§ As amended, further considered.
§ SIR GILBERT PARKER (Gravesend)
moved the omission of Clause 16, which provides for the embodiment of the Territorial Force. He said that in previous discussions on this clause they had had no very satisfactory replies to the arguments put. forward by both friends and opponents. He assumed that the right hon. Gentleman in drifting it had. in mind not merely the pious expression of a principle, but intended in time of war to make an embodiment which should be really effective. If he did so intend, he accepted the principle that the theories of the "blue water" school were not 356 sufficient, and that the Territorial Army was intended not only to protect the country against raids, not alone to take the place of the Regulars in time of emergency, but also to supply reinforcements in times of great crises. That was to say, the right hon. Gentleman assumed that in time of war in any part of the world, where we were arrayed against any Power or any combination of great Powers—he hoped that day would be very far off—he would have to rely not only upon the Reserve of his Army, but upon what he had himself called the strong manhood of the country whom 'he found under arms, and in order to create "a nation in arms" the right hon. Gentleman had provided a training which, as it seemed to them on that side of the House and to many on the other side, began at the wrong end. The right hon. Gentleman proposed with the assent of Parliament to embody the Territorial Army when war broke out. He had no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman had thought the thing out very carefully, but if he admitted the right of the country to make a demand upon its manhood to serve it, he had no doubt he had also considered the point that there should be training not only at the time of a crisis, but at the time of enlistment. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to meet his hon. and gallant friend the Member for the Abercromby division, who had urged that the preliminary training should be prolonged. He would say that they should have three months' training, or even two months, and he thought the latter period would go a long way to give them what they wanted. But whatever the period of preliminary training was, whether it was two, three, or four months, it should in any case take place before the outbreak of war and the necessity for embodiment, so that the ration would, not 357 find itself unprepared. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted that he would not call on the Volunteers who belonged to Departments of State, and he bid rejected the reasonable Amendment of the hon. Member for Blackpool, that if Volunteers desired permanent training, and to form units to be ear-marked to go abroad in time of war, they should ' be allowed to do so. He never could understand why the right hon. Gentleman declined to accept an Amendment of that kind, which was honestly supported on that side of the House, and also on the other side. If the right hon. Gentleman did not accept some modification of the clause, he would, he thought, be taking risks which no Minister for War ought to take. If they accepted the principle that the manhood of the nation ought to be trained for war they should also accept the principle that it ought to be trained at the right time. He thought that there was no Labour Member who would not agree that it was quite impossible to call out men at a time of crisis and that it ought to be done at a time when training would be acceptable to the working classes of the country. He was one of those who believed that every man should be trained to arms, but the right hon. Gentleman held that he would not have men compelled to enlist under any circumstances. He understood that that was also the view of the hon. and gallant Member for the Abercromby division; but to his mind it was unsound to ask for the embodiment of the Territorial Force and for "a nation in arms," and not to train the Volunteer Forces at a time when the members could best afford to come out. That was the main point he wished to make. The man who enlisted with the knowledge that he was to have a long preliminary training was a willing Volunteer, knew he was exposed to the risk of embodiment, and was a valuable mm in the force. On the other ' hand the vast majority of Volunteer? would join and take their chance. They would join the Volunteers saying, "We hive not had a war for a hundred years in which the Volunteers have been called out, and we shall not have such a war"; but when the time came for them to be called out, no matter 358 how patriotic they might be they would find it a desperately inconvenient time. In time of panic, when the country was in great trouble and military organisation was worked to the highest pitch, and there was nervousness, not only in Army circles but throughout the whole country, it was important that the e should be trained men ready to take the posts allotted to them. There would not be an opportunity for good training when war broke out, and in any case there would not be six months. He did not believe that the military experts, however wise they might be, were really of opinion that we should have six months in which to, prepare our irregular troops; it was always the unexpected that happened in war. There had been wars in which practically no notification at all was given of the outbreak of hostilities. There might be disturbances between countries which although they looked like war did not involve it; but, on the other hind there might be circumstances under which war broke out without there being sufficient opportunity for preparation given to one of or both the belligerents. He thought, therefore, the Secretary of State was wrong in thinking that he would have that calm six months in which to prepare his Territorial Army for the emergency. The right hon. Gentleman had made what he could not call a concession, although he had preserved the Militia in a form acceptable to hon. Members on that side of the House. It would be well if the right hon. Gentleman would give along preliminary training, at least three months, upon enlistment, which would make him more secure in his position. If the right hon. Gentleman accepted the principle of "a nation in arms" he ought not to hesitate to impress upon every man in time of peace the absolute duty of adequately preparing himself to play his part in time of war. His hon. friends behind him who were prepared to accept the Bill would find themselves in peculiarly difficult circumstances if the right hon. Gentleman declined to accept this Amendment. He begged to move.
