days, but from start to finish there was no indication in the Bill what that period of training was to be. They were asked to pledge the country to a great deal more than was in the Bill. Not only were they to be pledged to all the expenditure disclosed, and the further expenditure which would be disclosed in connection with the Territorial Army, but they were tacitly pledging the country to something much more important, to putting these men in the place of a Regular Army. The right hon. Gentleman had said that there was no intention of putting Volunteer artillery in the place of Regular artillery. Let them judge. During the last two years the establishment of Royal Artillery alone had gone down by over 4,000 men. There was to be a further reduction of the Royal Artillery, and the establishment of Infantry bad in the last two years decreased by 13,000 men, and further decreases were promised. More important still was the decrease in the strength which was going on at the present moment. The establishment even now, in the Army estimate for this year, did not correspond to the strength.
§ *Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER
asked if the right hon. Gentleman would give any guarantee that he would make good any reduction below the establishment? The right hon. Gentleman, in answer to the question whether he intended to replace the fall below the establishment which was now taking place, said no. They were undoubtedly diminishing the Regular Army, and also the quasi-Regulars, the Militia, and putting in their stead something else. Was it not a fair thing, then, for his hon. friend to ask what were the qualifications for war of the man that were being put in the place of the men got rid of? The right hon.
704 Gentleman had cited the opinions of his professional advisers as to the question of Volunteer artillery. Those opinions were quite new, at any rate, and not only that, but they wore diametrically opposed in essence and word to the opinions that had been expressed to himself by the soldiers by whom he had had the honour to be advised. There was this, too, in favour of the earlier opinion, that it was in conformity with the universal practice of every nation in the world. He could not find that Volunteer artillery had played any great part in war, as the hon. and gallant Member for Abercomby had said. The world's campaigns showed that the training of the artillery had been the pre-eminent consideration which had tended towards success in the battlefield. The Swiss Artillery had been cited. There was a large amount of military opinion that even the Swiss artillery was far below the standard that ought to be maintained by them and below that of any other European Continental country, yet their training was incomparably ahead of anything the Government were proposing to give our own troops. The right hon. Gentleman ought to tell them fairly and squarely before the debate closed what he proposed to give in the way of training. It was not a matter of detail. It was a matter of primary importance. Could the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee what was the minimum training that was to be given to these troops at an expense of £3,000,000?The right hon. Gentleman had told them quite seriously that his advisers relied entirely on the six months training to be given on the outbreak of war. That proposal required a more elaborate defence than it had received. He did not deny the right hon. Gentleman the gift of imagination, but they must consider, too, whether they were providing a force which would render us independent of the men with this training, or want of training. Who had told the right hon. Gentleman that the training would be adequate for the tremendous ordeal of battle? Who were his advisers in the matter? Were the best soldiers in Europe and Asia wrong in regard to training? The Swiss infantry course was an annual course, and it had been lately increased—["No"]—he was perfectly right, but whether it had or had not been increased, it was vastly in 705 excess of anything provided for the Territorial Army. He could only see one explanation of the refusal of the right hon. Gentleman to tell the Committee what he really proposed. The right hon. Gentleman was in a dilemma. He had stated the minimum of what he imagined would be agreeable to the persons who were to be brought into training, but who were not to be trained in preparation for war. If the latter training were insisted on the right hon. Gentleman would lose a large number of recruits whom he expected to obtain. He invited the right hon. Gentleman to be more frank and to tell the Committee what it was he really proposed. The Committee should remember also that it was not dealing merely with the words of the clause, but with the state of things that was to exist in the future, when the country would have to rely more than ever before on the new soldiers to be created under the Bill. They were incurring an immense responsibility in replacing the present force by a class of troops who were to receive a training which was inadequate in the opinion of every military authority in the world, and for whose organisation on the lines suggested there was no military precedent in any other country in the world.
§ MAJOR SEELY (Liverpool, Abercromby)
congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on his reappearance in the debates, and submitted a correction of his statement with regard to the Swiss army. The Swiss law had not yet been made operative, and might not become so, because it was the subject of a referendum, and it might not be carried. That fact showed that the Swiss were not of one mind as to the necessity of increasing the short training their troops now had. It was suggested by hon. Members opposite that the Secretary for War was proposing to create an army with a wholly inadequate period of training, the suggestion being that the training should extend over a period of two or throe months. In his opinion, hon. Members seemed to be using the arguments not only of the martinet, but of the pedagogue. It seemed to be forgotten that in a voluntary army the more training given did not mean that the more efficient the soldier became, because they did not get the same men. None but the idle rich, the inefficient, or 706 the occupants of the casual wards could possibly spare two or three months to absent themselves from their regular employment to serve in the Army on a voluntary basis under such a system.
§ Mr. ARTHUR LEE
said the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not do his argument justice. He was not suggesting a training of two or three months, but a longer preliminary training, and he had pointed out that the Swiss were increasing their preliminary training in order to decrease the subsequent training.
§ MAJOR SEELY
said he was dealing with the hon. and gallant Gentleman's argument that they must have a longer period than three months training. Those who talked idly of France and Germany did not recognise that they did not get the same man, and that if they had this longer training they could not get anyone except the man who was out of a job to undertake the position. He agreed that it was desirable that the recruit should have a longer period of training than the man who had been trained; but, after all, the man who succeeded in peace was the man who succeeded in war. The same qualities that made for success in peace made for success in war, and the country must fight its battles with the best of its population if it meant to win. They could not, therefore, get men to give up long periods of time for training, for if they did they would be elbowed out of their situations by other men who were not serving; and, therefore, in considering the other armies of the world hon. Members must never forget the salient feature which nullified the conclusions they were endeavouring to draw. We were an insular Power, and hon. Members must admit that 160,000 men could cope with any kind of raid. When the moment of danger came our Territoral Army could be mobilised, and by the time the force of 160,000 men left our shores the Army would have had more training than the Swiss Army, which was admittedly efficient. The teaching of the ''Blue Water" doctrine meant in such an event that we should have more time in which to train that part of the Army which was not to be sent to the seat of war across the sea. Again, there was the argument of the Empire, which seemed to be forgotten by 707 hon. Members. What about the Colonial artillery? If it was true that no Army was worth creating or maintaining unless it was trained for a period of years, what became of our co-operation with the Colonists? In the South African war it was proved that long preparation in organisation was necessary, but that long preparation and training for the individual became less and less necessary as scientific weapons increased in accuracy. In the days of Rome, where the soldiers fought shoulder to shoulder, it might have been necessary to train for a prolonged period, but nowadays the soldier had first to be endowed with courage, common sense, and confidence in his leader. It was the character of the soldier far more than his training that came uppermost in war. That fact had been proved in every recent war, and most of all in the Russo-Japanese war. Japanese troops with short training were opposed to Russian troops who had enjoyed a prolonged period of training. To measure the value of an army, therefore, by the number of days training which the soldier had received was the most futile method of gauging its strength. Hon. Members should not forget the Colonial aspect of the problem, for it was likely that the Colonists would be inclined to resent the theory that the help they would bring to the Imperial Power would be nugatory. He admitted that the recruit's training should be for a longer period than in the case of the trained man. Ours was the only Army in the world in which trained men were required to train as long in the later years of their service as in the earlier. While he disagreed as to the value of troops raised on this basis, he thought that a longer period of training for recruits would be advisable.
§ *Mr. W. F. D. SMITH (Strand, Westminster)
said that while he agreed with much that had been said by the mover of the Amendment, still he agreed with what had been said with regard to the length of training. The matter of training was of some importance. He believed that if so long a period of training were insisted on the class which now enlisted in the Yeomanry would be lost, which in his opinion would be a great misfortune to the country. Certainly the class of men who joined the yeomanry in the country districts would 708 not be drawn into the net. Such man might gamble on the necessity of a possible six months mobilisation, but he did not think they would accept the responsibility for the long training suggested. He, however, quite realised the value of it, and so far as ho personally was concerned, he would vote for compulsion and a long training. But he rose particularly to urge the Secretary of State to insure as far as possible that when this Order in Council was drafted, there should be as little rigidity in its provision as possible. He was not sure that the authorities at the War Offices even now realised how different were the conditions in different Yeomanry regiments, and even in different squadrons of the same regiment. At the present time, as the right hon. Gentleman was aware, the two days of squadron training were sometimes performed separately from the permanent duty. That was no doubt of great convenience to those regiments which drew their recruits from towns and populous places where the squadron districts were comparatively small, but if the right hon. Gentleman had had experience of three districts with which he was connected, which divided between them all the seaboard of Devon and Cornwall, he would see how difficult it would be to gather men together to perform squadron training at other times of the year than that at which they performed their permanent duty. He therefore hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see that latitude was given to such squadrons as those to perform their squadron and permanent training at a time convenient to themselves. He would be sorry to see the time for permanent training curtailed, unless the recruits came up for a longer period of training for the first year.
§ CAPTAIN CRAIG (Down, E.)
said he thought the Committee wore indebted to the hon. Member for raising this point, but he thought the Secretary of State was more than usually vague in his reply. Hs had told the Committee that this was a Bill of detail, yet when any one of these points were put to him, he and his advisers were silent. Owing to the Bill having to be passed under the closure rule it was impossible to discuss all the important points, therefore he thought the Secretary of 709 State should give some indication of the Government's view. He quite agreed that it would be better to have a scale suited to the various districts, but in that regard the right hon. Gentleman had raised the question of a lengthened training and had not given the Committee any indication whether it was essential to have, in this Territorial Force a long training in the first year with shortening intervals of training in subsequent years, or whether it should be on the present Militia basis. These were questions which everyone in the country was desirous of having answered. They wished to know the amount of pay, the fines a man would have to pay if he desired to contract out of his engagement, and what were to be the terms of service for infantry and artillery. Beyond the broad outlines of the general scheme nothing had been vouchsafed to the Committee. He could not follow the reasoning of the hon. and gallant Member for the Abercromby Division that with modern weapons of precision the men required less training. His experience had been that with modern and efficient weapons they were bound to give the men a longer training to familiarise themselves with them. If the right hon. Gentleman was going to adopt the hon. and gallant Member's policy and conclusions the Committee ought to know, and it was necessary for the right hon. Gentleman to assure the Committee that he intended to give the recruits of the whole of the Army a proper period of training during the first year, and that after that they would have sufficient training every year to keep them up to the mark. The right hon. Gentleman said these men were to be trained for home defence, but he also expressed the pious hope that on the outbreak of war a certain proportion of them would volunteer for active service. This clause touched the very root of the question. Was the right hon. Gentleman going to train the Territorial Force for service at home or abroad? It was quite a different matter training local artillery, say, on the coast of Devon or Cornwall or elsewhere on our coasts, from training them to take a place in war by the side of the Regular troops in some other part of the world. They had had great difficulty in eliciting from the right 710 hon. Gentleman that he hoped that men would volunteer for active service abroad. On a former occasion he had said that he hoped men would volunteer by brigades or by divisions, but that was a false hope, and he was afraid that the right hon. Gentleman knew it. With winter training and summer training he could only expect to get some fragments from different parts of the country and not the whole of one division or brigade from one county association. And how did the right hon. Gentleman intend to combine the forces without destroying the cohesion of the corps, or whatever he liked to call it? The question of training in regard to that particular point, undoubtedly ought to be made clear to the Committee. Had the War Office in their mind's eye that the present Militia should be asked to join on the understanding that the service would be much the same as hitherto, which had been found satisfactory to that force? Would Volunteers be asked to do much the same as they had done in the past? And the Yeomanry, why were they to be revolutionised? It would shorten the debates if the Secretary for War would state how far the War Office had arrived at an approximate idea of what was intended under this scheme.
§ Mr. WYNDHAM (Dover)
said the right hon. Gentleman had, so far, had only one supporter for his policy of silence on, this very vital question. The preliminary training of the Home Army was perhaps one of the most important matters contained in the right hon. Gentleman's scheme. What did he say about it in the Bill? He said that the question of whether there was to be training at all as distinguished from drill was to be a matter to be decided, aye or no, by an Order in Council, and so far as drills were concerned it was to be prescribed at some future time. But he attached more importance to continuous training than to intermittent drill, and as to that there was not one word in the Bill, and when the right hon. Gentleman replied to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Abercromby Division, and to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon, they were as much in the dark as when they read the Bill, and they wondered what the intentions 711 of the Government were. They asked for something more explicit than had yet been vouchsafed to them. If this preliminary training was to be longer than the annual training, how long would it be? That was a riddle very hard to answer by those who had studied the Bill, because the annual training was to be not less than eight days and not more than fifteen, though it might be extended to thirty days or reduced to nothing at all. A preliminary training which was to be longer than a figure with so many variations in it did not give them anything like the assurance which they required, and which he thought they must press for before the debate came to a conclusion. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Abercromby Division believed that training was now of far less importance than it was in the past.
§ Mr. WYNDHAM
said he traversed altogether the hon. and gallant Gentleman's statement that with better weapons less training was required. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman said less drill in the barrack-yard, loss manual exercise and less goose step, he agreed with him, but when he said less training was required he differed from him, and he thought everybody else would differ from him. The better the weapon, the longer the range, and the flatter the trajectory, the more extended would have to be the formation, and it was by training only that the men could learn to follow the group leader, the group leader the captain, and the captain the indications given by signal whispered along the extended line.
§ Mr. WYNDHAM
said that was an isolated instance, and Lord Bacon said that argument from single instances was a puerile affair. He was not at Paardeberg, but he had no doubt the Canadians did uncommonly well there. He did not argue the matter on single instances. At Waterloo, where there 712 was a narrow front, the need of drill was enormous, because of the narrow compass in which the regiments could be deployed. The need for training in order to move troops over an extended line was very great, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would keep in mind the necessity for continuous training and believe that it was more important, especially in the case of the Auxiliary Forces, than a number of sentry drills. He might state that by adding three extra days to the nineteen days annual training, in some regiments results were obtained proportionately far better than could be expected from merely adding three days. He did not think it lay with the hon. Member to criticise the proposal of his hon. friend unless he took into account the fact that it created a new problem for which some solution would have to be found, and for which none was found in the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman, or in the speeches he had made. The Secretary for War had created a great gap between the regular Army, which was to send out an expeditionary force, and the Territorial Force, which was not to receive adequate training at all until war broke out. There was the expeditionary force of 160,000 men, and there was nothing else until they came to the Territorial Army, which was to be drilled, artillery, cavalry, and infantry, for eight or fifteen days. That gap was created by the Bill, which abolished the Militia and brought the Yeomanry down to the Volunteer basis. Before this measure was introduced the Yeomanry were trained from sixteen to nineteen days, and now it was proposed to reduce it to fifteen days. The Government had reduced their pay and cut off a large class of men who were teachable, and therefore it did not lie with the right hon. Gentleman to criticise the attempt they were making to secure something behind the first line trained and fit to take the field. By insisting on uniformity, by getting rid of the Militia, and treating the Yeomanry and Volunteers as one, the right hon. Gentleman would leave them with no support for their first line. That was what the right hon. Gentleman called organising in two lines instead of three. The Opposition held that it was exposing the country to great peril, and 713 that public safety demanded that adequate training should be given in the first year to the men who entered the Territorial Force.
§ *SIR CHARLES DILKE
said he was not a supporter of the Bill, but he certainly supported it against this Amendment. He did not complain of the action of the Opposition on this question, because it was impossible to expect them to shut out from the debate the grounds on which they supported the Amendment. He agreed in the main with what his hon. and gallant friend the Member for the Abercromby Division of Liverpool had said so far as the infantry of the Territorial Army was concerned, but not in regard to the cavalry. In this discussion "the gap" had played a great part, and he agreed largely with what had been said upon that subject. In his opinion, by this new scheme they were tending to get rid of the Volunteer and Yeomanry recruit of the kind they had known in the past, and they were now classing as Regulars a number of men who were not Regulars at all He regretted that naval opinion had not been represented at all in a debate which had bristled with naval heresies. The Secretary of State played into his assailants' hands by speaking of this force over and over again as one intended for home defence, That it was not, and it Was a mere sham to pretend that it was. A portion of it, which was to be more highly organised, was intended to garrison certain posts. A portion was to be organised as coast defence troops to repel small landings, but the force rested upon the acceptance of the naval view that serious invasion of this country was impossible so long as we held command of the sea. All the earlier speeches of the Secretary of State pointed to the view held by the Elgin Commission and the Esher Committee, that this force was intended to be one on which we could draw for the support of the fighting force across oho sea. His hon. and gallant friend required this force not for home defence, but for providing a fighting Army. Where he agreed absolutely with the Secretary of State in opposing this Amendment was where he told them that it was his wish to get from the people of this country various forms of service suitable to various classes of the population. He did not find that 714 elasticity in the Bill, however; he found undue rigidity. They found this complaint expressed at the Colonial Conference, when Mr. Deakin said—In Australia we have been subject to mockery, because we have followed closely the methods of the Imperial force. As fast as they Germanised we Germanised.The tendency was more and more towards stereotyping the present civilian force into one which was a sort of sham Regular force called a Territorial Army instead of Volunteers. By this plan the Secretary of State for War was running the risk of making "the gap" more obvious than it was before, and ho was placing his Territorial Army upon an inferior German basis instead of getting for the Volunteers the old and best class of recruits, and keeping that military spirit of the civil population which was the real source upon which we should draw in war. That was the danger which he felt. They ought to fight against uniformity of training for different portions of the forces. Both the Bill and the Amendment were open to criticism upon that ground. As regarded the cavalry, were they not in danger of treating the yeoman—who was an excellent recruit, as good in his way as they could get—in this Bill and under this Amendment as if the question between a week's training and fifteen or eighteen days training made all the difference whether they had got a cavalry soldier or not? Let them not substitute Yeomanry for cavalry for a large portion of the duties of cavalry in the field. The cavalry was a costly force, and there was a great danger that the cavalry would be cut down and the Yeomanry employed. They could not afford to rely upon leaving the duties of cavalry in the field to men who only received the Yeomanry training. They wanted to keep the Yeomanry recruit; he was a valuable asset; but he was not a trained cavalry soldier. He (Sir Charles Dilke) felt that it was his duty to take every opportunity of insisting that they needed Regular Cavalry and Regular Mounted Infantry in battalions, as recommended by the Elgin Commission, and they needed the Yeomanry behind them to provide the men when there was pressure in time of war. He himself had been fighting against the rigidity of the provisions of the Bill. If they adopted uniform and inelastic provisions they would 715 lose valuable material by losing the present class of recruits for the Volunteers. They must shape the Bill, as regarded the terms of service, in such a way that it would give them the present class of recruits. He opposed the Amendment because it was inelastic, and not because he was a supporter of the Bill, which was open to the same objection.
§ Mr. A. J. BALFOUR (City of London)
said he was in agreement with a great deal of what the right hon. Baronet had said. There was no truth more obvious, but more often forgotten and more necessary to repeat, than the truth that there was an immense variety in the degrees of training and preparation which they had to give to different parts of the Army. Some part of the matériel of the Army required immense preparation, other parts could be improvised. Some part of the personnel of the Army required an immense amount of training, but some part of it could be employed under proper organisation, in conjunction with the highly trained part of the force, with a relatively insignificant period of work. On the Third Reading it would be most important and proper that the House should make a survey of what the military force would be under the Bill, based on the plan that would then be elaborated, and compare it with the military force at our disposal at the present time, or as it might be made on the basis of the existing organisation. It would not be desirable to ask the Committee to divide on this Amendment, and his hon. and gallant friend desired to ask leave to withdraw it. But he thought the Secretary of State for War should have elaborated a little more such views as he might have, even provisionally, as to the amount of training which he could give to the Territorial Army.