§ CAPTAIN CRAIG (Down, E.)
in seconding the Amendment said that the question 359 of whether the training should take place on the outbreak of war, or at what some considered the proper time, struck at the success of the whole scheme. After what the right hon. Gentleman had said, the whole effort of the House must be directed towards making the scheme a success, if possible, and he therefore hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to modify in some degree the expressions which fell from him on a former occasion. He understood that the Bill was so framed that if, on the advice of his advisers, the right hon. Gentleman desired to make this change he could do so without altering one word of the Bill, and in that respect the Bill was a good one. There were a great many men who were most desirous of doing their best in time of war, and those men, no matter what scheme the right hon. Gentleman produced, would come and give him a helping hand in time of need. But one thing was absolutely necessary, no matter where the men came from, and that was that before the outbreak of war some training must have been undergone, if they were to face the best trained troops in Europe. The right hon. Gentleman must undoubtedly see the gravity of the situation. He did not know whether it was possible to get any men to turn out for six months upon joining the Territorials, but it would certainly be impossible to get every man to do so. The beauty of any scheme dealing with a Territorial Force was its elasticity to suit the local conditions of different parts of the country. In Ireland, for instance, it would be extremely difficult for many of the Yeomanry to come down from their homesteads for any length of time. He thought it would be impossible for them to come down even for three months, and as those regiments had a very high standard of efficiency it would be a thousand pities if anything were done to lower it. If those men were asked to come down for three months training on embodiment three quarters of the best men would be lost. No doubt men would be got to join the Yeomanry on those conditions, but they would be men who had nothing to do and desired to earn a little money, and not the old-fashioned Yeomen who now joined. If the latter were to be retained there must be elasticity. The right hon. 360 Gentleman must not restrict the recruiting of that class by making the conditions of service impossible for them. To the Militia which came from the large towns no doubt different conditions might apply. But whatever the right hon. Gentleman did, he hoped he would not have a hard and fast rule for every class of service. If he had, he feared that the scheme would be unworkable.
§ Amendment proposed to the Bill—
§ "In page 13, line 6, to leave out Clause 16."—(Sir Gilbert Porker.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word ' to' in line 8, stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. WYNDHAM (Dover)
said that, as this Amendment gave the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity, if he cared to take it, to make some general remarks on the scope of the clause and the methods by which it would work in practice, he ventured to intervene before the right hon. Gentleman replied. Everyone was agreed that a long preliminary training was infinitely superior to the training for six months on embodiment when the time for action arrived. He observed that the right hon. Gentleman had taken power under Clause 14 to give a longer preliminary training in certain cases, if he thought fit. There was nothing in the Bill, as it now stood, to prevent the right hon. Gentleman from giving the Yeomanry a month's training, if he pleased, and the Yeomanry accepted the conditions. But there were two points to which he desired to draw attention. As he understood, the first part of that clause was permissive, and then came the mandatory provisos. He took it to mean that if any portion of the First-Class Army Reserve was called up, the right hon. Gentleman had these powers. That looked very well at the first glance. The right hon. Gentleman might call out 1,000 men, and so endow himself with all these powers. But if that was his intention, as he hoped it was, it should be more clearly stated in the Bill. If it was intended that after calling out 1,000 men the right hon. Gentleman was entitled to call out the whole of the Territorial Force, it 361 certainly ought to be made clear that he had the power. Then they should bear in mind also Clause 31, under which a great addition had been made to the Section A of the Reserve, and although Clause 31 was not now under discussion it had some bearing on this clause. Previously there were 5,000 men in Section A who could be called to the colours without proclamation. The right hon. Gentleman had made that 5,000 into 6,000, and to those he had added the 4,000 special contingent, making 10,000 men that he could call out without proclamation. The House would see that that put a considerable limit to the discretion which the right hon. Gentleman took under the first part of the clause, because he would, or might, have to call out those 10,000 men without being in a position, under the permissive paragraph of the clause, to call out any part of his Territorial Force. If he wanted discretion to call out all or any of this force, the right hon. Gentleman should say so. He hoped, therefore, that as that part of the Bill debarred the right hon. Gentleman from using his permissive provisions he would deal with that point, if not by this Amendment by some other. There were 101 battalions of Militia to be put into the Reserve, and fourteen squadrons of Yeomary, and he desired to be informed whether all these would be called out in addition to the Reserve, as they understood it, before the Territorial Force could be embodied.