§ Mr. ARTHUR LEE
said he had put down the Amendment for the purpose of discussion. He was sorry that the Secretary of State for War had not been able to make a definite statement. Meantime, as the discussion had served its purpose, he asked leave to withdraw it.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ *Mr. COURTHOPE (Sussex, Rye)
moved to omit Subsection (a), which re- 716 quired that every man of the Territorial Force should—if so provided by Order in Council, be trained at such places within the United Kingdom, at such times, and for such periods, not exceeding in the whole the number of days specified by the Order in Council, as may be prescribed, and may for that purpose be called out once or oftener.He said that the previous Amendment aimed at an ideal which, if it could be reached, would be most desirable, but it would undoubtedly require some little compulsion which the present Government was not prepared to accede to. The Amendment which he now moved went rather to the other extreme. It left out all questions of ideal training, and came down to the practical details of the present situation. The previous night he had referred to a point which the rank and file of the present Volunteers were afraid of. He now wished to point out another feature of the right hon. Gentleman's scheme which, unless explained, was likely not only to deter the present Volunteers from remaining on as soldiers in the Territorial Army, but to deter from joining that army recruits of the class who now joined the Volunteers. The men in the Volunteer Force were afraid of the proposal contained in the subsection which he proposed to omit. They said, "We will give, up a week or a fortnight, either part or the whole of our annual holidays, in annual training, but it is quite impossible for us, not from unwillingness, but from the conditions of our employment, to come out twice a year in the first year of service, once for recruit training, and subsequently for annual training." He thought the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean would agree with him that it was desirable, if they could, to keep the present class of recruits they got for the Volunteers. The class of recruits who now entered the Militia would, if the right hon. Gentleman's scheme succeeded, go into the nucleus third battalions. They would not, he took it, go into the Territorial Army at all. The whole of the Territorial Force would be drawn from the classes of recruits who now supplied the Yeomanry and the Volunteers. They were essentially a class of men who were in permanent civil employment. They were 717 not men who were able to leave their work for a long period at a time. They were willing to go out for training during their annual holidays, but they could not do more than that. His object in moving the Amendment was to get an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman, and if possible to get it embodied in the Bill, that there would not be a liability on the recruits joining the Territorial Army to be called out more than once for training in any one year. At present recruits were trained at their own homes in the evenings, after their day's work was done, and it was impossible to adopt any other system without losing a most desirable class of men. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider this matter as a serious one, and that if he could not accept the Amendment he would make some observations which would enable the present class of recruits to join the Territorial Army without fear of having in the first year to be called out for recruit drill and also for training in camp. He thought they might increase the attendances required in a man's first and second year of service, but, whatever steps of that kind were taken, if they were without compulsion to get the force drawn from the present Volunteer class, it was essential that they should not be called out for training more than once in any one year. He begged to move.
In page II, line 35, to leave out from beginning to the word 'attend,' in page 12, line 2." —(Mr. Courthope.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be let out stand part of the Clause."
§ MR. HALDANE
said that one of the difficulties in conducting the debate was that on one Amendment they had a current of opinion which ran counter to the opinion expressed on the same point from the same quarter on a former Amendment. Ho had listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, but it was opposed to the argument of the hon. Member who sat near him. He thought that the one hon. Gentleman went too far, while the other did not go far enough. The notion of the Government was that on this subject they 718 should organise the system of instruction very much more than at present; that from various centres instructors should be sent out to local districts, and that the number of instructors should be increased so as to give in the most organised form the necessary troop and company training. Obviously that would be different in one district from another, according to the number of the units. What the Government was aiming at was to organise all this and to provide local centres of instruction. The Amendment of the hon. Member would practically strike out all the provisions in regard to recruit training, except those which related to the drills referred to in Subsection 2. That would be going back to the low standard which existed at the present moment. Ho hoped to get a higher standard than that by a system of local instruction which should be carried out under very careful supervision. Under the new organisation of the Territorial Force there would be a Major-General commanding a division, under him there would be a Brigadier-General, and under him a Brigade-Major, together with a staff who would supervise the instruction of the recruits. That was the enormous advantage of bringing in professional soldiers of high standing. With that machinery, and with that capacity for organisation, he would prefer that they should go slowly and adapt themselves to the circumstances of the recruits; and therefore he could not accept the words of the hon. Gentleman's Amendment.
§ Sir HOWARD VINCENT (Sheffield, Central)
said he could not understand the observation of the Secretary of State for War. Was the right hon. Gentleman going to place the training of recruits in the hands of the County Associations?
§ SIR HOWARD VINCENT
said that the right hon. Gentleman had stated he was going to send forth instructors in every direction like a covey of partridges.
§ MR. HALDANE
said that the hon. and gallant Member had got County Associations on the brain. He was not then speaking of the County Associations. 719 The sending forth of the instructors would be done in the ordinary way.
§ SIR HOWARD VINCENT
said that surely the right hon. Gentleman would leave something for the Commanding Officers to do, or the Territorial Army would come to grief. The right hon. Gentleman should leave the training in some degree in the hands of the Adjutant. Although it was perfectly true that they looked to the formation of the force into brigades and divisions, yet if this supervision of the Major-General was going to interfere with the training of the recruits the right hon. Gentleman would not do any good to the Territorial Force.
§ COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY (Shropshire, Newport)
asked what amount of preliminary training the right hon. Gentleman considered would be required to turn these recruits into competent soldiers. Could any of the right hon. Gentleman's advisers guarantee that cavalry or artillery recruits could be made into efficient soldiers under that preliminary training? Up to the present moment that assumption had not been made good. If the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman was not to be taken seriously, but only as a pious opinion, that owing to local circumstances they could only put the men under a training which would put, them on the road to efficiency—
said he could not see that the observations of the right hon. Gentleman were relevant to the Amendment before the Committee.
§ SIR SAMUEL SCOTT (Marylebone, W.)
said he was sure that they all welcomed the remark of the right hon. Gentleman that the number of instructors was to be increased; but it was an important matter whether these instructors were to be put under the Major-General commanding the Division, the Brigadier 720 General, the Brigade Major, the County Associations, or the Commanding Officer of the battalion.
§ MR. HALDANE
said that there was no intention of unduly taking power away from the Commanding Officer; but it must be remembered that the Commanding Officer of a Volunteer Corps at the present time could not always be present to see to the training of recruits.
§ Mr. HALDANE
said that what was proposed was that there should be a system of instruction for recruits under the supervision of the Divisional Commander, through the Commanding Officer of a battalion, and that system of instruction would be available for recruit training and such other training as was necessary to develop a knowledge of discipline. There would be no interference with the responsibility of the Commanding Officer.
§ VISCOUNT MORPETH (Birmingham, S.)
inquired whether a Major-General commanding a division, or a Brigadier-General commanding a brigade, was to take the training of companies out of the hands of the Colonel commanding the battalion.
§ MR. ASHLEY
said he was strongly in favour of retaining the class of men whom they had in the Militia in the old days; but if the preliminary training and the annual training were to take place in the same year there were a great many men now in the Volunteer Corps who could not possibly do it. They were usually men who had only a fortnight's holiday, and they could not, in his judgment, do both the preliminary training and the annual training. If the right hon. Gentleman assured him that under his regulations he would suit the punishment to the crime and the burden to the shoulders which had to bear it he would not further urge the matter.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.721
§ VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH (Maidstone)
moved an Amendment which had for its object the preventing of men being called out more frequently than was required. The clause provided that a man might be trained at such places and at such times, and for such periods, not exceeding the number of days specified by the order in council, and might be called out "once or oftener." He proposed, with a view of accomplishing his purpose, to leave out the words "or oftener." He thought it would be far bettor for the scheme if the recruit knew what he had to do in the first year, and whether he was to work for a week or a fortnight. As the Bill at present stood a man might be called out for Militia training once and then be called out again.
In page 11, line 40, to leave out. the words 'or oftener.'" — (Viscount Castlereagh.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words 'or part oftener stand of the clause."
§ MR. HALDANE
said the words were put in not to create uncertainty but to make provision for the different customs of different districts. It was the custom to call out the troops oftener in some districts than in others.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Question proposed, "That Clause 13 stand part of the Bill."
§ Colonel KENYON-SLANEY
said the Opposition were dissatisfied with the statement made by the Secretary for War; they wanted to know what the preliminary training of these Territorial Forces was to be, and why the right hon. Gentleman could not tell them fairly and squarely the amount of training which he and his advisers thought would turn out an efficient soldier, in order that the country might judge whether that training would be effective for that purpose, or whether it was only a training of a nature as good as they could give under the circumstances. The difference was fundamental, because the country might take a perfectly different view of the right hon. Gentleman's scheme 722 if they recognised that under it they would have an efficient fighting force. He thoroughly recognised the difficulties in the task of the right hon. Gentleman, but it was essential that they should know whether these forces would be so trained that they would be able to reinforce the fighting line. He protested against the dangerous heresy which had been brought forward that they should not aim at a high standard of professional training, but that it was a good thing to create a sort of "go as you please "system under which discipline should be relaxed as far as possible, and there should be as little as possible of professional pressure put upon the men. That view had been indicated by the hon. Member for the Abercromby Division upon more than one occasion, and he could not help feeling that the instincts of the hon. Member were distinctly in favour of considerable laxity in discipline in the army he would like to create. He, however, wanted to urge that the discipline should be adequate and sufficient training given. What did they want discipline to create? Not a very smart movement under arms or a very bold warlike movement, but, above everything, to create a feeling of reliance on their comrades throughout the ranks of the service. Each soldier must have a distinct feeling of reliance, not only upon the officer who was leading him, but on the men who were fighting right and left of him, and upon whom he had to depend in the fight. They could not get that discipline without sufficient training to create esprit de corps and camaraderie. The hon. Member for the Abercromby Division argued the question as if they had to train an Army with the view that it was to proceed from success to success, but discipline came in not when an army went from one victory to another, but in times of reverses and temporary defeat. That was when they wanted the highest qualities of discipline, and they could not get it without what he was begging for, viz., a sufficient training. He greatly doubted whether the period of training allowed under the Bill was sufficient.
§ Lord EDMUND TALBOT (Sussex, Chichester)
wished for some information as to the training of those portions of the 723 Yeomanry which were to be imported into the regular cavalry of the Army in the form of divisional cavalry. In the divisional cavalry there would not be, as far as he understood, one single regular cavalry soldier, but it would consist entirely of Yeomanry. He thought the total number of squadrons which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to favour was fourteen; but those squadrons were to be made up of individual troops from different regiments. He did not believe that such a system would work out with adequate efficiency, as he did not think it was possible to take troops from different regiments for squadron training. The Yeomanry squadrons were to be formed immediately on the declaration of war, as part of the fighting line of the Regular Army, and would not have the advantage of six months training. The Committee ought to have some information as to their training and pay.
said he was not quite sure whether the noble Lord in his previous remarks had been in order, but this clause had certainly nothing to do with the question of pay, and observations on that question were out of order.
§ LORD EDMUND TALBOT
said a Volunteer must have some preliminary training, and some means must be provided. He would confine himself to asking, however, what that training was to be.
§ *MR. HALDANE
said he had very strongly resisted the temptation to go into any detail, and the case of the Yeomanry was just the one where he must be more cautious than he had been in the other case. Yet he would be a little rash, and although what he would state had been worked out very carefully, it might have to be revised. The special contingent Yeomanry would not belong to the Territorial Army at all. They came under Part III., and would be in the same position as the Militia would be. They would cease to have their old character and belong to the special contingent and undergo a special training of six months. Being of a superior class, the men and officers would 724 probably have had a good deal of training in the Yeomanry regiments, and instances might be forthcoming where it might be possible to curtail the full six months training in the case of some individuals; but the general idea of the training was that it should be of six months among those who joined as the special contingent. The officers would be specially trained. The annual training would be fifteen days, and it would be undertaken in some ' cases with the Yeomanry regiments, though it was better that the annual training should be with the cavalry division to which the Yeomanry contingent was allotted. The force was to serve as divisional cavalry and to go along with the division to which it was allotted. This arrangement might not be always practicable, and if it was not, then the Yeomanry would take their annual training with their own regiments, or with a cavalry regiment. He could not enter into further detail now. The Bill asked for wide powers, and ho would be doing a great disservice to the public interest were ho to tie himself hand and foot so as not to be able to revise and improve their conclusions as time went on. He could not, therefore, commit himself to the specific propositions which he had been invited on all bands to favour. What amount of training would make an efficient soldier was raising a conundrum it was not possible to answer under the suggested system. All they could do was to get for the men the best training possible and put them in the way of becoming efficient. He quoted the authority of the distinguished military writer, Colonel Henderson, to the effect that with good officers, and a certain amount of previous training, there was no reason why unprofessional soldiers should not do excellent service in the field. The War Office had come to the conclusion that the best way to train was to bring these men as much as possible in close contact with professional soldiers of high standing. These officers ought to be the inspirers of the Commanders of the Territorial units, and therefore they proposed to bring the Commanders into closer contact with the Regular Forces, to give the force a regular organisation, and to introduce a more scientific standard of training than existed at the present time. It might be found that they dared not press the Territorial Infantry to take 725 more than a certain amount of training. The men might not come in if they put too much strain on them. What they should do was to get the men on the way to attain that military efficiency about which Colonel Henderson had written in his book.
§ MR. WYNDHAM
submitted that the right hon. Gentleman had not told the Committee, even in outline, his idea of what the preliminary training of the recruits should consist.
§ MR. HALDANE
said that the fourteen squadrons of Yeomanry would fulfil the function of divisional cavalry. The purpose of the War Office was to give a military organisation to the entire force, and their functions would be to act as cavalry. In the Estimate on the Table it would be seen how they were organised. The Yeomanry were not strictly under the Commander of the division; they were under a Brigadier as a cavalry force.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 271; Noes, 87. (Division List No. 211.)729
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Chance, Frederick William||Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Charming, Sir Francis Allston||Greenwood, Hamar (York)|
|Adkins, W. Ryland D.||Cheetham, John Frederick||Griffith, Ellis J.|
|Agnew, George William||Cherry, Rt. Hon. R, R.||Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Clough, William||Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B|
|Alden, Percy||Clynes, J. R.||Hall, Frederick|
|Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)||Coats.Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis U|
|Allen, Charles P.(Stroud)||(Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)|
|Armstrong, W. C. Heaton||Collins, SirWm.J.(S. Pancras,W.||Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'l)|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Corbett, C. H.(Sussex, E. Grinst'd||Hart-Davies, T.|
|Astbury, John Meir||Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Harvey, W. E.(Derbyshire,N.E.|
|Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)||Cory, Clifford John||Harwood, George|
|Baker,Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)||Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Haworth, Arthur A.|
|Barker, John||Cremer, William Randal||Hazel, Dr. A. E.|
|Barlow, John Emmott(Somers't||Crombie, John William||Hedges, A. Paget|
|Barlow, Percy (Bodford)||Crooks, William||Helme, Norval Watson|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Crosfield, A. H.||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)|
|Barry, Redmond, J.(Tyrone, N.||Crossley, William J.||Henderson, J. M.(Aberdeen, W.)|
|Beauchamp, E.||Davies Ellis William (Eifion)||Henry, Charles S.|
|Beck, A. Cecil||Davies, Timothy (Fulham)||Herbert. Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)|
|Bell, Richard||Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)||Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)|
|Bellairs, Carlyon||Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.||Higham, John Sharp|
|Benn, W.(T w'rHamlets,S. Geo.||Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Hobart, Sir Robert F|
|Bennett, E. N.||Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Hobhouse, Charles E. H|
|Bethell, Sir J.H. (Essex, Romf'rd||Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness||Holden, E. Hopkinson|
|Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Dunne, Major E. Martin (Wals'l||Holland, Sir William Henry|
|Billson, Alfred||Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)||Holt, Richard Durning|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)||Horniman, Emslie John|
|Black, Arthur W.||Edwards, Frank (Radnor)||Horridge, Thomas Gardner|
|Boulton, A. C. F.||Elibank, Master of||Hudson, Walter|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Erskine, David C.||Hutton, Alfred Eddison|
|Brace, William||Essex, R. W.||Idris, T. H. W.|
|Bramsdon, T. A.||Esslemont, George Birnie||Illingworth, Percy H.|
|Brigg, John||Evans, Samuel T.||Jacoby, Sir James Alfred|
|Brocklehurst, W. B.||Everett, R. Lacey||Johnson, John (Gateshead)|
|Brodie, H. C.||Fabet, G. H. (Boston)||Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)|
|Brooke, Stopford||Ferens, T. R.||Jones, Leif (Appleby)|
|Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh)||Ferguson, R. C. Munro||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Fiennes, Hon. Eustace||Jowett, F. W.|
|Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Findlay, Alexander||Kearley, Hudson E.|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Fuller, John Michael F.||Kekewich, Sir George|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Fullerton, Hugh||Kincaid-Smith, Captain|
|Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles||Gardner. Col. Alan (Hereford. S.||King, Alfred John (Knutsford)|
|Byles, William Pollard||Gill, A. H.||Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James|
|Cairns, Thomas||Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John||Laidlaw, Robert|
|Cameron, Robert||Glover, Thomas||Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Goddard, Daniel Ford||Lambert, George|
|Causton, Rt. Hn, RichardKnight||Gooch, George Peabody||Lamont, Norman|
|Cawley, Sir Frederick||Grant, Corrie||Lay land-Barratt, Francis|
|Lehmann, R. C.||Pirie, Duncan V.||Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)|
|Levy, Maurice||Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh,Central)||Summerbell, T.|
|Lewis, John Herbert||Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David||Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Lough, Thomas||Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.||Tennant. Sir Edward (Salisbury|
|Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||Pullar, Sir Robert||Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)|
|Lyell, Charless Henry||Rainy, A. Rolland||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan. E.)|
|Lynch, H. B.||Rea, Russell (Gloucester)||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr|
|Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'||Thomasson, Franklin|
|Macdonald, J. M.(Falkirk Bg'hs)||Rees, J. D.||Tillett, Louis John|
|Mackarness, Frederic C||Rendall, Athelstan||Tomkinson. James|
|Maclean, Donald||Richardson, A.||Torrance, Sir A. M.|
|Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)||Ure, Alexander|
|Macpherson, J. T.||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)||Verney, F. W.|
|M'Callum, John M.||Robertson, Rt, Hn. E. (Dundee)||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)|
|M'Crae, George||Robertson, Sir G. Scott(Bradf'rd||Walsh, Stephen|
|M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)||Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)|
|M'Micking, Major G.||Robinson, S.||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Maddison, Frederick||Robson, Sir William Snowdon||Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent|
|Manfield, Harry (Northants)||Roe, Sir Thomas||Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n|
|Markham, Arthur Basil||Rogers, F. E. Newman||Waldle, George J.|
|Marks, G. Croydon(Launceston)||Runciman, Walter||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)|
|Marnham, F. J.||Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)||Wason. John Cathcart(Orkney)|
|Menzies, Walter||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)||Waterlow, D. S.|
|Micklem, Nathaniel||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)||Watt, Henry A.|
|Molteno, Percy Alport||Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)|
|Mond, A.||Scott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Money, L. G. Chiozza||Sears, J. E.||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)|
|Morrell, Philip||Seaverns, J. H.||Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer|
|Morse, L. L.||Seely, Major J. B.||Wiles, Thomas|
|Myer, Horatio||Shackleton, David James||Williams, J. (Glamorgan)|
|Napier, T. B.||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)||Williamson, A.|
|Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r||Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)||Wilson, Hon. C. H. W. (Hull, W.)|
|Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Sherwell, Arthur James||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)|
|Nussey, Thomas Willans||Shipman, Dr. John G.||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Nutta'l), Harry||Silcock, Thomas Ball||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Parker, James (Halifax)||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)||Spicer, Sir Albert||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.|
|Pearce, William (Limehouse)||Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)||Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.|
|Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)||Steadman, W. C.|
|Pickersgill, Edward Hare||Stewart, Halley (Greenock)|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major||Craig. Captain James (Down. E.||Middlemore, John Throgmorton|
|Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.||Dixon-Hartland Sir FredDixon||Mildmay. Francis Bingham|
|Ashley, W. W.||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Morpeth, Viscount|
|Aubrey-Fletcher. Rt. Hn. Sir H.||Duncan, Robert(Lanark,Govan||Muntz, Sir Philip A.|
|Balcarres. Lord||Fardell, Sir T. George||Nicholson, Wm. G.(Petersfield)|
|Baldwin, Alfred||Fell, Arthur||Nield, Herbert|
|Balfour. Rt. Hn. A. J. (CityLond.||Forster, Henry William||Parkes, Ebenezer|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)||Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington|
|Banner. John S. Harmood-||Hardy. Laurence (Kent, Ashford||Percy, Earl|
|Baring, Capt. Hn. G.(Winchester||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.||Helmsley. Viscount||Randles, Sir John Scurrah|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Hervey, F. W.F.(Bury S. Ed' m's||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)||Roberts.S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Bowles, G. Stewart||Hills, J. W.||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|
|Boyle, Sir Ed ward||Hunt, Rowland||Salter, Arthur Clavell|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Kenyon-Slaney. Rt. Hn. Col. W.||Sassoon. Sir Edward Albert|
|Bull, Sir William James||Kimber, Sir Henry||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Butcher, Samuel Henry||Lane-Fox, G. R,||Sheffield, Sir Berkeley GeorgeD.|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)||Smith, Hon. W. F. I). (Strand)|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Lee. Arthur H. (Hants., Fareh'm||Starkey, John R.|
|Cave, George||Liddell, Henry||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Wor.||Long. Col. Charles W.(Evesham)||Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G.(Oxf'd Univ.|
|Corbett. A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Long. Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin,S.||Thomson, W. Mitchell-( Lanark)|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Thornton. Percy M.|
|Courthope. G. Loyd||Magnus, Sir Philip||Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard|
|Craig. Charles Curtis (Antrim,S.||Meysey-Thompson E. C.||Walker. Col. W. H. (Lancashire)|
|Walrond, Hon. Lionel||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. G. Stuart-||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir|
|Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George||Alexander Acland-Hood and|
|Willoughby de Eresby, Lord||Younger, George||Viscount Valentia.|
§ Clause 14:—
§ SIR HOWARD VINCENT
in moving to leave out the word "man" and to insert the word "unit," said the Amendment would further assist the Secretary of State for War in making his Territorial Army popular and efficient. Anything which prevented or terrified recruits from coming in, or threatened them with more training and more obligations than they could well perform, would interfere very seriously with recruiting for the force. They did not want to deceive any individual into accepting greater obligations than he could possibly undertake. After all, what they wanted was not so much that the individual man, but that the unit should be thoroughly efficient. That was the object of going into camp. The training of the individual in camp was not so great as the training of the whole unit. The Secretary of State for War might be quite sure that every reasonable pressure would be brought to bear on every individual in the battalion, and by substituting the word "unit" for the word man" they would not hold in the face of men that species of terrorism which he thought would interfere with recruiting for the Territorial Force.
In page 12, line 9, to leave out the word 'man' and insert the word 'unit.'"(—Sir Howard Vincent.)
§ Question proposed, "That the Word proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ MR. HALDANE
said the very purpose of the clause was to prescribe what was to be the annual training of the individual man. Of course, the annual training of the units depended on that, but they could not be the same thing. For instance, men might be in the service of a firm who could not dispense with their presence for the whole fifteen days, though they might be able to let them off for eight days. In that case, it might be the best course for the particular unit to begin with the whole fifteen days. Some men might be 730 there for the first eight days, and others for the last eight days; and they Were particularly anxious that the headquarters of the unit should be kept standing for the full period so that the men might have an opportunity of taking as long a training as they could.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. ASHLEY (Lancashire, Blackpool)
moved, to leave out the words "not less than eight nor more than." He said that his object was to elicit from the right hon. Gentleman some definite statement as to what were the intentions of the Government as to the amount of training a territorial soldier was annually to receive, how much the cavalry, how much the infantry, and how much the artillery. They had endeavoured for some two hours to get a definite statement from the right hon. Gentleman with reference to preliminary training, but they had obtained absolutely no satisfaction at all. Now they approached the annual training, as to which they had had some slight indication of what was meant by the right hon. Gentleman, because he said that the training should not be less than eight days and not more than fifteen. He also put in the Bill a provision by which the commanding officer, if he thought fit, could extend the training to thirty days, or reduce it to none at all; he agreed that something of that sort was necessary. So that it was in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman that the annual training should vary from eight to fifteen days; he would allow some corps to train for eight days, and for others, he presumed, the right hon. Gentleman favoured fifteen days instead of eight. If they looked at the estimate which the right hon. Gentleman made as to the cost of the Territorial Force they saw that it was based on fifteen days' training, and therefore he presumed that the right hon. Gentleman was aiming at fifteen days. Personally, he was in favour of fifteen days training. The bulk of the Militia 731 had always trained for twenty-eight days. If the Militia joined the Territorial Force, they would have some 90,000 men of the Territorial Force who would receive annually fifteen days' training instead of twenty-eight days—a very considerable reduction. As to the Yeomanry, he gathered from what had been said by those interested in that force that in all probability it was to be three or four days more than the fifteen days. With regard to the Volunteers, there were many who could not come out for fifteen days, but there were a great many who could and ought to come out. He had conversed with several commanding officers of Volunteers, who had pointed out that they could train the men perfectly well in eight days if all the men came up with the same amount of military education. Some of them came up for training well grounded in the work, whilst others were not grounded at all. The result was that if the commanding officer wished to train all the men on the same scale he must begin at the bottom of the ladder. If they had fifteen days there was always the second week to bring up to a proper state of efficiency those who were not well grounded. He begged to move.
In page 12, line 11, to leave out the words, 'not less than eight nor more than.'"—(Mr. Ashley.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
§ MR. HALDANE
said the purpose of the scheme was to get fifteen days training whenever they could, and there-fore they had proposed standing camps for fifteen days. When the men of a particular unit could not come for fifteen days half of them might come for the first week and half for the second week. The proposal of the Government was to give fifteen days training to the territorial soldier wherever it was possible.
§ SIR HOWARD VINCENT
said it was a great pleasure to him to be able to support the view of the Secretary of State for War. He was sure that it was a sound view, although, as his hon. friend had said, fifteen days were better than eight. A man gained enormously in camp after the first week. There 732 were a largo number of men whose employment rendered it absolutely impossible for them to be absent for fifteen days. There were a certain number of men who would be able to stay in camp ten, eleven, twelve or even fifteen days. For those reasons he thought the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman would be best left as it was. He desired to impress on the Secretary of State for War that he should settle as early in the year as possible the dates of the annual training. In the case of many members of the Territorial Force who were juniors in their various offices, leave of absence was fixed very early in the year, and it would be a great advantage if they knew in January or February the date upon which the camp was likely to beheld, so that they would be able to make their arrangements. In that ease they would be able by working extra time or adopting other means so to arrange as to obtain leave for the whole period of training. In the past they had suffered very much from the uncertainty in regard to the time of holding the camps, and in some cases they had not known anything about the matter until June.
§ CAPTAIN CRAIG
asked if the training in the case of the artillery was to be limited to fifteen days. He did not think efficiency could be achieved with such a short training.
§ MR. HALDANE
pointed out that in Section 14 there was power given to extend the time of the annual training in the case of the artillery. The ordinary rule, however, would be fifteen days subject to extension.
§ MR. CARLILE
asked if that would apply to the Yeomanry, who would have to train their horses as well. He did not think they could train the Yeomanry in the same number of days as the infantry.
§ MR. HALDANE
said the power he had just mentioned of extending the time of training applied to the Yeomanry just as much as the artillery.
§ MR. CARLILE
asked whether it was the intention of the Government that the present training of the Yeomanry, which was eighteen days, should be cut down to fifteen days.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
asked whether the fifteen days training would be open to the whole of the Volunteer force from the date of the Act. He understood that there was to be a transition period, and he would like to know whether this was confined to those corps transferred to the Territorial Array, or whether in the event of the Bill passing all Volunteer corps would be allowed to go back to the fifteen days training next year.
§ MR. HALDANE
said he doubted whether the suggestion was a practical one, because the Bill would not be passed until they were well into July, and therefore the arrangements could not be made in time for the next camp. He hoped that next year the Territorial Force might have fifteen days training all round.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. LANE-FOX (Yorkshire, W.R., Barkston Ash)
said the answer to the Amendment he wished to move had boon partly given already. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that in case fifteen days was not thought to be sufficient the period could be extended by Order in Council. He would like to know why was it necessary to have the limit in at all. It seemed to him that if an Order in Council could be used in special cases it could be used in all cases. The limit which had been inserted would tend to establish that number of days as a sort of maximum. The Yeomanry were now trained for more than fifteen days, and it was impossible to train them properly in anything less than that period. It should not be forgotten that the right hon. Gentleman was proposing to make the training of the Yeomanry more difficult, and therefore it was more necessary than ever that they should have an extended period of training. If the Yeomanry were going to be trained as cavalry soldiers they would have to undergo a more difficult and exacting training than at present. Did the fifteen days include the occasional drills, or did it merely apply 734 to the annual training? He did not know what the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman might be in future in regard to the Yeomanry outside the annual training, and the question whether those occasional days were included was a very important one. He thought it was rather an unfortunate thing that eight or fifteen days should be put in the clause at all; it would have boon far butter to allow the whole subject to be dealt with as the occasion arose. He begged to move.
In page 12, line 12, to leave out the word 'fifteen' and insert the word 'twenty-one.'"—(Mr. Lane-Fox.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'fifteen' stand part of the Clause."
§ MR. HALDANE
asked what he was to do when, taking the Bill as it stood, he found one set of critics pulling one way, saying it was too vague, and another set of critics pulling the other way, saying, "You are too specific. Do not fall into the temptation these others are spreading for you." It was very desirable that the force should have some certainty about the training. Mounted troops might find that they could train for longer periods than fifteen days, and there was a provision in a later section to deal with that. But for normal cases there should be some limit, and fifteen days was a fair one. That being so, he thought that the Bill as it stood was in the form most suitable for the accomplishment of their purpose. He therefore could not accept the Amendment.
§ SIR SAMUEL SCOTT
said the right hon. Gentleman had stated that it was a question of experience whether they could get the men out for more than fourteen days. Perhaps he was aware that the usual time in camp was eighteen days, and therefore practical experience had shown that the men could do all that was asked. The right hon. Gentleman should not curtail the period which now existed. If he could give an assurance that that would not be done they would be delighted. There should be fifteen days actual training, the two days required for marching in and the Sundays, which wore equally unavailable for training, being excluded.
§ *Mr. W. F. D. SMITH
said that some of the Yeomanry came out for sixteen days, but they did their squadron drills at other times of the year. That might be convenient for some, but it was hopelessly inconvenient for others. He suggested that it might be made possible that those for whom it was inconvenient should be allowed to add a training period which would be deemed equal in value to the occasional drills required from the force.
§ MR. HALDANE
said the suggestion of the hon. Member was a very sensible one, but there was power to do that. There were some regiments which could not take squadron drills at the same time as others.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH (Maidstone)
moved to leave out the words "or oftener." He thought they were all agreed that there was a great deal of ambiguity in the Bill. It was obvious, for the purpose of obtaining recruits, that those recruits must know what they were enlisted for, and what was likely to happen to them when once they had enlisted. That being so, he would like to ask the Secretary of State for War if he would be good enough to define the meaning of the words "called out." He took it that they meant that a recruit was called upon to leave his employment for the time being when he was wanted to perform drill or other training. The Auxiliary Forces would suffer a great deal if there were any uncertainty on the part of the recruit when he joined the Territorial Army as to whether he would be called upon once or more than once during the course of the year for the purpose of training. It was his endeavour to make the scheme as much a success as possible, but he had great apprehension that if it failed the country would be placed in a dangerous position. It would never be possible to get that efficiency in the proposed Territorial Army which the right hon. Gentleman hoped for, but they should certainly endeavour to make the condition of its members as little onerous as possible, with efficiency as the object. Recruits should know exactly what their liabilities 736 were going to be and for how many day, in ordinary circumstances, they were likely to be called out. There was a potent factor to be considered in this matter, viz., the employer. They knew that employers as a whole took an antipathy to the Militiaman and even to the Reservist. If there was a doubt as to what the training of the Territorial Army recruit was going to be, that antipathy on the part of the employer would be increased to an enormous extent. As the Bill existed at the present time it would act as a deterrent to recruiting in the Territorial Army. He begged to move.
In page 12, line 15, to leave out the words 'or oftener.'"—(Viscount Castlereagh.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
§ SIR HOWARD VINCENT
said he would like to join the noble Lord in protesting against anything being done which would act as a deterrent to recruits entering the force. That might be the effect if they thought that they were to be liable to too much drill. The employer difficulty was a very serious one indeed. If there was any increased liability put on employers to allow their employees to get away for training, he was sure that one of the first questions they would ask a man who applied for work was whether he was a member of the Territorial Force. If the applicant was in the force the employer would say that he wanted a clerk who would be at the office when required, and not a Territorial soldier. That employer might be willing to allow the man to go for training once a year, but it was a very serious matter to ask him to allow the man to go a second time. He took it that the right hon. Gentleman wished that there should be fifteen day straining, but that they need not be consecutive days. If that was so, the subsection might the expressed in happier words. He thought the words "or oftener" were liable to the construction put upon them by his noble friend.
§ THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. CHARLES HOBHOUSE, Bristol, E.)
said he might 737 be allowed to say a word on this question, not from the point of view of the Treasury Bench, but as one. of the commanding officers of Volunteers. If they were to take out the words "or oftener," they would suffer from the disabilities which commanding officers suffered from now. Sometimes they could get a man to come for three or four days twice a year, though they might not be able to get him for eight days at a stretch owing to the conditions of his ordinary employment. Under the words in the section a Territorial soldier could be called out for three or four days at one time, and could complete the eight days at another time. It would be a great advantage to the commanding officers of Volunteers to have that power, which they did not possess at the present time.
§ MR. COURTHOPE
said that when the men came out for a few days here and there they could never get a battalion all together for drill. He quite agreed that the rule should apply to the annual training; but the men might say that that was all very well, but that they did not intend to do this, that, or the other thing, and that they would not turn out when called upon to serve oftener than once in any part of the United Kingdom.
§ SIR HOWARD VINCENT
said that something of the sort suggested by the hon. Member's Amendment would be very useful indeed. But they should not press the Secretary for War unduly, but leave him some time to consider the matter.
§ MR. HALDANE
said that they were at one in their purpose, and he would consider the matter between now and the Report stage, and see whether the words could not be altered.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ SIR HOWARD VINCENT
moved to leave out subsection (b), and to insert, 'Provided that the commanding officer may for any cause which ho deems sufficient dispense wholly or in part with the attendance at 738 such training of any individual man. He said there were generals and generals. There were some who were very human and took a true view of life, and others who did not. He thought that the commanding officer was the best judge as to when a cause was sufficient to allow the attendance at training of any individual man to be dispensed with wholly or in part. There were heaps of control over the commanding officer, who was only appointed for four years.
§ MR. WYNDHAM,
on a point of order, submitted that an Amendment of which he had given notice ought to be taken first.
§ VISCOUNT MORPETH
remarked that he had on the Paper a proposal to add the following new subsection—Every man of the first (Militia) battalion of the territorial regiment shall be trained three months on enlistment, and shall train for thirty days in every year subsequently (luring his term of service.
said that he thought the noble Viscount's Amendment would not be in order now. The period of training had already been dealt with.
§ MR. WYNDHAM
said that they had already dealt with the period of preliminary training of recruits, although not satisfactorily to hon. Members on that side of the House. What they were now dealing with was the annual training of the Auxiliary Forces. His object, no less than that of the right hon. Gentleman, was to fit the cavalry and artillery sections of the Auxiliary Forces so that they should be capable for the support of, and expansion on emergency into, the Regular Army. With that view the Opposition had advised the Government to improve the Militia and the Yeomany and impose upon both of them the obligation for foreign service; to provide for Regular Artillery; and to show the Volunteers a great deal of consideration. That plan had been put on one side. The Government had taken the body of the Militia and converted it into a draft-making machine, and the cream of the Yeomanry were to be put into a Reserve. With regard to the Artillery, they were told that there was power to drill for thirty days, which might or might not be applied. How vague was the situation of 739 this force which was to support and expand the first line of the Regular Array! The right hon. Gentleman was trying to do the impossible. The plan suggested in the Amendment was one by which, at any rate, some of the troops of the Territorial Force could receive a more adequate training. Taking the force as the right hon. Gentleman would constitute it, consisting only of the Volunteers and the efficient part of the Yeomanry, some portion of that force should receive sufficient training in each year. There were fifty-six regiments of Yeomanry cavalry. If one out of eight trained for two months each year, each regiment would only be asked to make that effort once in seven years. The number of batteries of artillery were far in excess of fifty-six, and if one Volunteer artillery battery out of eight were asked to train for two months in each year, that obligation would only come once in fifteen, seventeen, or twenty years. As to the Infantry, only one regiment out of eight would be asked to serve for one month, which would not be a great burden upon them. He suggested that if the training of the second line was at present inadequate there would be a good opportunity, if the Amendment were carried, for Cavalry, Artillery, and Infantry being trained together at least once every seven years.
In page 12, line 19, after the word 'that' to insert the words, one out of every eight regiments of Cavalry or batteries of Field Artillery shall be trained for two months, and one out of every eight battalions of Infantry for one month in each year, and that.' "—(Mr. Wyndham.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. HALDANE
said it was impossible to lay it down that out of every eight battalions of Infantry there was to be selected one to be trained every year for a month. What did the right hon. Gentleman mean? Did he mean that there was to be a relation among the eight so that each was to be trained for a month in each succeeding year, because if they got into that sort of controversy there would be interminable confusion? Moreover, some men might come out of some battalions to avoid a 740 month's training, while others might go into other battalions to obtain it. He took the right hon. Gentleman to mean, however, that one out of the eight battalions was to have special training, and that raised a question which they h id discussed at an earlier stage of the Bill, whether there should be a special force raised out of the Territorial Army which should have special training. He never wished to preclude that, as he thought there might be units of the Territorial Force desirous of taking a longer preliminary and annual training. If they got that, the condition of the right hon. Member would be fulfilled. But that must depend upon circumstances and experience. It might be desirable to couple that longer training with a promise to go on foreign service if required. But this was one of those things about which they wished to know a great deal before they did anything. The proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, however, as to both the Infantry and the other forces was unworkable under the provisions of the Bill.
§ *VISCOUNT MORPETH
said his right hon. friend's proposal was that the period of training should be lengthened for a certain number of soldiers in the Territorial Army, and he must support an Amendment to that effect. He did not like the Amendment of his right hon. friend, however, so well as he liked his own, which, instead of doing it by rota, provided that the men who were trained for a longer time should go into one battalion His Amendment was to the effect that every man of the first (Militia) battalion of the Territorial regiment should be trained three months on enlistment, and for thirty days in every year subsequently during his term of service. Ho thought that would be satisfactory, and that there were many of the old Militia who would join on those terms who would otherwise be lost. Ho knew that the right hon. Gentleman thought that those men would go into the third battalion, but it was not his opinion or the opinion of those who were engaged in connection with the organisation of the Auxiliary Forces. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to find some place in which these men could serve. There would then be time for the battalion to do musketry at the same time as their training. What was the result of constant training in musketry? 741 The Regulars who did most training came first, the Militia second, and the Volunteers, who only did it in odds and ends of time, came third, although they had some very fine shots.
§ *VISCOUNT MORPETH
repeated that that was the case; the figures were as he had stated. There was nothing to take offence at, however, as it was not the fault of the Volunteers. It showed the necessity for training in musketry practice. The extra length of training would enable them to get a much more efficient battalion than could be obtained with musketry drills at odds and ends of time. Officers, non-commissioned officers, and men could only learn their work and gain confidence by training, and where the officers of the auxiliary Army at present failed was in lack of confidence, which the regular officer got through living with his men. He urged the Secretary of State for War to provide for the men who were prepared to take a longer training, and to consider whether it would not be possible to have such a battalion as he proposed.
*COLONEL HERBERT (Monmouth shire, S.)
hoped the Amendment would not be pressed, and said the right hon. Gentleman could carry out the object he had in view under the clause as it stood. There was nothing in the clause to prevent certain units getting more training in certain areas, because by Order in Council His Majesty might order that the whole or part of the Territorial Army might undergo such training. The Secretary of State for War might recommend His Majesty to exercise that power, and the only difficulty was the financial one.