§ Mb. HALDANE
said it might be convenient if he explained Clause 16 a little more fully. The clause referred to the system under which the Army Reserve could be embodied. It was well known that the proclamation ordering the Army Reserve to be called out could only issue in the event of there being "imminent national danger or a great emergency." That was a sine qua non. The first step, if the Government of the day thought there was imminent national danger or a great emergency, was to issue a proclamation. That enabled the Army Reserve to be embodied forthwith, and put them under the hand of the Government of the day. Although the proclamation was issued, it did not follow that the whole of the Reserve would be called out at once. In 1882 only a comparatively small part of the Reserve was called out, and even 362 in 1899 the Reserve was not all called out at once. Therefore, the proclamation was issued against the whole of the Reserve for the purpose of giving the powers, but the powers were put into operation by a subsequent step. Supposing the proclamation were issued—and it could only be issued in those two cases of imminent national danger or great emergency— then the position was this: that it was in the power of the Government of the day to order the Army Council to give directions for the embodiment of the Territorial Force. That having been done, and the Government having that discretionary power, then automatically the Army Council must issue directions for embodiment. As he had pointed out, that did not depend merely upon the proclamation, it also depended on the directions to be issued for calling out the whole of the Reserves, a contingency which had rarely occurred in recent times, and which could only occur in the case of imminent national danger or great emergency. Suppose that happened, and an order was issued by the Army Council for the embodiment of the entire Territorial Force, what then? Still, the whole of these people, in their civil occupations, need not be called out. The directions might be issued, but they might be suspended; that was to say, the whole of the men who were coming might remain where they were until they were, actually wanted. That would give a very valuable power to the Army Council, because the men would be left to go on as they were at the time, but would be ready when wanted. That actually happened in the case of the South African war. Many Volunteers were directed to embody, but they were told to come up only for a day to receive instructions as to when and where they were to appear when wanted. That being so, the liability, which was a real one in case of imminent national danger or great emergency, was carefully safeguarded. There must be a general proclamation, there must be directions to call out the whole of the Reserves, and then, even so, the embodiment did not necessarily mean that all the men were to be brought away from their occupations, but merely that they could be summoned at the shortest notice. There was a further safeguard. If, in consequence of calling out the whole 363 Army Reserve, directions had to be given, then there must be a meeting of Parliament within ten days, if Parliament was not then sitting, so that the action of the Executive might be reviewed, and the orders and directions might be dealt with by an address presented by both Houses, which might decide that the number called out was to be limited, or that the order directing the embodiment was to be restricted to a certain number. Parliament might take that course, or take the shorter one of passing a vote of censure on the Government for calling out the Territorial Force unnecessarily, when, of course, the directions would lapse. He thought he had shown that all these powers, and the machinery for putting them in force, were carefully safeguarded. The force to be called out should not be one merely on paper, or one which could not be easily embodied, but there should be connected with it machinery by which it could be made automatically a reality in time of imminent national danger or great emergency, and that was the theory of the clause as it stood. It was obvious, of course, after what he had said, that the first Question of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover had been answered and the second Question also. By the second proviso of Section (1) of Clause 16, it was laid down that "where any such proclamation and directions have been issued for calling out all the men belonging to the first class of the Army Reserve," certain directions should be given. In regard to what the hon. Member for Gravesend had said he quite agreed that the preliminary training did not qualify men in the way one could wish for meeting foreign troops who had invaded these islands. But, in an emergency, they could only use all they could, in the best way they could. The very purpose of the embodiment, however, was to secure that the training of the Home force should be as good as they could make it before it was brought against the shock of the invader. It was not likely that the whole of the divisions would go abroad in a case such as the hon. Gentleman had described; but if they had gone abroad, there would have been an embodiment at the same time and a certain amount of preparation going on. But 364 they would not send away the whole of the six divisions of the Regular force if they could avoid it. In a tremendous emergency such as occurred in the time of Napoleon they would do the very best they could, and all he could say was that they would be much better off in the future than they were at the present time.
§ SIR GILBERT PARKER
was understood to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman, if any body of Volunteers desired to train for two or three months, would regard such a proposal sympathetically.
§ MR. HALDANE
said he would, of course, be very sorry to discourage Volunteer corps, but he would not like to commit himself as to the future, though it was open under the clause to meet the point of which the hon. member had spoken.
§ * COLONEL SANDYS (Lancashire, Bootle)
said he knew something of the training of Militia, and happening to meet the commanding officer of a Militia regiment the other day, he asked his view with reference to the proposed six months training. He replied that in his county there were two regiments of Militia which had experimentally received six months preliminary training, and so successful was the experiment in those battalions, that the other Militia battalions in the neighbourhood found it difficult to obtain recruits. An ounce of fact, it was said, was worth a pound of theory, and he had thought that perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like to know the results of that experiment. In reference to the possibility of a serious attack upon these islands, he very much appreciated the way in which the right hon. Gentleman had constitutionally safeguarded the calling out of the different military bodies in the case of national danger. It prevented those great powers from being exercised without sufficient forethought by the Government of the day, and he thought it was very advisable that there should be those constitutional safeguards in respect of calling out the national forces other than the Regular Army. But another point to be kept in view was that they had not 365 Only to look to constitutional safeguards in calling out those necessary forces, but also to see in how short a time they could get the whole force together in the event of a serious invasion of this country. Supposing it was necessary to call them out, the whole of the forces should be ready at their lines for the defence of these islands in four days. Many authorities thought that limit of time to be really necessary to meet an emergency. They ought to have their military forces so much at hand that they could have a thoroughly complete Army, with its stores for all branches of the service, formed ready in its selected positions in four days at the latest. That was the utmost time that could be given, and however good the scheme might be in its details, in respect of constitutional safeguards and other matters, that essential point in the efficiency of the force should not be lost sight of in considering it in its practical, strategic form.