§ MR. WYNDHAM
said the hon. and gallant Member might think there was that power, but they did not. They wanted something definite in the Bill. They were to have 300,000 men, and the Government were under no obligation to train any of them at all. With a view to minimising that national danger they wished the House to say that at least one-eighth part of the. force should be trained. He could not recede from that.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 55; Noes, 223. (Division List No. 212.)743
|Arnold-Forster. Rt. Hn. HughO.||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Ashley, W. W.||Duncan. Robert (Lanark, Govan||Randles, Sir John Scurrah|
|Balcarres, Lord||Fell, Arthur||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Raring, Capt. Hn. G.(Winchester||Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|
|Barrie. H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)||Salter, Arthur Clavell|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Kenyon-Slaney. Rt. Hon. Col. W.||Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.|
|Bennett, E. N.||Lee, Arthur H.(Hants., Fareh'm||Sloan, Thomas Henry|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Lowe, Sir Francis William||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Bowles, G. Stewart||MacIver, David (Liverpool)||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Boyle, Sir Edward||M'Calmont, Colonel James||Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Magnus, Sir Philip||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Butcher. Samuel Henry||Middlemore, John Throgmorton||Walker. Col. W. H. (Lancashire)|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Mildmay. Francis Bingham||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Morpeth, Viscount||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Cave. George||Muntz, Sir Philip A.||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Nicholson, Wm. G.(Petersfield)|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Nield, Herbert||TELLERS FOE THE AYES—Sir|
|Courthope, G. Loyd||O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens||Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.|
|Craig. Captain James (Down, E.||Parker, Sir Gilbert(Gravesend)|
|Dalrymple, Viscount||Pease. Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n|
|Abraham, William (Rhondda||Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)||Barry. Redmond J. (Tyrone. N.)|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Baker. Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)||Beale, W. P.|
|Adkins, W. Ryland D.||Baring. Godfrey (Isle of Wight||Bell, Richard|
|Alden, Percy||Barlow, JohnEmmott(Somers't||Bellairs, Carlyon|
|Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Benn, W.(T' w' r Hamlets. S. Geo.|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Barnes, G. N.||Bethell. Sir J. H.(Essex. Romf'rd|
|Astbury, John Meir||Hunan, Rowland Hirst||Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)|
|Billson, Alfred||Haworth, Arthur A.||Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n|
|Black, Arthur W.||Hazel, Dr. A. E.||Richardson, A.|
|Boulton, A. C. F.||Hedges, A. Paget||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)|
|Brace. William||Helme, Norval Watson||Robinson, S.|
|Bramsdon, T. A.||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Runciman. Walter|
|Brigg, John||Henderson, J. M.(Aberdeen, W.||Rutherford. V. H. (Brentford)|
|Brocklehurst, W. B.||Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Brooke, Stopford||Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe||Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)|
|Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)||Higham, John Sharp||Scott, A. H.(Ashton under Lyne|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Hobart, Sir Robert||Sears, J. E.|
|Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Hobhouse, Charles E. H.||Seddon, J.|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Holden, E. Hopkinson||Shackleton, David James|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Holt, Richard Durning||Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)|
|Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles||Hope, John Deans (Fife, West||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Byles, William Pollard||Horniman, Emslie John||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Cairns, Thomas||Horridge, Thomas Gardner||Silcock. Thomas Ball|
|Cameron, Robert||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Simon, John Allsebrook|
|Causton, Rt. Hn. RichardKnight||Hudson, Walter||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie|
|Chance, Frederick William||Hutton, Alfred Eddison||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Channing, Sir Francis Allston||Hyde, Clarendon||Spicer, Sir Albert|
|Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Johnson, John (Gateshead)||Stanger. H. V.|
|Cleland, J. W.||Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)||Stanley. Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.)|
|Clough, William||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire||Steadman. W. C.|
|Clynes, J. R.||Kekewich, Sir George||Stewart, Halley (Greenock)|
|Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)||King, Alfred John (Knutsford;||Stewart-Smith I). (Kendal)|
|Collins. Stephen (Lambeth)||Laidlaw, Robert||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)|
|Collins, Sir Wm.J.(S. Pancras, W||Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)||Stuart, James (Sunderland)|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Lambert, George||Summerbell, T.|
|Corbett, C. H.(Sussex, E. Gr'st'd||Lamont, Norman||Sutherland, J. E.|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Levy, Maurice||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Lewis, John Herbert||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Cremer, William Randal||Lough, Thomas||Tennant. Sir Edward(Salisbury)|
|Crooks, William||Lupton, Arnold||Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)|
|Crosfield, A. H.||Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr|
|Crossley, William J.||Lyell, Charles Henry||Thomasson. Franklin|
|Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Lynch, H. B.||Thompson. J. W. H.(Somerset, E|
|Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Torrance, Sir A. M.|
|Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Maclean, Donald||Ure, Alexander|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Verney, F. W.|
|Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)||Macpherson, J. T.||Walker. H. De R. (Leicester)|
|Edwards, Frank (Radnor)||MCallum, John M.||Walsh, Stephen|
|Elibank, Master of||M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Walters, John Tudor|
|Erskine, David C.||M'Micking, Major G.||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Essex, R. W.||Maddison, Frederick||Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent|
|Esslemont, George Birnie||Manfield, Harry (Northants)||Ward, W. Dudley(Southampton|
|Eve, Hurry Trelawney||Markham, Arthur Basil||Wardle, George J.|
|Everett, R. Lacey||Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)||Waring, Walter|
|Faber, G. H. (Boston)||Marnham, F. J.||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)|
|Ferens, T. R.||Menzies, Walter||Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)|
|Findlay, Alexander||Micklem, Nathaniel||Watt. Henry A.|
|Fuller, John Michael F.||Molteno, Percy Alport||Whitbread, Howard|
|Fullerton, Hugh||Morse, L. L.||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)|
|Gill, A. H.||Murray, James||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Glover, Thomas||Napier, T. B.||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||Newness F. (Notts., Bassetlaw)||Whit-taker, Sir Thomas Palmer|
|Gooch, George Peabody||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Wiles, Thomas|
|Grant, Corrie||Parker, James (Haliafx)||Williams. J. (Glamorgan)|
|Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)||Pearce, William (Limehouse)||Wilson. Hon. C. H. W.(Hull, W.)|
|Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward||Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Griffith, Ellis J.||Pickersgill, Edward Hare||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Gulland, John W.||Pirie, Duncan V.||Wilson, T. (Westhoughton)|
|Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh. Central)||Wood. T. M'Kinnon|
|Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Hall, Frederick||Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)|
|Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis||Rea, Russell (Gloucester)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.|
|Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'||Whiteley and Mr. J. A.Pease.|
|Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)||Rees, J. D.|
|Hart-Davies, T.||Rendall, Athelstan|
|Harvey, W.E. (Derbyshire. N.E.||Richards, Thomas (W.Monmth|
Question put, and agreed to.
§ SIR HOWARD VINCENT
moved an Amendment providing that the com- 744 manding officer, and not "the prescribed general officer," should have the power 745 to dispense with the attendance at training of individual men. As he had pointed out to the Secretary of State, this Bill almost effaced the commanding officer. The drill was to be given by the brigadier, the permission to leave the force was to be given by the County Association; in point of fact he could not see what use the commanding officer was at all under the Bill. He warned the right hon. Gentleman that he was making a great mistake if he thought he was going to work the Territorial Force without the commanding officer. The Auxiliary Forces were formed by the commanding officers almost in the teeth of the authorities, and if the right hon. Gentleman was going to get rid of the commanding officers he might as well give up the Territorial Force altogether. One reason why ho hoped the Secretary of State would accept the Amendment was that the right hon. Gentleman had already, agreeing wisely with the advice offered on all hands, been good enough to put back the regular adjutants, who who were abolished by the Bill as drafted. The regular adjutant was undoubtedly a very great check on a too indulgent commanding officer, and it was essential to the welfare of the force that the units should look to the commanding officer. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to trust the commanding officer, or if he did not trust him to remove him at once. They had every opportunity to do so, because he was only appointed for four years; but let not the right hon. Gentleman give the go-by to the commanding officer and say that the brigadier or the division general should do this, that, and the other. The commanding officer was responsible for the efficiency of the unit, would not be too indulgent, and could judge every case upon its merits. He urged the right hon. Gentleman to remember that the successful administration of the Act depended on the good will of the commanding officer. He bogged to move.
In page 12, line 19, to leave out the words prescribed general,' and to insert the word commanding.' '—(Sir Howard Vincent.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be loft out stand part of the clause."
§ MR. HALDANE
said the hon. and gallant Member throughout the discussion had been much concerned as to the position of the commanding officer. The Government had no intention or idea of diminishing his position. All they desired to do was to make his position more like that of a regular officer. The provision they were now introducing was introduced with no view of injuring the position of the commanding officer, but in reality for his assistance. It was very undesirable that the commanding officer should be exposed to the odium which sometimes attached to those who had to deal with these matters and say "No." Sometimes it was not very easy to have to say "No." He disliked to say "No" to the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
§ MR. HALDANE
said he was a member of the Army Council and his colleagues would not let him. It was desirable that the commanding officer should have some uniformity of standard by being able to refer to the brigadier, who should be the judge of what the standard should be. The brigadier would take the commanding officer's recommendation in every proper case. In the ordinary way the application would be made to the commanding officer and by him forwarded with his recommendation to the brigadier. That system obtained in analogous cases in the Regular Forces. For that reason he thought it was bettor that the clause should stand as at present, and thus allow the division general or the brigadier to be the judge in these cases. To meet the view of hon. Members opposite he was prepared to add, after the words "application being made in the prescribed manner," some such words as these: "through the commanding officer of the unit." That would ensure the applications going through the proper channel, but he thought that the prescribed general officer should be the ultimate tribunal.
§ VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH
said he wished to support the view of his 747 hon. friend with regard to the commanding officers. They ought not to take these matters of detail out of the hands of the commanding officers, because it went a very great way towards under-mining their position. He could only say that under no circumstances would he himself agree to the command of a regiment if these small matters were taken out of his hands and given to another person put over his head to direct the movement of men who were virtually, or were supposed to be, under his command. He thought that the great drawback of the criticism of the present military system was that those who made it had very little experience of regimental life. He knew that the experience of the commanding officer of a regiment did not appeal to the right hon. Gentlemen in the same manner that it appealed to himself and those who had served in the Army or Auxiliary Forces; but the authority of a commanding officer in barracks or over the regiment was paramount.
§ VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH
said that the man in the barracks looked upon the commanding officer as all-powerful. He urged the right hon. Gentleman to make the commanding officer absolutely responsible, and if he failed, censure him and dismiss him at once. No penalty could be too hard for a commanding officer who assumed responsibility and did not carry it out in a proper manner. The right hon. Gentleman should be very careful that the authority of the commanding officer was not weakened. It was said that the removal of these small things relieved the commanding officer of a certain amount of work, and that he would not be under the necessity of saying ''no." But these matters wore so absolutely connected with his command that he urged the right hon. Gentleman to make the commanding officer responsible to him, and give him jurisdiction over the whole of these small matters.
§ *MR. COURTHOPE
hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would give way. These were matters for the commanding officer, who should not wish to shelter himself behind some higher power; it was 748 not desirable that he should be able so to shelter himself. If any commanding officer refused leave of absence, it would be very much better that he should do it on his own responsibility. He would be respected by the men. But the commanding officer who said, "I am very sorry; I would like to give you leave of absence, but I am not allowed to do so," would forfeit the respect of the men at once. It was not desirable that there should be an opportunity of shirking responsibility on the part of the commanding officer, and he was perfectly sure that the commanding officers themselves did not in the least desire that opportunity. Then there was another important matter bearing on this question, contained in the worns, "application made in the prescribed manner." That meant a form to be filled in, and within a small space the reasons had to be stated for asking leave of absence from camp. Necessarily the reason had to be stated in a few words, and a great number of the applications would no doubt appear in the same form of words, although the true reasons might be entirely different in the various cases. But the commanding officer would know the difference between the cases; he would know that one case was stronger than another, though the form might be the same, and if he had not this personal knowledge himself, ho was at least in close touch with his company officers, who had. How was the brigadier to know or judge of these matters; he had no local knowledge; he did not know the men or their employers. He might refuse leave of absence on every application that came within the same category. In some cases he might be right, and in other cases he might inflict grave injustice. It was very desirable that applications for leave of absence should not pass through too many hands. It was very desirable also they should not get into a stereotyped form, which was inevitable if these fatal words "prescribed manner" were left in the Bill.
§ MR. VERNEY (Buckinghamshire, N.)
said this was not a question dealing with mere detail. It did not only apply to the men, as had been argued on the other side of the House, but it applied to units. How were they going to allow a commanding officer to dispense with his whole unit? [Cries of "Read the 749 Amendment."] If they looked at the section they would see that it said—Provided that the prescribed general officer may, for any cause which he thinks sufficient, dispense wholly or in part as respects any unit or individual man with the requirements of this section on application being made in the prescribed manner.Surely that took it out of the category put forward. [Renewed cries of "Read the Amendment."]
*THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN
said the question before the Committee was to leave out the words "the prescribed general officer," with the view of inserting "the. commanding officer," and the question was limited to that.
§ SIR HOWARD VINCENT
said the Amendment on the Paper was "Provided that the commanding-officer may for any cause which he deems sufficient dispense wholly or in part with the attendance at such training of any individual man."
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN
That is not the question put from the Chair; the Amendment on the Paper is not under discussion.
said he had great sympathy with the views of the hon. Member for Central Sheffield, and he would suggest that they might be met by making the clause read "Provided that the prescribed officer may for any cause which he thinks fit," and so forth, and, at the end, inserting the words "subject to there vision of the general officer commanding." That would give power to the general officer commanding to delegate his power in this respect to the officer commanding the unit, which would be a very good thing to do. It would also give him the power to see that the commanding officer carried out the duty with proper regard to the requirements of the service. He had had some experience of this sort of application, and he could say as a chief staff officer of the district, that one got in the course of the day baskets full of applications of this nature. These were examined by a subordinate and were put before the officer, who had to sign them, by the bushel. The staff officer could not exercise discretion as the commanding officer might do, and the commanding officer was tempted, as the 750 hon. Gentleman opposite had observed, to throw the odium of refusal upon his superior officer. He thought that the clause could be so drafted as to thoroughly safeguard the position of the general officer commanding, and at the same time enable the duties to be performed by the officer who was commanding.
§ MR. HALDANE
said he himself wished to meet the sense of the Committee, and he thought that they were very much of the mind of his hon. and gallant friend who had just spoken, but it was obvious that he would have to give some consideration as to what the words should be. His hon. and gallant friend had pointed out what, of course, they knew to be the feeling of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, whose Amendment had to be put in a more limited form than that in which it appeared on the Paper, but the proposal would apply to the unit. He thought that there was a great deal in what had been said by his hon. and gallant friend, and he would consider before Report whether he could frame a form of words which would steer clear of the unit while giving effect to what was proposed.
§ SIR HOWARD VINCENT
said he was very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, who, he thought, would see at once how, by his giving way, business was greatly advanced. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would continue in his new frame of mind, and not be in the least afraid of the Army Council. He begged to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
§ VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH
moved to leave out sub-section (2) (a). He said that the right hon. Gentleman and himself seemed to have the same object in view, yet in the scheme everything was left as indefinite as possible, and members of the Territorial Force might have many surprises sprung upon them. He ventured to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give them something more definite. Effective members of the Territorial Force would ask how many days they were to serve in the year, and the answer would be that it would be fifteen days unless His Majesty in Council decreed that it should be thirty days. 751 Men might be called to serve thirty days. He had had a certain amount of experience in recruiting. He remembered a resolution setting forth that recruits were being entrapped into the Army, and to a certain extent that was true. In the system of recruiting the smallest thing acted as a deterrent. In regard to the Territorial Force, where a man would be called upon to make some self-sacrifice, the slightest deterrent or uncertainty would cause him to draw back and make up his mind not to join the force. Therefore he invited the Secretary of State for War to specify the exact number of days so that a man joining the force would be able to make his arrangements from one year's end to another. He was sure that if a particular number of days was specified it would greatly facilitate the success of the scheme.
In page 12, line 24, to leave out sub-section (a)."—(Viscount Castlereagh.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
§ MR. HALDANE
said that for reasons he had already stated he was unable to accept the Amendment. It was absolutely essential that there should be some latitude in the matter. An Order in Council made under this clause would have to lie on the Table of the House for not less than thirty days. It was quite possible that an emergency might arise such as was the case in 1900, when emergency Volunteer camps were set up for a very good reason. They might be on the verge of war; a serious situation might arise, when it might be desirable to ask the Volunteers to take thirty days training. It was highly desirable to retain the subsection, and he could not accept the Amendment.
§ MR. ASHLEY
said that although he had much sympathy with the Amendment, they must be very careful to do nothing that would deter men from joining the territorial force. He appreciated what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman in regard to a threatened war or a complication with a foreign Power. Under such circumstances it would be the absolute duty of the Government to 752 train the whole Territorial Force for thirty days. He hoped the noble Lord would not divide the Committee on his Amendment.
§ LORD BALCARRES
said the Amendment had been moved to get a precise statement from the right hon. Gentleman. They had been told that the War Office must have some latitude in the matter, and he quite agreed. He did not, however, think that any Act had ever been passed which conferred so much latitude on the War Office as this Bill, because it was all latitude. The annual training might be reduced by the Secretary of State for War to one day, and he might lay down that the whole or part of the Territorial Force in any given year should have no training whatever. That was latitude if ever there was any. He objected to that kind of thing very much, and in setting up this great citizen army, he thought the House of Commons ought itself to lay down the main lines upon which it was to be organised. The right hon. Gentleman said that latitude was required, and he quoted as an example the year 1900, when there were emergency camps for the Volunteers. The Secretary of State for War already possessed a power under the embodiment clause, by which ho could establish emergency camps. He thought Clause 14, like many other clauses in this Bill, was almost a farce, because the sub-section which they had been solemnly passing, laying down that the training should not be less than eight or more than fifteen days, meant absolutely nothing when read in connection with what was provided lower down in the clause. Uncertainty was the greatest deterrent which could be placed in the way of recruiting. Under this scheme the man who enlisted in a particular force had no idea what the actual obligations of the camp were going to be. He regretted that the clause placed responsibility on the authorities at the War Office which ought to be taken by the House of Commons.
§ VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH
said he did not desire to press his Amendment to a division. All ho desired was to make the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman a success, and he wished to impress upon him that the element of 753 uncertainty was one of the things which would be most likely to ruin the scheme. He begged leave to withdraw his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ *MR. COURTHOPE
moved to leave out subsection (b), which gave power to His Majesty in Council to order the period of the annual training to be reduced to such time as His Majesty might think fit. The period might be reduced below the minimum of eight days. He protested strongly against any such power, because it would reduce training to a perfect farce, and do away with its whole value. When they went out for eight days training under the present system there was nothing done on the first day they went into camp, which was generally on the Saturday. On the Sunday following there was nothing done owing to the idea that on Sunday all the men should be allowed to loaf about the streets, and the following Monday was generally spent in getting over the effects of their loafing about on the Sunday or in settling down. Consequently they did not begin serious training until the Tuesday. On the Friday they had to pack up and Saturday they went home. Consequently they had only three days of real work and for the Secretary of State for War to reduce that eight days training, say to five days, would not leave them a single working day of any value at all. He urged the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the subsection.
In page 12, line 28, to leave out Subsection (b)." — (Mr. Courthope.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
§ MR. BUCHANAN
said the same considerations applied to this Amendment as to the previous one. What the Government were doing was merely to put into the clause the ipsissima verba of the Militia Act. Nobody had complained of the provision, and it was clearly desirable that the power should be continued. He could not accept the Amendment.
§ *MR. COURTHOPE
said the hon. Gentleman had not touched his objection. In the Militia Act the minimum was not eight days, but a much longer period. He regarded eight days as far too short a period. It was perfectly ridiculous to retain power to reduce it further.
§ *COLONEL WALKER (Lancashire, Widnes)
pointed out that the Secretary of State had on the previous Amendment to Subsection (a) stated that these subsections could only be enforced by an Order in Council, which entailed the necessity of Papers in reference thereto lying on the Table of each House for thirty days. To use so ponderous a method of extending a training from fifteen days to thirty days, as in Subsection (a) or in diminishing the days of training from fifteen days to less, as in Subsection (b) must make the inclusion of these subsections in this clause inoperative, and if they were essential to the Bill they ought to be embodied under some other clause, whore the machinery to enforce thorn might be more easily set in motion.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. COURTHOPE
moved to omit subsection (c) providing that His Majesty in Council might "Order that in any year the annual training of all or any part of the Territorial Force be dispensed with." He said that was a dangerous and mischievous power to give to a Government. If pressure was put upon them by the Party keen on anti-militarism they might give way in order to save so many hundred thousand pounds. He did not suggest for a moment that the present Government were likely to exercise the power, but he knew that a certain section of their followers would like them to do so. He bogged to move.
In page 12, line 31, to leave oat subsection (c)." —(Mr. Courthope.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
§ MR. BUCHANAN
said he could add very little to what he had already stated 755 in refusing previous Amendments. The cardinal reason for the maintenance of this subsection was the same as that which had induced the Government to maintain the previous one. They merely asked for the continuance of a power which had existed for many years in regard to the Militia. There had been no complaint in regard to it, and therefore they were warranted in asking that the power should be continued.
§ MR. CHARLES ALLEN (Gloucestershire, Stroud)
said that some years ago there was a serious epidemic of smallpox in Glasgow, and it would have been absolute folly at that time to gather the battalions into camp. It was not done, and it seemed to him a very good thing to have power under such circumstances to dispense with the annual training of the Volunteers.
§ LORD BALCARRES
said that in the event of a serious epidemic it would be contrary to public health to call out a corps, and of course the corps ought not to be called out.
moved an Amendment to provide that a member of the Territorial Force might receive instruction "with his own or other unit of the Regular or Territorial Forces." He said that his object was to meet a difficulty which was very well known to all officers connected with the Auxiliary Forces, especially in the case of recruits. The Amendment, if adopted, would make it possible for a man to perform part or the whole of his training with another unit than that to which he legally belonged. It frequently happened that a man, owing to the circumstances of his ordinary employment, was obliged to move from one place to another. He did not wish to sever his connection with the regiment to which he belonged, but it might be impossible in the circumstances in which he found himself to carry out the recruit's training or possibly the annual training with the corps in which he had enlisted. Under these circumstances it was merely a matter of administrative arrangement that the man should be allowed to perform those duties with the most convenient unit that 756 happened to be available. If he happened to be at a place where there was a garrison of Regular troops, he would gain a great advantage in being allowed to perform his duties with the Regular Force.
In page 12, line 35, after the word 'instruction' to insert the words,' with his own or other unit of the Regular or Territorial Forces."'—(Colonel Herbert.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. BUCHANAN
said this was a reasonable and sensible proposal, but he thought the words were unnecessary, for there was power already to do what his hon. and gallant friend proposed.
§ MR. ASHLEY
said that, if the Government were in cordial sympathy with the Amendment, there could surely be no objection to inserting the words in the Bill. What they wanted was an efficient Territorial Force, and no difficulty should be put in the way of the men getting the necessary training.
asked his hon. friend to state where the power was to be found. He had failed to find it in the Bill.
§ MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE
was understood to say that a man could be transferred from one unit to another with his own consent.
said he did not wish to press the Amendment, though he thought if the words were put in they would make the matter clearer.
§ LORD BALCARRES
said he could not understand why there should be any reluctance to accept an obligation on the part of the War Office in drafting regulations to reserve this right to members of the Territorial Forces. The Amendment was a very modest and simple one. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman had taken rather a harsh line towards the Volunteers. The Amendment would be very highly valued by the Volunteer Forces and he could not understand why the instruction should not be made mandatory on the War Office.
§ MAJOR SEELY
asked his hon. friend whether he could not give the Committee any further assurance on this point. It was of the utmost importance that a man should be able to train with any unit. He understood that that could be done under Subsection (3), Clause 14, "in accordance with orders and regulations under this part of this Act." If that was so, his point would be made good; but if not, he would press it in every way. The Amendment was a corollary of the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman had accepted the previous night.
§ MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE
said there was nothing in the words of the section to prevent an Order in Council being issued which would give power to a Volunteer to train with another unit than his own; but he gave an undertaking that the right of training referred to in the Amendment should find a place in the regulations to be issued under the Order in Council.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 14 agreed to.
§ Clause 15:—
§ Mr. ASHLEY
moved to leave out the word "extending," and to insert the word "varying." An extraordinary state of things would arise under the clause as it stood. The clause ran that—Before any Order in Council is made under this Act providing for preliminary training or extending the period of annual training, the draft thereof shall be laid before each House of Parliament for a period of not less than thirty days during the session of Parliament, and if either of those Houses, before the expiration of those thirty days, presents an address to His Majesty against the draft or any part thereof, no further proceedings shall he taken, without prejudice to the making of a new draft Order.That was to say, that the Order should lie on the Table of both Houses of Parliament if it extended the period of training, but if the period of training was to be reduced the Order was not to lie on the Table. His contention was that it was equally important that Parliament should have the opportunity of expressing an 758 opinion on the action of the Government, whether the period of training were extended or reduced. In fact he thought it was, if anything, more important that Parliament should have a say in the matter if the period of training was to be reduced.
In page 12, line 38, to leave out the word 'extending,' and insert the word 'varying." — (Mr. Ashley.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'extending' stand part of the clause."
§ Mr. BUCHANAN
said that the substance of the clause was that all Orders in Council which dealt with preliminary training were to be laid on the Table of the House for a period of thirty days. The distinction pointed out by the hon. Member was made because it was recognised that the increase of obligations on any individual or corps of the Territorial Forces was a matter which should be brought to the cognisance of Parliament, and that Parliament should have the opportunity of objecting to extending the period of training. It was on that ground that the words in the clause were inserted.
§ CAPTAIN CRAIG
said he. heartily supported the Amendment. In his opinion it was in the interests not only of the Territorial Forces, but of the welfare of the nation that the House should be able to express an opinion upon any proposal to lessen the amount of training. Some hon. Members thought that the preliminary training of the Artillery branch of the Territorial Forces was already insufficient, and if that were to be limited still further the House should have notice of it, so that it could be discussed freely. If it was intended to place further restrictions on the joint Territorial Force it appeared that the matter had to be brought before Parliament, but if it was desired to reduce the period of training the House was to have nothing to do with it. He hoped the Government would accept the Amendment, which he was sure would not interfere with any regulations which the War Office might find it necessary to make in altering the time of training.
§ Amendment negatived.759
§ Clause 15 agreed to.
§ Clause 16: —
§ LORD BALCARRES
moved the omission of the first subsection with a view of obtaining from the representatives of the War Office their views on the important question of the training of the Territorial Force on embodiment. As drafted, the subsection laid it down that immediately upon and by virtue of the issue of a proclamation ordering the Army Reserve to be called out on permanent service it should be lawful for His Majesty to order the Army Council from time to time to give and when given to revoke or vary such directions as might seem necessary or proper for embodying all or any part of the Territorial Force. He thought it right that when the Army Reserve was called out on permanent service the embodiment of the Territorial Force should follow, but the vital point was what were the circumstances under which the territorial soldiers were to be trained? They had been frequently told by the Secretary of State for War that six months training should be given to the Territorial Force, but it was admitted that there was nothing in the Bill giving a guarantee that that should be the case, and he suggested that there ought to be put in this clause, which was the embodiment clause, some tangible proof that in the belief of the Government six months training was required. it was a very grave matter, perhaps the gravest in the hill. The assumption on the part of the War Office was that six months grace would on the declaration of war be received by this country before a force came to attack our shores.
*THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN
said that the clause provided that where, under any such proclamation, directions had been issued for calling out all the men belonging to the first class of the Army Reserve, the Army Council should within one month after such directions had been issued issue directions for embodying all the men belonging to the Territorial Force. The question of the period of training of the troops did not arise on this clause.
§ LORD BALCARRES
said he merely wished to point out that the six months 760 grace which the right hon. Gentleman pre-supposed in regard to this country was absolutely opposed to the experience of all wars. It was opposed to the experience of the Franco-German War and of the Russo-Japanese War, which afforded irrefragible proof that no such grace would be afforded during which troops could be trained. He thought on this clause the War Office should tell them frankly why they considered the embodiment should be postponed until the crisis had arisen. Why, the danger having arisen, should this mystic period of six months be chosen for the training of troops to meet a foreign force which had been trained for a considerably longer period? As, however, the point did not arise on this clause he would not pursue it, but if the Chairman would indicate the clause on which the subject could be debated he would be very much indebted to him.
§ Amendment proposed—
§ "In page 13, line 6, to leave out Subsection (1)." — (Lord Balcarres.)
§ Question proposed, ''That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
§ MR. BUCHANAN
said the noble Lord had moved the omission of the subsection upon a subject which under the ruling of the Chair they could not discuss at that moment, and he did not think it, would be right or proper for him to deal with the matter, except to say that a study of the clause would, he thought, show the rationale of the system proposed by his right hon. friend. The noble Lord assumed that the previous training of the Territorial Force was so small as to be of no value, and that the subsequent training would not be sufficient for the purpose which they had in view. But he could not believe that. He would not, however, be led away into the discussion of a matter which was clearly outside the scope of the clause. The clause dealt with the procedure of embodiment, and not with that of training, and it provided that on the Reserve being called out a discretion was to be given as to the calling out of the Territorial Force. Precautions were taken against any abuse of that power in the latter part of the clause, securing that Parliament should have an opportunity of considering the matter, and if 761 it was prorogued or adjourned, should be summoned for the purpose. He did not think that it was possible at that juncture to embark upon the discussion of the subject which the noble Lord had invited them to consider.
§ LORD BALCARRES
said, under the circumstances, us his question was out of order, and the reply of the Under-Secretary was very unsatisfactory, he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Question proposed, "That Clause 16 stand part of the Bill."
§ *MR. ARNOLD FORSTER
said that the clause was a marked example of a characteristic common to many parts of the Bill. It was a piece of sheer make-believe from beginning to end, and only called old things by new names. This part of the Bill was purely mischievous, for what was provided for in the clause would not take place. There would be no embodiment of the Territorial Force as proposed in the clause. The supposition was that there would be a Territorial Force of 300,000 men. No one had told the House what the force was going to do. But they were presumably to be embodied at the outbreak of a great war, and by law the 300,000 men were going to take their places in the ranks, and to remain there subject to the penalties of desertion for a time that had never been specified, though it was supposed to be for six months. When war broke out the corps belonging to Woolwich, Elswick, the Post Office, and other Departments bound up with the Government service were to be enrolled for service, but it was a farce to imagine that the Government could embody these corps for a six months training. This was not a matter of conjecture. General Mackinnon, the present Director of Auxiliary Forces was asked what could be done in the emergency of a great war in the direction of using the Volunteers as units for the purposes of the war. General Mackinnon said it would be impossible to think of calling out the Volunteers as units, but said he was confident that out of London they could obtain two composite regiments and 762 out of the City of Glasgow, in which there were thousands of Volunteers, one, —not one unit but one composite regiment from all the Volunteers in Glasgow. What could be said of London and Glasgow and what was the matured judgment of General Mackinnon furnished an idea of what would take place in all the great cities and all over the country. In order to discuss this matter seriously they had to imagine the emergency of some great war. In the history of this country it would be found that we had been at war in the north-west corner of Europe more often than in any other part of the world, and he could imagine a great conflict in which we were engaged in which we had to uphold our treaty rights in the northwest corner of Europe. Was it seriously contended or was it the mere make-believe of this Bill that the Government wore going to send round the fiery cross to all our great cities and rural districts, not the fiery cross of Scott's poem, but a fiery cross to selected houses, and say that those men were to come out and leave their business for five, six, or twelve months on the penalty of desertion? The thing was impossible. They had first to exclude from the category of men who were to be called out those whom the public service would not allow to undertake this obligation at all. When the Government talked about 300,000 men why did not they tell the Committee that tens of thousands of those men would not be allowed to come out. He could imagine a war in which the Army was not engaged, but he could not imagine a serious war in which this country was engaged in which the Navy would not take part, and how many men were there in the arsenals who were ancillary to the Navy who were enrolled in the Volunteers and who would be enrolled in this county council Army? Not one of those men could come out. Then there were the great railways. He was looking recently at the monument which had been put up at Euston Station to the men who lost their lives in the South African War, and a noble monument it was to the memory of those who had fallen. But, after all, they were a very small number of the vast mass of railway employees. And there was not a manager of a railway company who would not tell them that the demand made on the railway companies in 763 the war was a source of great embarrassment to them. Let them take the works at Crewe. How many of the men composing the personnel of the Crewe works could they call out for a six months embodiment? The hon. Member for Clitheroe would be able to tell them perhaps better than anybody else what would be the result to any of the great industries of Lancashire if, without preparation beforehand, they were suddenly to call out from the mills of Lancashire for six months all the men now enlisted in the Volunteers. It would lead to a demoralisation of business which would be infinitely more serious than the lack of men in such an emergency. It might be perfectly true that in other countries they did mobilise and demoralise the industries of the country, but in that case everything was prepared. The rain fell upon the just and unjust alike. But in this case they said to the residents in the same street that one should be taken and four left. Who was to be the man to be taken? They were told that the man of this county council Army was to be of a very high quality. The hon. and gallant Member for the Aborcrom by Division had said, as had also the right hon. Gentleman, that the best man in peace was the best man in war. He did not quite agree, but were they to take that man away from his business for six months? Was that going to be tolerated? The only way in which the Government could carry this Bill was by concealing these things. They were not playing fairly with the people of the country. They talked vaguely about six months mobilisation, but they dared not put it in the Bill. They talked about mobilising 300,000 men, but they dared not put it in the Bill that they were going to call these men away from their occupations. If they were serious in this Bill, which they were not, and if they were really thinking of a fighting force, they would have to do what any reasonable man would do when he called out an army. They would have to deduct the inevitable number of casualties for sickness. Let the Under-Secretary of State for India go to the War Office and see what had to be done on the occasion, the emergency of war. Let him look at the nominal lists of regiments and then ask the Intelligence Department what the difference was between the roll of the 764 Army as it stood and the roll in the Intelligence Department as tested by the requirements of war. When that test was applied this clause of embodiment went out. They had to exclude all those who wore inefficient, all those who could not be spared on public or commercial grounds, and they would have to exclude a very large class because they were the breadwinners, and could not be spared by their families. He had already alluded to the casualties from sickness or physical infirmity. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Abercromby Division and the right hon. Gentleman were never tired of telling the Committee that we must rely on the patriotism of the people; but that did not carry them very far. They had to look to reasonable probabilities. Hon. Members no doubt were familiar with what took place in the great American Civil War. That war was a war fought for national existence on the soil of the belligerents. Large numbers of volunteers were embodied under similar conditions to those contemplated by this Bill. They went out for a time, and what happened? They were beaten at Bull's Run and they all began to go home. They said they must attend to their business. Then some of the generals broke every law of the land and said they would shoot them if they attempted to go. Some got home and President Linco'n had to take powers from Congress to compel the men to remain in the ranks. He submitted that it was not reasonable to palm off on the country a proposition of this kind and allow the people to think that in time of war we were going to get 300,000 valid Volunteers because this clause had been stuck in the Bill. He felt that here they had touched one of the very few real points of the Bill. All the talk that had gone before was nothing, because he thought after all the talk the Volunteers would be in the same condition as they were now. But this matter was of real importance, and he asked the Financial Secretary if ho would represent to the Secretary of State the desirability of adding to the large number of memoranda with which lie was credited one more Memorandum which would give an approximate estimate of the number of men of the Territorial Force who would be available, and whom it would be possible to assemble for 765 six months, or anything like it, in the milliner contemplated in this clause. Until then he would respectfully submit that they were entirely in the dark; that the Government were playing with words and not dealing with things. However anxious the Committee might be to see this county council Army called into existence, no one was anxious to vote £3,000,000 to call an army into existence which, when called up for service, would be 50 per cent. below its strength. The Committee ought to be informed as to what was a fair estimate of the number of men that could be called out and kept out for six months. He would also like to know what answer there was to the statement made over and over again by those who had thought much and earnestly about this subject. What was the answer to the problem put by those, with some of whom he did not altogether agree, but whose motives ho greatly respected and admired—the members of the National Service League—what answer was to be given to the problem which they propounded? They said, "How are you going to justify to the people of this country the call which will be made for foreign war, or it may be for home war, in case of emergency, upon one section of the community?" It would be a very small section of the community in any case. His right hon. friend held the view that they could safely rely on the individual option of the person enrolled as to whether he would go to war or not. They were taking away that right. They were saying that a certain number of persons, not because they were wiser or more foolish, or better or worse, not because they were more competent or less competent than their neighbours, not because they had a greater or less interest at stake than their neighbours, but because they happened in peace time to be enrolled in the county council Army, were therefore liable to leave their business and employments to become part of the standing Army of the country. The two questions which he had to ask, and to which he would very much like an answer, were, first, whether they would have an analysis which would explain to them what portion of the force could not, by virtue of their circumstances, be embodied at all, and, in the second place, what was the answer to the just feeling of indignation there would 766 be on the part of men who found that they were taken from their employment and their chance of livelihood to servo the nation when their neighbours on either side were left untouched.
§ MR. MYER (Lambeth, N.)
asked whether the right hon. Gentleman was in order in discussing this matter of the county council Army. He believed that they were discussing the Territorial Army.
§ MR. ARNOLD FORSTER
said the Bill stated that instead of using the word "soldier" they were to say "man" of the Territorial Force. The Secretary of State had declined to give a name to this "man" of the Territorial Force, and he had himself, therefore, suggested a name which he thought would be appropriate. The word "soldier" had been ruled out, and the duty of finding a name had been left to him by the right hon. Gentleman.
said the right bon. Gentleman had asked two very pointed questions, and ho thought that in common courtesy there ought to be some reply from the Secretary for War.
§ MR. HALDANE
said the answer was very simple. This carefully considered clause was the very pith and essence of the proposal. They did not intend to have any analysis, such as had been suggested, as to who would come out and who would not come out. They trusted that in a great emergency, for which alone the clause provided, that people would do their duty; and, more than that, that employers of labour, Government departments, and everybody concerned who could exercise control in the matter would likewise do their duty. To say that that was unreal and a sham was to make a charge against the seriousness of the nation. The clause was one of the most important in the Bill, and they would certainly adhere to it.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
said the right hon. Gentleman had not had the fortune or misfortune to hoar his speech. He had asked two simple questions. He wanted to know how many of these people would be available. There were tens of thousands who not only could 767 not come out, but who ought not to come out. If the right hon. Gentleman would tell him how many men there were engaged in the Royal Arsenal at Woolwich, at the works at Elswick, and in various Government employments who could not be sacrificed when war came—if he told him how many of these men could not be spared from Government employment and all subsidiary and ancillary employments, because they would be working double shift in time of war, then they would understand where they were. But until he did that, it was of no use the right hon. Gentleman waving his flag and saying he was not going to give particulars.
§ MR. HALDANE
said he fancied he now saw what was at the root of the right hon. Gentleman's criticism. The right hon. Gentleman thought that they intended to enlist into the Territorial Force men whose services would be required in their various employments at homo at the time war broke out. That was the old confused proceeding which characterised the Auxiliary Forces at the present time, and which had caused a good deal of their inefficiency. But, as for saying that when they had got men under an obligation like this, they were not to be relied on to come forward, the right hon. Gentleman's own procedure was the refutation of it. The right hon. Gentleman proposed, when he was in office, to constitute a short service Army. Men were to be two years with the colours, and a very long time with the Reserve. The battalions were to be very small, only 500 in establishment, but they were to produce a very great strength of people with a very long time in the Reserve. They were people in civil employments in large numbers. The right hon. Gentleman did not doubt that his people would come forward. Neither did he doubt that the very sensible idea which entered his mind in connection with his proposals would be realised in the present scheme. His answer to the 768 right hon. Gentleman's question was, first, that they intended to eliminate the class of people who could not come forward; and, secondly, that they were acting on the very same principle as the right hon. Gentleman had acted on himself, in their conviction that they would get the men.
§ MR. WYNDHAM
said he must be allowed to refer to the unusual circumstance that the Minister in charge of the Bill should describe a particular clause as containing the whole pith of his scheme, yet, when that clause came on give no explanation of it, nor any argument to show that the whole of his plan hinged upon it.