§ MAJOR SEELY (Liverpool, Abercromby)
thought that from practical experience it could be shown that some of the objections urged by the hon. Member for Gravesend were devoid of foundation. Of course, the longer the initial training the. better, but what had taken place on the previous day should be considered in discussing the matter. His right hon. friend had said across the Table of the House that he proposed to give a longer initial training to the Irish Yeomanry, and suggested six months. The noble Lord opposite, who belonged to that corps, assured his right hon. friend with natural vehemence that if he attempted to do any such thing, they would lose every single man in that force. That showed how difficult it was to obtain a long period for training, or to accept the Amendment of the hon. ' Member for Gravesend. Experience how ever, had shown that training after the emergency had arisen was enormously more valuable, at any rate with a people like ours, because when men knew the country to be in danger they made immense efforts. That was proved to be the case in the South African War. The men, when they realised the danger in which the country stood, learned in a week what in time of peace it would 366 have taken them a month or two to acquire. That had been dwelt upon with great emphasis by many Japanese officers after their experiences of the war against Russia. In their time of national emergency they had only three months training He had had many communications with Japanese officers, who stated that so great was the desire of the men to become efficient during the national emergency that they learned in the three months what would have taken them two years in time of peace. Therefore, so far from training after an emergency being the wrong thing to do it was actually the most economical thing they could possibly desire. He thought it was proved, from what the noble Lord said on the previous day, that if they insisted on a long initial period of training, they might lose many recruits and thus be forced to the alternative of conscription, which none of them desired. It had been represented that six months embodiment would cause great hardships to a certain class of men and especially to Volunteer officers in professional situations. He supposed his right hon. friend would meet the case by saying that when the men came up for training it would not be necessary to keep all the officers the whole time. If they took the Indian Army, which was more ready for service than any other part of our military forces, they always had a large number of officers on leave; and on those lines they might have an embodiment of the Territorial Force. He threw out that suggestion, coming as it did to him from a great many distinguished officers of the Auxiliary Forces; and if the right hon. Gentleman could, at a subsequent stage of the Bill, relieve officers in that way he would make the Territorial Force a success. Might he ask his right hon. friend to dispel the illusion which was created in another place, as to the value of the Territorial Force, by what seemed to be an extraordinary speech of the Under-Secretary for War, who must have been misinformed? He was asked whether the troops of the Territorial Army would ever be fit to meet the troops of a Continental Power, and his reply was, "No; they will not." He had never heard such an amazing statement 367 from a responsible Minister. It might be that the troops of the Territorial Army would not have the amount of training received by the troops of the Regular Army, but to say that they would never be fit to meet Continental troops in a foreign war was equivalent to saying that they were bound to be defeated. He thought there must be a mistake. He hoped his right hon. friend would dispel that illusion.
§ * MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER (Croydon)
confirmed his hon. and gallant friend's recollection of the curious remark made by the Under-Secretary in the other House, and slid it had struck him in the same way. As to the present discussion, he had thought that the interest in it was exhausted, but, after what the right hon. Gentleman had said that night, that was not quite the case. He thought that if the right hon. Gentleman emphasised what he had said, it might be of some value. He had ventured from the beginning to maintain that the calling out of the force-; need not be taken into consideration by the Volunteers. He had gone so far as to advise the Volunteers, who had been good enough to communicate with him, that they need not trouble themselves about it at all; it was never going to take place, and they could fashion their lives without any regard to its ever occurring. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman had gone so far as that. Of course the Secretary for War was in the difficult position of having at one time to rely on getting the six months training, and at another time to minimise the inconveniences of that training. He now understood that the position was very much changed since yesterday. In the first place the embodiment would never take place at all, until the first-class Army Reserve had been called out.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
said he did not think that as far as individual Volunteers were concerned that would 368 make much difference. In the first place the Volunteers had between them and their being called out, the First Class Army Reserve and the new First Class Reserve, and nobody anticipated that they would have to take such an extreme measure as to embody the whole of the Territorial Army. Standing between the Volunteers and the remote possibility of their embodiment they had the Regular Army, the whole of the Army Reserve, which now consisted of 115,000 men, the whole of the new First Class Reserve, which they hoped would consist of at least 100,000 men, and the whole of the contingent Reserve, which was going to include, he supposed, that portion of the Army which was with the Territorial Force in time of peace. Even when all those forces had been put into array, he understood that the provision was merely permissive, and the probability was that most of the Territorial Army would be allowed to stay in their homes. When they added to all those considerations, a consideration which had been very much in their minds after what was said by the Secretary of State some days ago, namely, that they were to eliminate from the Territorial Army all those men who were not able by reason of their callings and occupations to accept the terms in regard to the six months embodiment, it would be seen that the proposal which had to a certain extent alarmed some Volunteers was not one which need cause any uneasiness at all. He and his friends would support the proposal, and he must say that the assistance would be given without any great regret, because since what took place yesterday they had to contemplate that the Territorial Army now was not going to be that which had for some time been under discussion. It was going to be something different. It was to be made up of short service battalions of the Regular Army, and there was now between the Volunteers who enlisted under the present conditions and the whole of the Territorial Army, as he understood it, short service battalions of the Regular Army. That, at any rate, ought to allay the fears on the part of those Volunteers who had been in doubt whether they could retain their positions in their corps on account of the liability of which the right hon. Gentleman had spoken.