§ MR. WYNDHAM
said he did not think that the right hon. Gentleman went through the clause on the Second Reading, or that he gave an explanation of it as it stood. But he was well warranted in saying that the right hon. Gentleman had never told the House in so many words that, for example, the Post Office Volunteers were no longer to form part of the Auxiliary Forces of the Crown. That corps was an illustration; many more could be adduced. Many Volunteers must from this moment understand that they were ruled out from the Auxiliary Forces of the Crown. All that sprang from the plan which the right hon. Gentleman insisted upon pursuing, against the advice showered upon him. If there were to be in the force no men who could not be called out the moment the Army Reserve was called on, the right hon. Gentleman was ruling out a very considerable section of the Volunteer Force as they knew it. The Secretary of State had given no explanation except such as they had heard on the Second Reading. But how large were the powers which this clause conferred? If any part of the Army Reserve were called out, it was in the power of the 769 right hon. Gentleman, or his successor, to embody the whole Territorial Force. The obligation was, that when part of the first class Army Reserve were called out, then he must embody the men of the Territorial Force. Was that not right? He understood that if a small part of the Army Reserve were called out, as for instance in 1882 in the Egyptian war, when 3,000 or 4,000 men were sent out, then it was in the power of the Secretary of State to call out the 300,000 men who happened at that time to be serving in any branch of the Territorial Force. That was, he gathered, an accurate statement of the clause. If he was misrepresenting the power lurking in the clause let him be corrected, He was not misinterpreting it. It was a very grave occasion when the Secretary of State for War told them that he was going to eliminate from the Auxiliary Forces all the men who could not answer his summons in time of war, while at the same time, in the Bill, if it became an Act, he took powers to call out 2,000 men of the Reserve, and, with thorn, the 300,000 men who happened to be in the Territorial Force.
§ *SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDER (Wiltshire, Chippenham)
said he appreciated the objection of the right hon. Gentleman, and he understood that there were Members opposite who objected to universal training. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman was a very strong opponent of anything in the nature of universal training. The weakness which he had shown in this particular clause was really not a weakness of the measure; it was a weakness which must always, as his right hon. friend had said, be inherent in any scheme under our voluntary system of enlistment for the Army. It gave rise, of course, to numerous anomalies, and when there was a national emergency the only means of meeting it was by the universal patriotism of the nation. As long as we retained the voluntary system we were bound to face the difficulty that many men who were members of the 770 Territorial Army would find it necessary to remain in their civil employment and to ask for exemption. It was exactly the same under the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon, and it would be the same under any proposal, he ventured to say, which could be devised by any Secretary of State for War, as long as we retained the voluntary system. The proposal of the Government set up a machinery which, to his mind, was very useful and serviceable, and he hoped that they would get a considerable proportion of the 300,000 men in time of national emergency. It would set up a nucleus of those who would be able to come out, and to that nucleus, in time of emergency, would be added many others whose patriotism would cause them to join. That was, of course, the best they could expect from any scheme that could be devised under the voluntary system. He did not think that they need be in the least deterred by anything that had boon said by the right hon. Gentleman opposite as regarded the difficulties that would present themselves in time of war. He thought they could rely on the fact that this power in the hands of the administration to embody certain units of the Territorial Army, though many men would have to be exempted, would form the nucleus of the Territorial Army which they hoped would be capable of useful service in the field.
§ SIR HOWARD VINCENT
said the Committee were at a disadvantage, because the Secretary of State for War had been imperfectly informed as to what had taken place during his absence. They were all most anxious to help the right hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member for Chippenham who had just spoken was an advocate of national service, which was a form of conscription, and that would be the inevitable result of this Bill.
§ SIR HOWARD VINCENT
said that was the inference he drewerom the hon. Baronet's remarks. There were many Auxiliary corps, like the Civil Service Volunteers and the Post Office Volunteers, who were most efficient: were they to be called up immediately a Proclamation was issued? Were the Woolwich Arsenal Volunteers and the Sheffield Volunteers, in his own constituency, who were skilled artisans and mechanics, to be called up? There were large numbers of Volunteers in the iron and steel foundries of Sheffield, but upon the outbreak of war it would be impossible for them all to be called up for six months' training if the country were to have the shot and shell necessary to carry on a campaign. What stops had the right hon. Gentleman taken to moot this difficulty in regard to the largo number of Volunteers in Sheffield? He thought they were entitled to some explicit declaration from the Government upon the matter. If the right hon. Gentleman had not quite made up his mind upon the subject, perhaps ho would consent to postpone the clause and bring it up again on some future occasion, when he could lay before the House the definite intentions of the Government. As the matter now stood, many corps were threatened with immediate disbandment.
§ MR. SHACKLETON (Lancashire, Clitheroe)
said he quite recognised the importance of the debate and the subject they were considering, but there were other subjects they would like an opportunity of discussing which affected them as individuals. One subject upon which they felt very strongly was the question of courts-martial. That was considered by the Labour Party to be a very serious matter, and he appealed to the Committee to allow the division on 772 the subject under discussion to be taken in order that they might devote the remaining time at their disposal to the important subject of courts-martial.
§ MR. McCRAE (Edinburgh, E.)
said the objections advanced by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Sheffield applied in greater degree to the Volunteer Force as at present established. He could not understand those who wanted compulsory service objecting to the clause, because it was a step in the direction of systematising the Auxiliary Forces; and he could not understand those who were against compulsory service objecting to it, because it was a step which ought to obviate the necessity of going farther on that road. He could not understand the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon saying that the clause was only a make-believe. He challenged comparison of this proposal with anything introduced by the right hon. Gentleman or his predecessor in office.
§ MR. WYNDHAM
said that by this Bill they were asking the Volunteer force to take the place of the Militia, and that fact marked the fundamental fallacy underlying the Bill. Having done away with the Militia, they had to make the Volunteers ready to take part in war if any part of the Reserve were called out; but the Secretary of State had admitted that very considerable sections of them could not be called out at all. In the past they had always relied for immediate actual military service upon the Regular Army, with something to support it like the Militia and the Yeomanry. There were now only two courses open—either universal compulsory service or fostering the Militia and the Yeomanry and forces of that description. To turn the Volunteers into a kind of sham 773 Militia was a false policy, and could never succeed.
§ COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY
said he now heard for the first time that large deductions of the very best men had to be made from the 300,000 men who would be called out when wanted. That fact ought to be put prominently before the country. Under this scheme they were diminishing the number and quality of the force, and it was only fair to the Committee and to the country that it should be clearly understood that what was being proposed was not 300,000, but that number minus about 40,000 of the best men.
§ MR. HALDANE
said the substance of the matter was that the right hon. Gentleman thought they ought to keep a certain number of men who could not possibly be available if the force were brought out. They wore comparatively a small fraction. The people engaged at Woolwich should not be enrolled in time of war; they would be required for other purposes. In the great industrial centres the good sense and the patriotism of the employers would have to be brought to bear to determine who could and who could not go. The procedure of the clause was very simple. The control of Parliament over these things was provided for, and it was not in the least likely that the powers would be used unreasonably.
§ *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
said the right hon. Gentleman had misunderstood the point he desired to make. It was no answer to say that the late Government proposed to create an Army Reserve, all of whom would have to go into civil life and come out again to take service in the Army. Everybody knew the liability of these men, and they were not 774 engaged in he great industries which had been referred to. The hon. Member for the Eastern Division of Edinburgh had asked what the late Government had done to provide for the expansion of the Army in War. He would give him an immediate answer. They had taken practical steps to create an Infantry Reserve of 140,000 men to stand between the country and the necessity of embodying the Volunteer Force. In 1900 the whole of the Army Reserve was embodied. Did the hon. Member mean that it would have been desirable or was necessary at that time to call out the whole of the Volunteer Force for six months?
§ MR. McCRAE
said it would not have been necessary if the Government of the day had not prevented the Volunteers from volunteering.
§ *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
said there was only one war in which we had been engaged in which it could reasonably be said that this country was in danger of invasion, and yet the duty was to be imposed on the Government of calling out these men. They had had no answer to the simple question—what were to be the deductions from this Army? They were trusting the safety of the country to something the extent or value of which they had no power of measuring. He would like to put it on record that they had asked for a plain and simple statement of fact on a matter of the first importance regarding this Army on which the country was asked to spend £3,000,000, and they were unable to got any satisfactory answer.
§ CAPTAIN CRAIG
said there was another important matter which had been overlooked. They were led to understand that the Territorial Army would be embodied, on the outbreak of hostilities, for 775 six months. Was that six months' limit still maintained by the Government, or was the embodiment to be for four or five years after the outbreak of war? The Government were asking for 300,000 men at so much a day to undergo preliminary training, and on the outbreak of war to be trained further for six months; but in the clause there was no limitation as to how long the Territorial Forces would be required to serve after that period. There was another point which had escaped attention. If, on the outbreak of war, there was not a sufficient staff of signallers and engine drivers to be drawn upon from the Volunteers, the right hon. Gentleman would have to turn round to the railway companies, and appeal to them for
§ an efficient staff. But none of those men would have any knowledge of the conditions of a soldier's life. They would not come under the civil authorities, but under military officers, and being utterly unacquainted with military discipline and the severity of military law, they would be at a great disadvantage. He thought that the Secretary of State for War should seriously consider the desirability of obtaining that desirable class of recruits for his Territorial Forces. At present there was no encouragement for training that class of railway men
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 275; Noes, 112. (Division List No. 213.)779
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Esslemont, George Birnie|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Evans, Samuel T.|
|Adkins, W. Ryland D.||Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Eve, Harry Trelawney|
|Agnew, George William||Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles||Everett. R. Lacey|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Byles, William Pollard||Ferens, T. R,|
|Alden, Percy||Cairns, Thomas||Ferguson, R. C. Munro|
|Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)||Cameron, Robert||Fiennes, Hon. Eustace|
|Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Chance, Frederick William||Findlay, Alexander|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Channing, Sir Francis Allston||Fuller, John Michael F.|
|Astbury, John Meir||Cheetham, John Frederick||Fullerton. Hugh|
|Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)||Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Glover, Thomas|
|Baker,Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)||Churchill, Rt, Hon. Winston S.||Goddard, Daniel Ford|
|Baring,Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Cleland, J. W.||Gooch, George Peabody|
|Barker, John||Clough, William||Grant, Corrie|
|Barlow,John Emmott(Somers't||Coats, SirT.Glen(Renfrew,W.)||Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)|
|Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Greenwood, Hamar (York)|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Collins,Sir Wm.J.(S.Pancras,W||Griffith, Ellis J.|
|Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone,N.||Cooper, G. J.||Gulland, John W.|
|Beale, W. P.||Corbett,CH (Sussex,E.Grinst'd||Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton|
|Beauchamp, E.||Cornwall. Sir Edwin A.||Haldane. Rt. Hon. Richard B.|
|Beck. A. Cecil||Cory, Clifford John||Hall, Frederick|
|Bell, Richard||Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis|
|Bellairs, Carlyon||Cremer, William Randal||Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)|
|Benn,W.(T'w'r Hamlets,S.Geo.||Crombie, John William||Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)|
|Bennett, E. N.||Crooks, William||Harmsworth,R.L. (Caithn'ss-sh|
|Bethell,Sir.J.H. (Essex,Romf'rd||Crosfield, A. H.||Hart-Davies, T.|
|Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Crossley, William J.||Harvey,W. E. (Derbyshire,N.E.|
|Billson, Alfred||Davies, David (MontgomeryCo||Harwood. George|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)|
|Black, Arthur W.||Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan||Haworth. Arthur A.|
|Boulton, A. C. F.||Davies, Timothy (Fulham)||Hedges, A. Paget|
|Brace, William||Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.||Helme, Norval Watson|
|Bramsdon, T. A.||Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Henry, Charles S.|
|Brigg, John||Dunne,Major E.Martin(Walsall||Herbert. Colonel Ivor (Mon.,S.)|
|Brocklehurst, W. B.||Edwards, Enoch (Hartley)||Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)|
|Brodie, H. C.||Edwards, Frank (Radnor)||Higham, John Sharp|
|Brooke, Stopford||Elibank, Master of||Hobart, Sir Robert|
|Brunner,J.F.L. (Lanes., Leigh)||Erskine, David C.||Hobhouse, Charles E. H|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Essex, R. W||Holden, E. Hopkinson|
|Holt, Richard Durning||Menzies, Walter||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Hope,W.Bateman(Somerset,N.||Micklem, Nathaniel||Spicer, Sir Albert|
|Horniman, Emslie John||Molteno, Percy Alport||Stanger, H. Y.|
|Horridge, Thomas Gardner||Money, L. G. Chiozza||Stanley,Hn.A.Lyulph (Chesh.)|
|Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Montgomery, H. G.||Steadman, W. C.|
|Hutton, Alfred Eddison||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)||Stewart, Halley (Greenock)|
|Hyde, Clarendon||Morrell, Philip||Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)|
|Illingworth. Percy H.||Morse, L. L.||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Isaacs, Rufus Daniel||Myer, Horatio||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)|
|Jackson, R. S.||Napier, T. B.||Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)|
|Jacoby, Sir James Alfred||Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)||Stuart, James (Sunderland)|
|Jardine, Sir J.||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Sutherland, J. E.|
|Jenkins, J.||Nussey, Thomas Willans||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)|
|Johnson, John (Gateshead)||Nuttall, Harry||Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)|
|Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)||O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)||Thomas,Abel (Carmarthen, E.)|
|Jones, Sir D.Brynmor(Swansea||Partington, Oswald||Thomas,Sir A.(Glamorgan,E.)|
|Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)||Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr|
|Jones,William (Carnarvonshire||Pearce, William (Limehouse)||Thomasson, Franklin|
|Kearley, Hudson E.||Pearson, Sir W. D.(Colchester)||Thompson,J.W.H.(Somerset,E|
|Kekewich, Sir George||Philipps,J.Wynford(Pembroke||Tomkinson, James|
|Kelley, George D.||Pickersgill, Edward Hare||Torrance, Sir A. M.|
|Kincaid-Smith, Captain||Pirie, Duncan V.||Ure, Alexander|
|King, Alfred John (Knutsford)||Pollard, Dr.||Verney, F. W.|
|Laidlaw, Robert||Price, C. E.(Edinburgh, Central||Vivian, Henry|
|Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster||Price,Robert John (Norfolk, E.||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)|
|Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)||Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)||Walsh,Stephen|
|Lambert, George||Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford, E.)||Walters, John Tudor|
|Lamont, Norman||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Layland- Barratt, Francis||Rees, J. D.||Ward,John (Stoke upon Trent)|
|Leese, SirJoseph F. (Accrington||Rendall, Athelstan||Ward,W.Dudley (Southampt'n|
|Lehmann, R. C.||Richards, Thomas (W.Monm'th||Waring, Walter|
|Lever,A. Levy (Essex,Harwich||Richardson, A.||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)|
|Lever,W.H. (Cheshire, Wirral)||Ridsdale, E. A.||Wason,John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Levy, Maurice||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)||Waterlow, D. S.|
|Lewis, John Herbert||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)||Watt, Henry A,|
|Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David||Robertson,Sir G.Scott(Bradfo'd||Weir, James Galloway|
|Lough, Thomas||Robinson, S.||Whitbread, Howard|
|Lupton, Arnold||Robson, Sir William Snowdon||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)|
|Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||Roe, Sir Thomas||White, Luke (York, E.R.)|
|Lyell, Charles Henry||Rogers, F.E. Newman||Whitehead, Rowland|
|Lynch, H. B.||Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)|
|Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs||Samuel, Herbert. L.(Cleveland)||Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer|
|Mackarness, Frederic C||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)||Wiles, Thomas|
|Maclean, Donald||Schwann,Sir C. E(Manchester)||Williams, J. (Glamorgan)|
|Macnamara. Dr. Thomas G.||Scott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne||Williams,Llewellyn(Carmarth'n|
|M'Callum, John M.||Pears, J. E.||Wilson, Hon.C.H.W.(Hull, W.)|
|M'Crae, George||Seaverns, J. H.||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)|
|M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)||Seely, Major J. B.||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|M'Micking, Major G.||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
|Maddison, Frederick||Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Manfield, Harry (Northants)||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Markham, Arthur Basil||Shipman, Dr. John G.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr|
|Marnham,F. J.||Silcock, Thomas Ball||Whiteley and Mr. J. A.|
|Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie||Pease.|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Bridgeman, W. Clive||Dalrymple, Viscount|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major||Burdett-Coutts, W.||Doughty, Sir George|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Carlile, E. Hildred||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-|
|Arnold-Forster,Rt, Hn.Hugh O||Castlereagh, Viscount||Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness|
|Ashley, W. W.||Cave. George||Duncan, Robert (Lanark,Govan|
|Aubrey-Fletcher,Rt. Hn. Sir H||Cavendish, Rt, Hn.Victor C.W.||Faber, George Denison (York)|
|Balcarres, Lord||Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Fardell, Sir T. George|
|Banbury. Sir Frederick George||Clynes, J. R.||Fell, Arthur|
|Baring,Capt.Hn.G (Winchester||Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Fletcher, J. S.|
|Barnes, G. N.||Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.||Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Courthope, G. Loyd||Gill, A. H.|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Craig,Charles Curtis (Antrim,S.||Hardy,Laurence (Kent,Ashf'rd|
|Bowles, G. Stewart||Craig,Captain James( Down,E.)||Helmsley, Viscount|
|Boyle, Sir Edward||Craik, Sir Henry||Henderson. Arthur (Durham)|
|Hervey, F.W.F.(BuryS.Edm'ds||Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)||Morpeth, Viscount||Starkey, John R.|
|Hills, J. W,||Muntz, Sir Philip A.||Stone. Sir Benjamin|
|Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||Nicholson, Wm.G.(Petersfield)||Summerbell, T.|
|Houston, Robert Paterson||Neild, Herbert||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Hudson, Walter||Parker,Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)||Talbot,Rt.Hn.,J.G.(Oxf'dUniv.|
|Hunt, Rowland||Parker, James (Halifax)||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Jowett, F. W.||Pease,Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n||Thomson,W. Mitchell-(Lanark)|
|Kenyon-Slaney, Rt.Hn. Col.W.||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Kimber, Sir Henry||Randles, Sir John Scurrah||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Lane-Fox, G. R.||Ratcliff, Major R. F.||Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard|
|Lea,Hugh Cecil (St.Pancras, E.||Rawlinson,John Frederick Peel||Walker, Col. W.H.(Lancashire)|
|Lee,Arthur H.(Hants.,Fareh'm||Remnant, James Farquharson||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|
|Lockwood,Rt.Hn.Lt.-Col. A.R.||Richards,T.F. (Wolverhampt'n||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)|
|Long,Rt,Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)||Wardle, George R.|
|Lowe, Sir Francis William||Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset. W.)|
|Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred||Rothschild,Hon. Lionel Walter||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)||Wyndham. Rt. Hon. George|
|MacIver, David (Liverpool)||Salter, Arthur Clavell||Younger, George|
|Macpherson, J. T.||Sassoon, Sir Ed ward Albert||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir|
|M'Calmont, Colonel James||Seddon, J.||Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.|
|Magnus, Sir Philip||Shackleton, David James|
|Meysey-Thompson, E. C.||Sheffield,Sir Berkeley GeorgeD.|
|Middlemore,John Throgmorton||Sloan, Thomas Henry|
§ And, it being after half-past ten of the clock, the Chairman proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 6th May, successively to put forthwith the Questions on the Amendments moved by the Government, of which notice had been given, and the Questions necessary
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 264;
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Bramsdon, T. A.||Dalziel, James Henry|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Brigg, John||Davies, David(MontgomeryCo.|
|Adkins, W. Ryland D.||Brocklehurst, W. B.||Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)|
|Agnew, George William||Brodie, H. C.||Davies, M Vaughan(Cardigan|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Brooke, Stopford||Davies, Timothy (Fulham)|
|Allen,A.Acland (Christchurch)||Brunner,J.F.L.( Lanes.,Leigh)||Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.|
|Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Bryce, J. Annan||Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.|
|Armstrong, W. C. Heaton||Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Dunne,Major E.Martin(Walsall|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)|
|Astbury, John Meir||Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)|
|Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)||Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.||Edwards, Frank (Radnnor)|
|Baring, Godfrey ('Isle of Wight)||Cameron, Robert||Elibank, Master of|
|Barker, John||Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Erskine. David C.|
|Barlow, JohnEmmott(Somers't||Cawley, Sir Frederick||Essex, R. W.|
|Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Chance, Frederick William||Essslemont, George Birnie|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Channing, Sir Francis Allston||Eve, Harry Trelawney|
|Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone,N.||Cheetham, John Frederick||Everett, R. Lacey|
|Beale, W. P.||Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Ferens, T. R.|
|Beauchamp, E.||Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.||Ferguson, R. C. Munro|
|Beck, A. Cecil||Cleland, J. W.||Fiennes, Hon. Eustace|
|Bellairs, Carlyon||Clough, William||Findlay, Alexander|
|Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.||Coats, Sir T.Glen(Renfrew, W.)||Fuller, John Michael F.|
|Benn,W.(T'w'r Hamlets.S.Geo.||Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Fullerton, Hugh|
|Bennett, E. N.||Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Furness, Sir Christopher|
|Berridge, T. H. D.||Corbett,C H(Sussex,E.Grinst'd||Goddard, Daniel Ford|
|Bethell.Sir J.H.(Essex,R'mf'rd||Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Gooch, George Peabody|
|Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Cory, Clifford John||Grant, Corrie|
|Billson, Alfred||Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Crombie, John William||Greenwood, Hamar (York)|
|Black, Arthur W.||Crosfield, A. H.||Grey, Rt. W. Hon. Sir Edward|
|Boulton, A. C. F.||Crossley, William J,||Griffith, Ellis J.|
§ to dispose of the Business to be concluded.
§ Clause 19, drafting Amendment agreed to.
§ Question put, "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ Noes, 145. (Division List No. 214.)783
|Gulland, John W.||Maclean. Donald||Seely, Major J. B.|
|Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Mancamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford-)|
|Haldane, Rt. Hn. Richard B.||M'Callum, John M.||Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)|
|Hall, Frederick||M'Crae, George||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Harcourt, Right Hon. Lewis||M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)||M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)||Silcock, Thomas Ball|
|Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wore.)||M'Micking, Major G.||Simon, John Allsebrook|
|Harmsworth, R.L.(Caithn's-sh.||Maddison, Frederick||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie|
|Hart-Davies, T.||Manfield, Harry (Northants)||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Harvey, W.E.(Derbyshire,N.E.||Markham, Arthur Basil||Spicer, Sir Albert|
|Haslam, Lewis (Monmonth)||Marks,G.Croydon(Launceston)||Stanger, H. Y.|
|Haworth, Arthur A.||Marnham, F. J.||Stanley,Hn.A.Lyulph (Chesh.)|
|Hedges, A. Paget||Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)||Stewart, Halley (Greenock)|
|Helme, Norval Watson||Menzies, Walter||Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)|
|Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon.,S.)||Micklem, Nathaniel||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)||Molteno, Percy Alport||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)|
|Higham, John Sharp||Mond, A.||Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)|
|Hobart, Sir Robert||Money, L. G. Chiozza||Stuart, James (Sunderland)|
|Hobhouse, Charles E. H.||Montgomery, H. G.||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)|
|Holden, E. Hopkinson||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Holt, Richard Durning||Morrell, Philip||Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbu'y|
|Hope, W.Bateman( Somerset,N.||Morse, L. L.||Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)|
|Horniman, Emslie John||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen,E.)|
|Horridge, Thomas Gardner||Myer, Horatio||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Napier, T. B.||Thomas,David Alfred(Merthyr)|
|Hutton, Alfred Eddison||Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)||Thomasson, Franklin|
|Hyde, Clarendon||Nicholson,Charles N.(Donc'st'r||Thompson, J.W.H.(S'mers't,E.|
|Illingworth, Percy H.||Norton, Captain Cecil William||Tomkinson, James|
|Isaacs, Rufus Daniel||Nussey, Thomas Willans||Torrance, Sir A. M.|
|Jackson,R. S.||Nuttall, Harry||Ure, Alexander|
|Jacoby, Sir James Alfred||O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)||Verney, F. W.|
|Jardine, Sir J.||Partington, Oswald||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)|
|Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)||Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)||Walters, John Tudor|
|Jones, Sir D.Brynmor(Swansea||Pearce, William (Limehouse)||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Pearson, Sir W.D(Colchester)||Ward, W.Dudley(Southampt'n|
|Jones, William(Carnarvonshire||Philipps,J.Wynford (Pembroke||Waring, Walter|
|Kearley, Hudson E.||Pickersgill, Edward Hare||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)|
|Kekewich, Sir George||Pirie, Duncan V.||Wason,John Cathcart( Orkney)|
|Kincaid-Smith, Captain||Pollard, Dr.||Waterlow, D. S.|
|King, Alfred John (Knutsford)||Price,Robert John(Norfolk,E.)||Watt, Henry A.|
|Laidlaw, Robert||Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Lamb, EdmundG.(Leominster)||Priestley, W.E. B.( Bradford,E.)||Weir, James Galloway|
|Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)||Rainy, A. Rolland||Whitbread, Howard|
|Lambert, George||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)|
|Lamont, Norman||Rees, J. D.||White, Luke (York, E.R.)|
|Layland- Barratt, Francis||Rendall, Athelstan||Whitehead, Rowland|
|Leese,Sir JosephF.(Accrington)||Ridsdale, E. A.||Whiteley,JohnHenry (Halifax)|
|Lever,A.Levy (Essex.Harwich)||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)||Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer|
|Lever, W.H.(Cheshire, Wirral)||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)||Wiles, Thomas|
|Levy, Maurice||Robinson, S.||Williams,Llewelyn( Carmarthen|
|Lewis, John Herbert||Robson, Sir William Snowdon||Williamson, A.|
|Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David||Roe, Sir Thomas||Wilson,Hon.C.H.W.(Hull,W.)|
|Lough, Thomas||Rogers, F. E. Newman||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Lupton, Arnold||Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
|Lyell, Charles Henry||Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Lynch, H. B.||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechadel)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs)||Schwann,Sir C.E. (Manchester)||Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A.|
|Mackarness, Frederick C.||Seaverns, J. H.||Pease.|
|Alden, Percy||Barnes, G. N.||Butcher, Samuel Henry|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.||Byles, William Pollard|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major||Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Carlile, E. Hildred|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Bell, Richard||Castlereagh, Viscount|
|Ashley, W. W.||Bignold, Sir Arthur||Cave, George|
|Aubrey-Fletcher,Rt.Hn. Sir H.||Bowerman, C. W.||Cavendish,Rt.Hn. Victor C. W.|
|Baker,Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)||Bowles, G. Stewart||Cecil Evelyn (Aston Manor)|
|Balcarres, Lord||Boyle, Sir Edward||Clynes, J. R.|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Brace, William||Coates, E.Feetham (Lewisham)|
|Banner, John S. Harmood-||Bridgeman, W. Clive||Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.|
|Collins,SirWmJ.(St.Pancras,W||Lime-Fox, G. R.||Seddon, J.|
|Cooper, G. J.||Lea,Hugh Cecil (St.Pancras,E.)||Shackleton, David James|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Lee,ArthurH. (Hants.,Fareham||Sheffield,Sir BerkeleyGeorge D.|
|Courthope, G. Loyd||Lehmann, R.C.||Sloan, Thomas Henry|
|Craig,Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.||Lockwood,Rt.Hn.Lt,-Col.A.R.||Smith,AbelH.(Hertford,East)|
|Craig,Captain James (Down,E.||Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)||Smith, F.E. (Liverpool.Walton|
|Craik, Sir Henry||Long,Rt.Hn.Waltar(Dublin,S.)||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Cremer, William Randal||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Steadman, W C.|
|Crooks, William||Lowe, Sir Francis William||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Dalrymple, Viscount||Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||Summerbell, T.|
|Doughty, Sir George||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred||Sutherland. J. E.|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Dunoan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness||Maclver, David (Liverpool)||Talbot,Rt,Hn.J.G.(Oxf'dUniv.|
|Duncan,Robert(Lanark,Govan||Macpherson, J. T.||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Faber, George Denison (York)||M'Calmont, Colonel James||Thomson, W.Mitchell-(Lanark)|
|Fardell, Sir T. George||Meysey-Thompson. E. C.||Thornton, Perey M.|
|Fell, Arthur||Middlemore,JohnThrogmorton||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Fletcher, J. S.||Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Valentia, Viscount|
|Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)||Morpeth, Viscount||Vincent. Col. Sir C. E. Howard|
|Gill, A. H.||Muntz, Sir Philip A.||Vivian, Henry|
|Glover, Thomas||Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield||Walker,Col.W.H.(Lancashire)|
|Hardy,Laurence(Kent,Ashford||Nield, Herbert||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|
|Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Parker,Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)||Walsh, Stephen|
|Harwood, George||Parker, James (Halifax)||Ward.John(Stoke upon Trent)|
|Hay, Hon. Claude George||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)|
|Helmsley, Viscount||Price,C.E.(Edinburgh,Central)||Wardle, George J.|
|Hervey,F,W.F.(BuryS.Edm'ds||Randles, Sir John Scurrah||Williams.,J. (Glamorgan)|
|Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)||Ratcliff, Major R. F.||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Hills, J. W.||Rawlinson,JohnFrederick Peel||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||Remnant, James Farquharson||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Houston, Robert Paterson||Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th)||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart|
|Hudson, Walter||Richards,T.F. (Wolverh'mpton||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Hunt, Rowland||Richardson, A.||Younger, George|
|Jenkins, J.||Roberts, S.(Sheffield,Ecclesall)|
|Johnson, John (Gateshead)||Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.|
|Jowett, F. W.||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)||Arthur Henderson and Mr.George Roberts.|
|Kelley, George D.||Salter, Arthur Clavell|
|Kenyon-Slaney,Rt.Hon.Col.W.||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Kimber, Sir Henry||Scott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne|
§ Clause 20:—
§ The Committee divided: —Ayes, 314;784
§ Question put, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."
§ Noes, 106. (Division List No. 215.)
|Crosfield, A. H.||Jacoby, Sir James Alfred||Pickersgill, Edward Hare|
|Crossley, William,J.||Jardine, Sir J.||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Dalziel, James Henry||Jenkins, J.||Pollard, Dr.|
|Davies,David(Montgomery Co.||Johnson, John (Gateshead)||Price,C.E.(Edinburgh,Central)|
|Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)||Price,RobertJohn(Norfolk,E.)|
|Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)||Jones,SirD. Brynmor(Swansea||Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)|
|Davies, Timothy (Fulham)||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Priestley,W.E.B.(Bradford,E.)|
|Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)||Jones,William (Carnarvonshire||Rainy, A. Rolland|
|Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Kearley, Hudson E.||Rea,Walter Russell(Scarboro'|
|Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness||Kekewich, Sir George||Rendall, Athelstan|
|Dunne, Major E.Martin( Walsal1)||Kelley, George D.||Richards,Thomas(W.Monm'th|
|Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)||Kincaid-Smith, Captain||Richards,T.F.(Wolverh'mpt'n|
|Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)||King,Alfred John (Knutsford)||Richardson, A.|
|Edwards, Frank (Radnor)||Laidlaw, Robert||Ridsdale, E. A.|
|Elibank, Master of||Lamb,Edmund G.(Leominster||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Erskine, David C.||Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)|
|Essex, R. W.||Lambert, George||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)|
|Esslemont, George Birnie||Lamont, Norman||Robertson,SirG.Scott( Bradf'd|
|Evans, Samuel T.||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Robinson, S.|
|Eve, Harry Trelawney||Lea,HughCecil(St.Pancras, E.||Robson, Sir William Snowdon|
|Everett, R. Lacey||Leese,SirJosephF.(Accrington||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Ferens, T. R.||Lehmann, R. C.||Rogers, F. E. Newman|
|Ferguson, R. C. Munro||Lever,A.Levy(Essex,Harwich)||Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)|
|Fiennes, Hon. Eustace||Lever, W. H. (Cheshire,Wirral||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland]|
|Findlay, Alexander||Levy, Maurice||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Fuller,John Michael F.||Lewis, John Herbert||Schwann,SirC.E.(Manchester)|
|Fullerton, Hugh||Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David||Scott, A.H.(Ashton-under-Lyne|
|Furness, Sir Christopher||Lough, Thomas||Sears, J. E.|
|Gill, A. H.||Lupton, Arnold||Seaverns, J. H.|
|Glover, Thomas||Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||Seely, Major J. B.|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||Lyell, Charles Henry||Shackleton, David James|
|Gooch, George Peabody||Lynch, H. B.||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)|
|Grant, Corrie||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Shaw, Rt.Hon. T. (Hawick B.)|
|Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)||Macdonald.J.M. (Falkirk B'ghs||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Greenwood, Hamar (York)||Mackarness, Frederic C.||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward||Maclean, Donald||Silcock, Thomas Ball|
|Griffith. Ellis J.||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Simon, John Allsebrook|
|Gulland, John W.||M'Callum, John M.||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie|
|Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||M'Craie, George||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||M'Kenna, Rt.Hon. Reginald||Spicer, Sir Albert|
|Hall, Frederick||M'Laren, Sir C. B. ( Leicester)||Stanger, H. Y.|
|Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis||M'Micking, Major G.||Stanley, Hn.A. Lyulph(Chesh.|
|Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)||Maddison, Frederick||Steadman, W. C.|
|Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wore'r)||Manfield, Harry (Northants)||Stewart, Halley (Greenock)|
|Harmsworth,R.L.(Caithn'ss-sh||Markham, Arthur Basil||Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)|
|Hart-Davies. T.||Marks,G. Croydon(Launceston||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Harvey,W. E. (Derbyshire,N.E.||Marnham, F. J.||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)|
|Harwood, George||Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)||Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)|
|Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Menzies, Walter||Stuart, James (Sunderland)|
|Haworth, Arthur A.||Micklem, Nathaniel||Summerbell, T.|
|Hedges, A. Paget||Molteno, Perey Alport||Sutherland, J. E.|
|Helme, Norval Watson||Mond, A.||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)|
|Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Money, L. G. Chiozza||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Henry, Charles S||Montgomery, H. G.||Taylor,Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.)||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)||Tennant,SirEdward(Salisbury|
|Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)||Morrell, Philip||Tennant, H. J.(Berwickshire)|
|Higham, John Sharp||Morse, L. L.||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen,E.)|
|Hobart, Sir Robert||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Thomas,SirA.(Glamorgan, E.)|
|Hobhouse, Charles E. H.||Myer, Horatio||Thomas, DavidAlfred (Merthyr|
|Holden, E. Hopkinson||Napier, T. B.||Thomasson, Franklin|
|Holland, Sir William Henry||Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)||Thompson,J.W.H.(Somerset,E.|
|Holt, Richard Durning||Nicholson,CharlesN.(Doncast'r||Tomkinson, James|
|Hope, John Deans (Fife,West)||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Torrance, Sir A. M.|
|Hope,W. Bateman(Somerset,N.||Nussey, Thomas Willans||Ure, Alexander|
|Horniman, Emslie John||Nuttall, Harry||Verney, F. W.|
|Horridge, Thomas Gardner||O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)||Vivian, Henry|
|Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Parker. James (Halifax)||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)|
|Hudson, Walter||Partington, Oswald||Walsh, Stephen|
|Hutton, Alfred Eddison||Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)||Walters, John Tudor|
|Hyde, Clarendon||Pearce, William (Limehouse)||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Illingworth, Percy H.||Pearson,SirW. D. (Colchester)||Ward,John (Stoke upon Trent)|
|Isaacs, Rufus Daniel||Philipps,J.Wynford(Pembroke||Ward,W.Dudley(Southampton|
|Jackson, R. S,||Philipps, Owen C, (Pembroke)||Wardle, George J,|
|Waring, Walter||White, Luke (York, E.R.)||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)|
|Wason,Eugene(Clackmannan)||Whitehead, Rowland||Wilson,P.W.(St.Pancras, S.)|
|Wason,JohnCathcart(Orkney)||Whitley, John Henry(Halifax )||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
|Waterlow, D. S.||Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palme||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Watt, Henry A.||Wiles, Thomas|
|Wedgwood, Josiah C.||Williams, J. (Glamorgan)||TELLERS FOE THE AYES—Mr.|
|Weir, James Galloway||Williams,Llewelyn(Carmarth'n||Whiteley and Mr. J. A.|
|Whitbread, Howard||Williamson, A.||Pease.|
|White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)||Wilson,Hon.C.H.W.(Hull,W.)|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Fletcher, J. S.||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major||Gardner, Ernest(Berks, East)||Randles, Sir John Scurrah|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)||Ratcliff, Major R. F.|
|Ashley, W. W.||Hardy,Laurence(Kent,Aahford||Rawlinson,JohnFrederiekPeel|
|Aubrey-Fletcher,Rt.Hon.SirH||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Balcarres, Lord||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Roberts,S.(Sheffield,Ecclesall)|
|Banbury, Sir FrederickGeorge||Helmsley, Viscount||Rothschild, Hon. LionelWalter|
|Banner, John S. Harmood-||Hervey,F.W.F.(BuryS.Edm'ds||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool|
|Baring,Capt.Hn.G( Winchester||Hill,Sir Clement(Shrewsbury)||Salter, Arthur Clavell|
|Barrie,H.T.(Londonderry, N.)||Hills, J. W.||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Houston, Robert Paterson||Seddon, J.|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Hunt, Rowland||Sheffield,SirBerkeleyGeorgeD.|
|Bowles, G. Stewart||Jowett, F. W.||Sloan, Thomas Henry|
|Boyle, Sir Edward||Kennaway,Rt.Hon.SirJohnH.||Smith,AbelH.(Hertford, East)|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Kenyon-Slaney,Rt.Hon.Col.W||Smith,F.E.(Liverpool,Walton)|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Kimber, Sir Henry||Starkey. John R.|
|Butcher, Samuel Henry||Lane-Fox, G. R.||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Lee, ArthurH. (Hants.,Fareham||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Cave, George||Long,Col.Charles W.(Evesham||Thomson, W.Mitchell.(Lanark)|
|Cavendish,Rt.Hon.VictorC.W.||Long,Rt.Hn.Walter(Dublin,S)||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Coates, E. Feetham(Lewisham||Lowe, Sir Francis William||Vincent, Col. Sir C.E.Howard|
|Cochrane,Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred||Walker,Col.W.H.(Lancashire)|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow||Maclver, David (Liverpool)||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Macpherson, J. T.||Warde, Col.C.E. (Kent, Mid.)|
|Courthope, G. Loyd||M'Calmont, Colonel James||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Craig,CharlesCurtis(Antrim,S.||Magnus, Sir Philip||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton|
|Craig,CaptainJames( Down, E.)||Meysey-Thompson, E. C.||Wortley,Rt.Hon. C. B.Stuart-|
|Craik, Sir Henry||Middlemore,JohnThrogmorton||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Dalrymple, Viscount||Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Younger, George|
|Doughty, Sir George||Morpeth, Viscount|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Muntz, Sir Philip A.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir|
|Duncan,Robert(Lanark,Govan||Nicholson,Wm.G.(Petersfield)||Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.|
|Fardell, Sir T. George||Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)|
|Fell, Arthur||Parkes, Ebenezer|
§ Clauses 21 and 22 agreed to.
§ Clause 23:—
§ The Committee divided: —Ayes, 261;
|Abraham, William(Rhondda)||Barker, John||Bethell,SirJ.H.(Essex,Romf'rd|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Barlow,JohnEmmott(Somerset||Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)|
|Adkins, W. Ryland D.||Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Billson, Alfred|
|Agnew, George William||Barran. Rowland Hirst||Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone,N.)||Black, Arthur W.|
|Allen,A.Acland(Christchurch)||Beale, W. P.||Boulton, A. C. F.|
|Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Beauchamp, E.||Bramsdon, T. A.|
|Armstrong, W. C. Heaton||Beck, A. Cecil||Brigg, John|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Bellairs, Carlyon||Brocklehurst, W. B.|
|Asquith,Rt.Hon. HerbertHenry||Belloc,HilaireJoseph Peter R.||Brodie, H. C.|
|Astbury, John Meir||Benn,W.(T'w'rHamlets,S.Geo.||Brooke, Stopford|
|Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)||Bennett, E. N.||Brunner,J.F.L.(Lanes.,Leigh)|
|Baring,Godfrey(Isle of Wight)||Berridge, T. H. D.||Bryce, J.Annan|
§ Question put, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."