§ MR. ACLAND (Yorkshire, Richmond)
said the contingency of calling out the Territorial Army for extra training did not appear to him to be quite so remote as the right hon. Gentleman opposite had represented. The right hon. Gentleman had mentioned a number of forces which he thought would be all called out before there would be an embodiment of the Territorial Army. He would remind the House that the Bill actually said that it should be possible, though not compulsory, to call out any part of the Territorial Army without embodying the whole of the forces which the right hon. Gentleman had mentioned. No doubt in a case of great emergency all those reserve force would be embodied before the Territorial Army was embodied, but the power was definitely taken, and was intended to be used, to embody any part of the Territorial Army which it might be thought desirable to call out for extra training, even though all the Reserves were not failed up to the colours for war purposes. He did not think that what was said yesterday by the Minister for War had made the position of the Territorial Army so very different from what it was before. He understood that the alteration announced yesterday amounted to this, that a certain number of English Militia battalions would be fourth battalions to be used primarily as units. In that way they would be differentiated from the third battalions, which were to be used primarily for drafting purposes. It would be a mistake to say that any great bulwark had been erected by yesterday's operations between the Regular Forces and the Territorial Army. The change was not so great as the right hon. Gentleman opposite had represented.
§ SIR HOWARD VINCENT (Sheffield, Central)
said he had given notice of an Amendment which it would not be necessary to move, as that proposed by the hon. Member for Gravesend would afford him the opportunity he desired of calling attention to the stringent terms of the sixteenth section of the Bill. It was of the greatest importance that the country, and the Volunteer Force especially, should understand what the provisions of the Bill were in regard to liability to be called out for actual military service. The Volunteer Act of 1863 provided that 370 they should be called into actual military service in the case of apprehended invasion of any part of the United Kingdom.' He was one of the first in bygone years to call attention to the fact that that would be much too late to call out the Volunteer Force. An Act was passed in the nineties strengthening the position and making them liable to be called out in the event of "imminent national danger." He could not help thinking that in regard to the Volunteers that was a sufficiently wide provision. The provision in the sixteenth section of this Bill was an enormous extension of the principle, and might interfere seriously with the civil occupations of large numbers of the force. Though successive Secretaries of State had attempted to make the Volunteer Force more military, it should be remembered that, after all, their primary function was to get a livelihood by civil means. If a young man who was doing well in a civil vocation was taken away for six months training without sufficient ground, it would interrupt the course of his career. Parents might not allow their sons to join the force if they were to be prejudiced in their civil employment. During the South African War between 70,000 and 80,000 Volunteers offered their services, and of that number 30,000 were accepted and actually went to the front. The point he was anxious to bring before the Secretary of State was that the provision in the sixteenth section would have a material effect on the recruiting of the Territorial Force. A father would very much dread the calling out of his son for actual military service when there was no real and urgent danger, because it would interrupt the course of his civil vocation. In many cases those who went out to South Africa were not engaged actively in civil vocations, and their experience did them an enormous amount of good; but he knew a number of eases in which young men who had been doing extremely well in their civil life, and whose places were kept open for them, said when they came back, "We cannot stand this life any longer," meaning life behind the counter or in the office. In those cases the civil careers of the Volunteers had been interrupted, and the current of their lives diverted in a marked degree. The 371 Army Reserve was called out for the Egyptian crisis in 1882. He did not know whether there was any subsequent occasion.
§ SIR HOWARD VINCENT
asked whether in the serious crisis of 1882, though there was no imminent national danger in regard to the interests of the country, the Territorial Force would have been called out if it had been in existence.
§ * MR. HALDANE
said that since 1900 the contingency in which the Volunteers could be called out was when there was any imminent national danger or great emergency.