§ Noes, 152. (Division List No. 216.)
|Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Holland, Sir William Henry||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Holt, Richard Durning||Pollard, Dr.|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Hope,W.Bateman(Somerset,N.||Price,RobertJohn(Norfolk,E.)|
|Buxton.Rt.Hn.SydneyCharles||Horniman, Emslie John||Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Horridge, Thomas Gardner||Priestley,W.E.B.( Bradford,E.|
|Cawley, Sir Frederick||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Rainy, A. Rolland|
|Chance, Frederick William||Hutton. Alfred Eddison||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Hyde, Clarendon||Rees, J. D.|
|Cherry, Rt, Hon. R, R.||Illingworth, Percy H.||Rendall, Athelstan|
|Churchill, Rt, Hon. Winston S.||Isaacs, Rufus Daniel||Richards,Thomas( W.Monm'th|
|Cleland, J. W.||Jackson, R. S.||Ridsdale, E. A.|
|Clough, William||Jacoby, Sir James Alfred||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Coats,SirT.Clen(Renfrew, W.)||Jardine, Sir J.||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Johnson, W.(Nuneaton)||Robinson, S.|
|Corbett,CH(Sussex,E.Grinst'd||Jones,SirD.Brynmor(Swansea||Robson, Sir William Snowdon|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Jones, Lief (Appleby)||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Cory, Clifford John||Jones,William(Carnarvonshire||Rogers, F. E. Newman|
|Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Kearley, Hudson E.||Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)|
|Cremer, William Randal||Kincaid-Smith, Captain||Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)|
|Crombie, John William||King,Alfred John(Knutsford)||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Crosfield, A. H.||Laidlaw, Robert||Schwann,SirC.E.(Manchester)|
|Crossley, William J.||Lamb, Edmund G.(Leominster||Sears, J. E.|
|Dalziel, James Henry||Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)||Seaverns, J. H.|
|Davies,David (MontgomeryCo.||Lambert, George||Seely, Major J. B.|
|Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Lamont, Norman||Shaw,Charles Edw.(Stafford)|
|Davies,M. Vaughan-( Cardigan||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Shaw,Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)|
|Davies, Timothy (Fulham)||Leese,SirJosephF.(Accrington||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Dewar,John A.(Inverness-sh.||Lehmann, R. C.||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Lever, W. H.(Cheshire, Wirral)||Silcock, Thomas Ball|
|Dunne.MajorE.Martin(Walsall||Levy, Maurice||Simon, John Allsebrook|
|Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)||Lewis, John Herbert||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie|
|Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)||Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Edwards, Frank (Radnor)||Lough, Thomas||Spicer, Sir Albert|
|Elibank, Master of||Lupton, Arnold||Stanger, H. Y.|
|Erskine, David C.||Lyell, Charles Henry||Stanley,Hn.A.Lyulph(Chesh.)|
|Essex, R. W.||Lynch, H. B.||Stewart, Halley(Greenock)|
|Esslemont, George Birnie||Maedonald, J. M.(Falkirk B'ghs||Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)|
|Eve, Harry Trelawney||Maclean, Donald||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Everett, R. Lacey||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)|
|Ferens, T. R,||M'Callum, John M.||Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)|
|Ferguson, R. C. Munro||M'Crae, George||Stuart, James (Sunderland)|
|Fiennes, Hon, Eustace||M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)|
|Findlay, Alexander||M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Fuller, John Michael F.||M'Micking, Major G.||Tennant,Sir Edward (Salisbury|
|Furness, Sir Christopher||Manfield, Harry (Northants)||Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||Markham, Arthur Basil||Thomas,Abel (Carmarthen, E.|
|Gooch, George Peabody||Marks, G.Croydon(Launceston||Thomas,SirA. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Grant, Corrie||Marnham, F. J.||Thomas,DavidAlfred(Merthyr|
|Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)||Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)||Thomasson, Franklin|
|Greenwood, Hamar (York)||Menzies, Walter||Thompson,J.W.H.(Somerset,E|
|Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward||Micklem, Nathaniel||Tomkinson, James|
|Griffith, Ellis J.||Molteno. Percy Alport||Torrance, Sir A. M.|
|Gulland, John W.||Money, L. G. Chiozza||Ure, Alexander|
|Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Montgomery. H. G.||Verney, F. W.|
|Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)|
|Hall, Frederick||Morrell, Philip||Walters, John Tudor|
|Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis||Morse, L. L.||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Ward,W.Dudley (Southampton|
|Harmsworth, Cecil B.(Wore'r)||Myer, Horatio||Waring, Walter|
|Harmsworth,R.L.(Caithn'ss-sh||Napier, T. B.||Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan|
|Harvey, W.E. (Derbyshire,N. E.||Nicholson.CharlesN.(Doncast'r||Waterlow, D. S.|
|Harwood, George||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Watt, Henry A.|
|Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Nussey, Thomas Willans||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Haworth, Arthur A.||Nuttall, Harry||Weir, James Galloway|
|Hedges, A. Paget||O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)||Whitbread, Howard|
|Helme, Norval Watson||Partington, Oswald||White. J. D.(Dumbartonshire)|
|Herbert,Colonel Ivor (Mon..S.)||Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)||White, Luke (York, E.R.|
|Herbert, T. Arnold( Wycombe)||Pearce, William (Limehouse)||Whitehead, Rowland|
|Higham, John Sharp||Pearson,SirW.D. (Colchester)||Whitley,John Henry(Halifax)|
|Hobart, Sir Robert||Philipps, J. Wynford(Pembroke||Whittaker,Sir ThomasPalmer|
|Hobhouse. Charles E. H.||Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)||Wiles, Thomas|
|Holden, E. Hopkinson||Pickersgill, Edward Hare||Williams,Llewelyn(Carmarthen|
|Williamson, A.||Wilson, P. W.(St, Pancras, S.)||Tellers fob the Ayes—Mr.|
|Wilson,Hon.C. H.W.(Hull,W.)||Wood, T. M'Kinnon||Whiteley and Mr. J. A.|
|Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)||Yoxall, James Henry||Pease.|
|Alden, Percy||Gardner, Ernest(Berks. East)||Pease,Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Gibbs, (J. A. (Bristol, West)||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major||Gill, A. H.||Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh.Central)|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Glover, Thomas||Randles, Sir John Scurrah|
|Ashley, W. W.||Hardy,Laurence (Kent,Ashf'rd||Ratcliff, Major R. F.|
|Aubrey-Fletcher,Rt.Hon.SirH||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Baker,JosephA.(Finsbury,E.)||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Balcarres, Lord||Helmsley, Viscount||Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n|
|Banbury,SirFrederickGeorge||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Richardson, A.|
|Banner, John S. Harmood-||Hervey,F.W.F.(BuryS.Edm'ds||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)|
|Baring,Capt.Hn.G(Winchester||Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)||Roberts,S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Barnes, G. N.||Hills, J. W.||Rothschild,Hon. Lionel Walter|
|Barrie,H.T. (Londonderry,N.)||Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Houston, Robert Paterson||Salter, Arthur Clavell|
|Bell, Richard||Hudson, Walter||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Hunt, Rowland||Scott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Jenkins, J.||Seddon, J.|
|Bowles, G. Stewart||Johnson, John (Gateshead)||Shackleton, David James|
|Boyle, Sir Edward||Jowett, F. W.||Sheffield,Sir Berkeley GeorgeD.|
|Brace, William||Kelley, George D.||Sloan, Thomas Henry|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Kennaway,Rt.Hn. Sir John H.||Smith,Abel H. (Hertford, East)|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Kenyon-Slaney,Rt. Hn. Col.W.||Smith,F.E. (Liverpool,Walton)|
|Butcher, Samuel Henry||Kimber, Sir Henry||Starkey, John R.|
|Byles, William Pollard||Lane-Fox, C. R,||Steadman, W. C.|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Law,Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Lea, Hugh Cecil (St.Pancras,E.||Summerbell, T.|
|Cave, George||Lee,Arthur H.( Hants.,Fareh'm||Sutherland, J. E.|
|Cavendish,Rt.Hon.VictorC.W.||Liddell, Henry||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Lockwood,Rt,Hn.Lt.-Col. A.R.||Talbot,Rt. Hn.J.G.(Oxf'd Univ.|
|Channing, Sir Francis Allston||Long,Col.Charles W.(Evesham)||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Clynes, J. R.||Long, Rt.Hn. Walter (Dublin,S.||Thomson, W.Mitchell-(Lanark)|
|Coates,E.Feetham(Lewisham)||Londsale, John Brownlee||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Cochrane, Hon.Thos.H. A. E.||Lowe, Sir Francis William||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Collins,SirWm. J. (S.Pancras, W||Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||Vincent, Col. Sir C. E.Howard|
|Cooper, G. J.||Lyttelton, Rt, Hon. Alfred||Vivian, Henry|
|Corbett,A.Cameron(Glasgow)||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Walker,Col. W.H. (Lancashire)|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down North)||MacIver, David (Liverpool)||Walrond. Hon. Lionel|
|Courthope, G. Loyd||Mackarness, Frederic C.||Walsh, Stephen|
|Craig,CharlesCurtis( Antrim,S.||Macpherson, J. T.||Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent|
|Craig,CaptainJames(Down,E.)||M'Calmont, Colonel James||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent,Mid.)|
|Craik, Sir Henry||Maddison, Frederick||Wardle, George J.|
|Crooks, William||Magnus, Sir Philip||Williams, J. (Glamorgan)|
|Dalyrmple, Viscount||Meysey-Thompson, E. C.||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Doughty, Sir George||Middlemore,John Throgmorton||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Wortley,Rt,Hon. C.B. Stuart-|
|Duncan,C.(Barrow-in-Furness||Morpeth, Viscount||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Duncan,Robert( Lanark,Govan||Muntz, Sir Philip A.||Younger, George|
|Faber, George Denison(York)||Nicholson,Wm. G. (Petersfield)|
|Fardell, Sir T. George||Nield, Herbert||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir|
|Fell, Arthur||O'Grady, J.||Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.|
|Fletcher, J. S.||Parker,Sir Gilbert(Gravesend)|
|Forster, Henry William||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Fullerton, Hugh||Parkes, Ebenezer|
§ Clause 24, drafting Amendment agreed to.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 269;
|Abraham, Wiliam (Rhondda)||Ainsworth, John Stirling||Ashton, Thomas Gair|
|Acland, Francis Lyke||Allen.A.Acland (Christchurch)||Asquith,Rt.Hn.Herbert Henry|
|Adkins, W. Ryland D.||Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Astbury, John Meir|
|Agnew, George William||Armstrong; W. C. Heaton||Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)|
§ Question put, "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ Noes, 143. (Division List No. 217.)
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Furness, Sir Christopher||M'Micking, Major G.|
|Barker, John||Goddard, Daniel Ford||Manfield, Harry (Northants)|
|Barlow,JohnEmmott (Somers't||Gooch, George Peabody||Markham, Arthur Basil|
|Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Grant, Corrie||Marks,G.Croydon (Launceston)|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Greenwood, G. Peterborough)||Marnham, F. J.|
|Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone,N.)||Greenwood, Hamar(York)||Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)|
|Beale, W. P.||Grey, Rt, Hon. Sir Edward||Menzies, Walter|
|Beauchamp, E.||Griffith, Ellis J.||Micklem, Nathaniel|
|Beck, A. Cecil||Gulland, John W.||Molteno, Percy Alport|
|Bell, Richard||Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Mond, A.|
|Bellairs, Carlyon||Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||Money, L. G. Chiozza|
|Belloc, Hilaire, Joseph Peter R.||Hall, Frederick||Montgomery, H. G.|
|Benn,W.(T'w'r Hamlets,S.Geo.||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)|
|Bennett, E. N.||Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)||Morrell, Philip|
|Berridge, T. H. D.||Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wore'r)||Morse, L. L.|
|Bethell,Sir J.H.(Essex,Romf'rd||Harmsworth,R. L(Caithn'ss-sh.||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas|
|Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Hart-Davies, T.||Myer, Horatio|
|Billson, Alfred||Harvey,W.E. (Derbyshire,N.E.||Napier, T. B.|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Harwood, George||Newnes, Sir George. (Swansea)|
|Black, Arthur W.||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Nicholson,Charles N.( Doncast'r|
|Boulton, A. C. F.||Haworth, Arthur A.||Norton, Capt. Cecil William|
|Bramsdon, T. A.||Hedges, A. Paget||Nussey, Thomas Willans Nuttall, Harry|
|Brigg, John||Helme, Norval Watson||Nuttall Harry|
|Brocklehurst, W. B.||Herbert,Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)||O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)|
|Brodie, H. C.||Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)||Partington, Oswald|
|Brooke, Stopford||Higham, John Sharp||Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)|
|Brunner,J.F.L. (Lanes., Leigh)||Hobart, Sir Robert||Pearce, William (Limehouse)|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Hobhouse. Charles E. H.||Pearson,Sir W. D. (Colchester)|
|Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Holden, E. Hopkinson||Philipps,J.Wynford (Pembroke|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Holland, Sir William Henry||Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Holt, Richard Durning||Pickersgill, Edward Hare|
|Buxton.Rt.Hn.Sydney Charles||Hope.W. Bateman( Somerset, N.||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Horniman, Emslie John||Pollard, Dr.|
|Causton,Rt.Hn.RichardKnight||Horridge, Thomas Gardner||Price,Robert John (Norfolk, E.|
|Cawley, Sir Frederick||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)|
|Chance, Frederick William||Hutton, Alfred Eddison||Priestley, W.E.B. (Bradford,E.|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Hyde, Clarendon||Rainy, A. Rolland|
|Cherry, Rt. Hon. R, R.||Illingworth, Percy H.||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.||Isaacs, Rufus Daniel||Rees, J. D.|
|Cleland, J. W.||Jackson, R. S.||Rendall, Athelstan|
|Clough, William||Jacoby, Sir James Alfred||Richards,Thomas (W. Monm'th|
|Coats,Sir T.Glen (Renfrew,W.)||Jardine, Sir J.||Ridsdale, E. A.|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Johnson, W.(Nuneaton)||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Corbett,C.H.(Sussex,E.Grinst'd||Jones,Sir D.Brynmor (Swansea||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Robertson,Sir G.Scott (Bradf'd|
|Cory, Clifford John||Jones,William (Carnarvonshire||Robinson, S.|
|Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Kearley, Hudson E.||Robson, Sir William Snowdon|
|Crombie, John William||Kekewich, Sir George||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Crosfield, A. H.||Kincaid-Smith, Captain||Rogers, F. E. Newman|
|Crossley, William J.||King,Alfred John (Knutsford)||Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)|
|Dalziel, James Henry||Laidlaw. Robert||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)|
|Davies,David (MontgomeryCo.||Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)||Schwann,Sir C.E. (Manchester)|
|Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan||Lambert, George||Sears, J. E.|
|Davies, Timothy (Fulham)||Lamont. Norman||Seaverns, J. H.|
|Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Seely, Major J. B.|
|Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Leese.Sir Joseph F.(Accrington||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)|
|Dunne.Major E.Martin(Walsall||Lehmann, R. C.||Shaw, Rt, Hn. T. (Hawick B.)|
|Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)||Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)||Levy, Maurice||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Edwards. Frank (Radnor)||Lewis, John Herbert||Silcock, Thomas Ball|
|Elibank, Master of||Lloyd-George, Rt, Hon. David||Simon, John Allsebrook|
|Erskine. David C.||Lough, Thomas||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie|
|Essex, R. W.||Lupton, Arnold||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Esslemont, George Birnie||Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||Spicer, Sir Albert|
|Evans, Samuel T.||Lyell, Charles Henry||Stanger, H. Y.|
|Eve, Harry Trelawney||Macdonald,J.M. (Falkirk B'ghs||Stanley, Hn.A.Lyulph (Chesh.)|
|Everett, R. Lacey||Maclean, Donald||Stewart, Halley (Greenoek)|
|Ferens, T. R.||Maonamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)|
|Ferguson. R. C. Munro||M'Callum, John M.||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Fiennes, Hon. Eustace||M'Crae, George||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)|
|Findlay, Alexander||M'Kenna, Rt, Hn. Reginald||Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)|
|Fuller,John Michael F.||M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)||Stuart, James (Sunderland)|
|Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)||Walters, John Tudor||Whitley,John Henry (Halifax)|
|Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)||Whittaker,Sir Thomas Palmer|
|Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury||Ward,W.Dudley (Southampt'n||Wiles, Thomas|
|Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)||Waring, Walter||Williams,Llewelyn(Carmarth'n|
|Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)||Williamson, A.|
|Thomas,Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)||Wason,John Cathcart (Orkney)||Wilson, Hon. C.H.W. (Hull,W.)|
|Thomas,David Alfred (Merthyr||Waterlow, D. S.||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)|
|Thomasson, Franklin||Watt, Henry A.||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Thompson, J. W.H.(Somerset,E.||Wedgwood, Josiah C.||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
|Tomkinson, James||Wier, James Galloway||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Torrance, Sir A. M.||Whitbread, Howard|
|Ure, Alexander||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.|
|Verney, F. W.||White, Luke (York, E.R.)||Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.|
|Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)||Whitehead, Rowland|
|Acland-Hood,Rt.Hn.Sir Alex.F||Fullerton, Hugh||Price, C. E.(Edinb'gh, Central)|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)||Randles, Sir John Scurrah|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major||Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)||Ratcliff, Major R. F.|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Gill, A. H.||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Ashley, W. W.||Glover, Thomas||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Aubrey-Fletcher,Rt. Hn.Sir H.||Hardy,Laurence (Kent,Ashf'rd||Richards, T.F. (Wolverh'mpt'n|
|Baker,Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Richardson, A.|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)|
|Banner, John S. Harmood-||Helmsley, Viscount||Roberts.S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Baring,Capt.Hn. G.(Winchest'r||Henderson,Arthur (Durham)||Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter|
|Barnes, G. N.||Hervey, F.W.F. (Bury S.Ed'ds||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool]|
|Barrie, H.T. (Londonderry, N.)||Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury||Salter, Arthur Clavell|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Hills, J. W.||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||Scott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Houston, Robert Paterson||Seddon, J.|
|Bowles, G. Stewart||Hudson, Walter||Shackleton, David James|
|Boyle, Sir Edward||Hunt, Rowland||Sheffield,Sir BerkeleyGeorge D.|
|Brace, William||Jenkins, J.||Sloan, Thomas Henry|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Johnson, John (Gateshead)||Smith,Abel H. (Hertford. East;|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Jowett, P. W.||Smith,F. E. (Liverpool,Walton)|
|Butcher, Samuel Henry||Kelley, George D.||Starkey, John R.|
|Byles, William Pollard||Kennaway,Rt.Hon. Sir JohnH.||Steadman. W. C.|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Kenyon-Slaney,Rt.Hon.Col.W.||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Kimber, Sir Henry||Summerbell, T.|
|Cave, George||Lane-Fox, G. R.||Sutherland, J. E.|
|Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W||Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)||Talbot,Rt.Hn.J.G.(Oxf'd Univ.|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Lea,Hugh Cecil (St.Pancras, E.||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Channing, Sir Francis Allston||Lee,Arthur H.(Hants.,Fareham||Thomson,W.Mitchell- (Lanark)|
|Clynes, J. R.||Lockwood,Rt.Hn.Lt.-Col. A.R.||Thornton. Percy M.|
|Coates, E.Feetham (Lewisham)||Long,Col.Charles W.(Evesham)||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Long,Rt.Hn.Walter (Dublin,S.||Valentia, Viscount|
|Cooper, G. J.||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Vincent, Col, Sir C. E. Howard|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Lowe, Sir Francis William||Vivian. Henry|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred||Walker,Col.W.H. (Lancashire)|
|Courthope, G. Loyd||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Walrond. Hon. Lionel|
|Craig,Charles Curtis (Antrim,S.||Macpherson, J. T.||Walsh. Stephen|
|Craig,Captain James (Down,E.||M'Calmont, Colonel James||Ward. John (Stoke upon Trent)|
|Craik, Sir Henry||Maddison, Frederick||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)|
|Crooks, William||Magnus, Sir Philip||Wardle. George J.|
|Dalrymple, Viscount||Meysey-Thompson, E. C.||Williams, J. (Glamorgan)|
|Doughty, Sir George||Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Williams. Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Morpeth, Viscount||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Duncan,C.(Barrow-in-Furness)||Muntz, Sir Philip A.||Wortley,Rt,Hon.C.B. Stuart-|
|Duncan,Robert Lanark,Govan||Nicholson, Wm.G. (Petersfield)||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Faber, George Denison (York)||Nield, Herbert||Younger, George|
|Fardell, Sir T. George||O'Grady, J.|
|Fell, Arthur||Parker,Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Lord|
|Fletcher, J. S.||Parker, James (Halifax)||Edmund Talbot and Lord Balcarres.|
|Forster, Henry William||Pease,Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n|
§ Whereupon the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.796
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.
§ Adjourned at twenty-three minutes after Eleven o'clock