§ SIR HOWARD VINCENT
said he could hardly think that the condition of things in 1882 would have been regarded as a great emergency. There was nothing more necessary in the conduct of a Volunteer corps than to keep faith with the parents of the men. If they thought that their sons by joining the Volunteers would have their civil careers interfered with a stream of public opinion would set in which would be most injurious to the recur ting of the force. A good deal had been said as to the preliminary training being given previous to rather than on the occurrence of a national emergency. He thought that the Secretary for War might do a great deal in that direction if there were regiments, as in America, to which the Volunteers might be attached to enable them to get preliminary training at soldier's pay and expense. If that scheme were adopted he believed that a considerable number of Volunteers would join. At present there was no facility for that. The civil soldier could only be attached with great difficulty to a particular regiment. That training could not be done under six weeks or two months. A man might say that he was seriously anxious to learn the business of a soldier, and that, as he had a month to spare, he would like to be attached at Aldershot to such and such a regiment. By that means they would get efficient training; but it would be still more attractive if there were a 372 permanent school at Aldershot for the Volunteer Forces—not only for the officers and non-commissioned officers. There should be no hard and fast rule as to attendance at it; it should be entirely voluntary. He was sure that a considerable number of Volunteers, certainly from London, would attend if they knew that they would be attached to particular regiments. The provisions in Clause 16 were entirely novel and changed the whole conditions of liability to service. An hon. Member had spoken of the difficulty professional men, like doctors and solicitors, going into a prolonged compulsory training. Doctors especially found it extremely difficult to get away. Their patients objected to their joining the Volunteers. If a young doctor was seen to go out of his house in uniform his practice was in considerable jeopardy. [Cries of "Oh."] He spoke of what he knew. He did not hesitate to say that the best officers in the Volunteer Force were not young men with money or of what was called good family, who joined the force simply as a pastime. He held that professional men made the very best officers for the Volunteer Force; and. if any obstacle were placed, cither bylaw, regulations or custom, in the way of their joining the Volunteers i would be most disastrous to the Territorial Army. He hoped the House would consider well before finally sanctioning that great extension of liability to military service.
§ * MR. McCRAE (Edinburgh, E.)
said he could not understand the objection the hon. and gallant Gentleman had to Clause 16.
§ * MR. MCCRAE
said that anyone with acknowledge of the Auxiliary Forces, familiar with the provisions of the Act of 1863, as modified and extended by the. Act of 1900, would approve of Clause 16 as it stood at present. He had always said that the Volunteers had no fear as to that clause, because at the present time they were under equally stringent regulations. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon, who had 373 always a Cassandra way of speaking when dealing with the Volunteer force, had tried to minimise the value of the Volunteers, and had said, or insinuated, that they would never be called out. He did not believe there was any justification for that statement. On any occasion when the country was in a position of danger or emergency he was sure that the Volunteers would come forward freely under the conditions of Clause 16. j An hon. Gentleman had declared that there was a fear that something like conscription would be imposed under the clause; but he believed that the hon. Gentleman was not quite accurate, in his estimate of its effect. He thought it was a very reasonable provision. He did not think that anyone knowing the conditions of Volunteer service would for one moment say that it was possible to get from the Volunteers an initial training of six months. That was outside the range of possibility, having regard to their occupations, although it might be possible with the class from which the Militia were drawn. But the Militia were to go into the first line, and therefore they must deal with the Territorial Army having regard to the conditions of their employment. He said emphatically that it was absurd to impose an annual training of six months in normal circumstances, but it was a very different thing when a national emergency arose. Then they would have men who had, for the most part, been through an annual fifteen days training for years. He maintained that a very little additional training would enable them to take the field. He had great pleasure in supporting Clause 16, because it did not make the conditions of service of the Volunteers any more onerous than at present, and also because it provided a definite provision for the perfection of the Auxiliary Forces.
§ COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY (Shropshire, Newport)
said that what they wanted to know was what training would make the Territorial Army efficient. Other things being equal, he thought that they ought to have a long preliminary training. The Volunteer officers said that that was impossible, and therefore they left the country to understand that that force was not going to get a training 374 which would make them efficient. He did not want to run down the force. He understood its value, even in the event of a war, but he contended that it was not efficient, and the country should understand that the force would not be efficient unless they had had a preliminary training previous to the outbreak of war. The hon. and gallant Member for the Abercromby Division had said that when the Auxiliary Forces were embodied the War Office could get over the difficulty by not calling up all the officers at the same time, and gave, as an illustration, the case of the Indian Army, when many of the officers were on leave. But the Indian Army was in a state of high training, and the officers on leave could be called in immediately. He knew that his hon. and gallant friend had his idiosyncrasy, which was that the less a force was trained, the less it was disciplined, and the more insubordinate it was the better, and the more likely it would be to give efficient service. They could only hope that that would never be put to the test. The real point was whether the Volunteers were to have an efficient training or not. He agreed that after six months we should have an efficiently trained force, but he wished it to be understood that that training should not be postponed until the danger had arisen.
§ MR. WYNDHAM
said he desired to ask one further question. They had, iii discussing the clause, acquiesced in it with a good will, and from what he understood from the right hon. Gentleman to be his present attitude with regard to the Militia, there would be seventy-four battalions of 500 men each, and twenty-seven of 800 men each, making a total of 101 battalions in all, comprising 58,600 men. That number of men would all be in battalions, and he wished to know whether, after they had had their six months training, they would be drilled annually as battalions.
§ MR. HALDANE
said the battalions of 800 men would, as far as possible, be called out as battalions. In regard to the battalions of 500 men, the details had not been worked out. All the men would certainly be called out at some period of the year for their yearly training, but he could not pledge himself at present that they would be embodied as 375 entire battalions every year; they certainly would be in alternate years. He did not wish to commit himself on that point.
§ MR. WYNDHAM
said they attached a great, deal of importance to battalion training. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman was giving a complement of battalion officers to each of these battalions.
§ MR. ASHLEY (Lancashire Blackpool)
said they had been discussing Clause 16 for some time, and they found that if the First-Glass Array Reserve were called out it would be obligatory upon the Government to call out the Territorial Force or decree it? embodiment. He moved an Amendment to Subsection 1 of the clause in order to provide that the embodiment of the Territorial Force should be "subject to the proviso that units consisting mainly of men whose service would be required in civil employment in time of war shall only be called out to repel invasion." They had discussed this question under different circumstances a fortnight ago, and then they discovered that certain Volunteers employed in certain professions or employments would not be eligible for service in the Territorial Army, because the right hon. Gentleman considered that their civil employment would prevent their coming out on the embodiment of the force. The matter, however, was left in a very vague and nebulous state, as it was discussed at ten o'clock at night when the guillotine was about to fall. The Secretary of State asked whether the right hon. Member for Croydon imagined that they intended to take and enlist into the force men whose service in civil life would be required when war broke out, and said that that would be a wholly crude proceeding which would be adopted at the cost of a good deal of efficiency. No doubt there was a great deal to be said for what the right hon. Gentleman then stated, but two days afterwards, on second thoughts, he considerably changed his attitude, because in answer 376 to the right hon. Member for Newport he said—I have never stated that any particular Volunteer units will be disbanded or reduced, or that any individual now serving must be discharged if the Territorial and Reserve Forces Bill becomes law.But if the right hon. Gentleman adhered to what he said on the first occasion, he would surely have to take some steps in that direction.
§ MR. HALDANE
said the hon. Member must not take it that the newspaper report represented what he said in the first instance. He made a fairly long speech, which was embodied in the printed report, but the particular point to which the hon. Member was referring was not present in the mind of the reporter, or probably he would have given it more fully. He said in the course of his original speech what he repeated subsequently in answer to a question by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newport.
§ MR. ASHLEY
was glad that the right hon. Gentleman had made that explanation, because, after it, he could not see why he should not accept the Amendment. It, was clearly impossible to embody all those 300,000 men. It was obvious they would not be able to embody men employed on railways and in dockyards and large manufacturing centres. Surely the right hon. Gentleman must have thought what a state of disorganisation must be created, say in the cotton industry in Lancashire, if the whole of the Volunteers were called out fur six months training. He could not see why all the Volunteers should be called out in order to serve in the Territorial Force. There were two classes of was. There was the kind which involved the danger of invasion, and the kind whore there was no such danger. The Amendment merely called upon the Government to recognise that there was those two classes of war, just as much as there were two classes of Volunteers, those who could come up for six months training, and those who could not. Of course if there was danger, of invasion the whole of the force would, have to come out, but there were many, who could not otherwise do so. Why should the Government, for the sake of mere red tape, exclude the latter class of 377 men from becoming Volunteers, and not allow them to continue in the Volunteer corps? The Amendment provided that that particular class of men were only to be embodied when invasion was imminent, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider what would happen if it were not accepted. He would also like to know whether under Clause 2, sub-section 1, a Member of the House who happened to be a member of the Territorial Force belonged to the class of men in civil employment who would not be called out.
§ SIR HOWARD VINCENT
seconded the Amendment, the moving of which, he hoped, would afford the Secretary of State for War an opportunity of giving some further explanation of the statement which he made last week to the effect that it was only intended to allow men to enroll who would be able to fulfil all the conditions of the Bill, including embodiment. It was only natural that a statement such as that should cause considerable alarm among regiments which were by no means the least efficient in the Volunteer force—regiments which were recognised as being an example to the whole force, consisting of men of stronger intelligence than that of the average Volunteer, and whose coming forward was a great incentive to others to do likewise. He had raised the question the other day about the iron and steel workers and those who made clothing and saddlery. Everybody knew that in 1899 those who were engaged in manufacturing equipments for the Army were working night and day, and not a man could be spared, because the demands of the Government were so prodigious that it was quite impossible to satisfy them. The right hon. Member for Dover would, he was sure, corroborate him, because he was the very capable Under-Secretary of State for War into whoso hands these matters fell. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman would describe the difficulty which would have been created if an order had gone out embodying the whole of the Volunteer Force. The Government wore absolutely dependent upon the workers at Rushcliffe, Walsall, Birmingham, and other places, and the result would have been very serious indeed. Then as to the Civil Service Volunteers, it would be extremely inconvenient if they were called out in a 378 body, but it would be a great disaster if the Civil Service Rifles were disbanded and the country deprived of their services. There were many corps in the same position—corps comprised of men in Government offices and men occupying superior positions in mercantile houses who in times of very great pressure could not be spared without great difficulty. If employers were faced with the fact that they would lose their men at the very time when they wanted them most they would not subject themselves to the risk. It was therefore absolutely necessary that there should be some official explanation from the right hon. Gentleman of his previous statement on the subject. There were a lot of these regiments—the Post Office Volunteers, the London Scottish, the Queen's West ministers, and others. What was to be their fate under the Bill? They did not themselves desire any relaxation of the provisions of the Act, but nevertheless their civil vocations and the requirements of the persons by whom they were employed had to be borne in mind. It was not right to dwell only upon the effect in Government offices and large mercantile houses, because in commercial centres the same thing would be found everywhere. The most efficient Volunteer was generally the most efficient man in civil life. He was the most active member of his family and of the house by which he was employed. The House was indebted to the hon. Member for Blackpool for bringing the matter forward, because it could I not be laid to his charge that he was anxious to obtain favours for one regiment as against the rest of the Volunteer Force.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
In page 13, line 8, after the word 'Majesty' to insert the words 'subject to the proviso that units consisting mainly of men whose service would be required in civil employment in time of war shall only be called out to repel invasion.'"—(Mr. Ashley.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ MR. WYNDHAM
said that the Amendment went to the root of the difficulty which underlay every voluntary system. Under a compulsory system all were trained at the most convenient age of their lives, and no advantage was given to one set of employers or employees over another. But we had not a compulsory 379 system and it was not intended that we should have. That being the case the right hon. Gentleman was not in a position to dwell so constantly and so strongly on what he called efficiency. He was not entitled to say that no man should have training under a voluntary system unless at a particular time that man could be available on an appointed day for the purpose of fighting at any spot which the Government of the day directed. Under a compulsory system it might be done, and in such an Army they would not retain a man who was not available within those limits. In a voluntary Army something more was necessary than to have numbers of men told off and taken to the precise places they were to occupy in time of national emergency. The Volunteers created an environment within which the whole nation learnt something of the use of arms. The fact that a postman could not come out on a particular day because he was delivering letters did not prove that it was not useful that that man should be a Volunteer. In time of calamity he would come, but apart from that the fact that he was a Volunteer was important, because the chances were that his son who might not be a postman might become a Volunteer because his father had been one. It was a fact that for a considerable period after the outbreak of war there would be a number of men in this country whose services would not be available for the fighting line. Apart from those working in the arsenals whose whole energies would be there required, there were men employed in certain trades who could not be spared to come out within two or three months of the outbreak of war. He would instance the harness trade. After the outbreak of the South African war we went through a period, which he did not think could be avoided, of expanding the normal resources of the country in certain industries. The wages of the harness makers went up Gs. and 7s. a week during that war. It might be said that that was because the authorities did not make proper preparations, but that argument did not meet this case, because goods of certain descriptions perished in the store. It would not be wise to have saddles for 100,000 horses, and lock them up in a room, because at the end of ten or twenty 380 years, when they were required, in all probability they would not be the kind required. A certain stock must, of course, be kept in reserve on a peace establishment, but even then they had to be passed out, and the store made up with new stock. What was true of leather goods was true of tinned meats, which might be kept for six months, but became dangerous in twelve. The whole tinned meat trade of the world went through great stress during the first few months of the war until the process of production was expanded. The whole tinned meat trade of the world could not be expected to support 300,000 men in the field until some seven or eight months had expired. What was true of the saddlery and tinned meat trades was also true of cartridges. As the right hon. Gentleman had stated recently, cordite very soon perished. It would not be wise to store up large quantities of cordite cartridges, because when the time came to use them they might be found to be useless owing to the powder having become disintegrated. It therefore followed that at the outbreak of war a large number of Volunteers would not be available to go to the front for some months, and that being so, why should the House set its face against the fact? If the right hon. Gentleman faced that difficulty, he would certainly modify in some degree the speech he made the other night, when he said that it would not be any good to train or have men in the Territorial Army who could not come out when called. Such a thing could not be done under a voluntary system. The Volunteers could not be tied down to a hide-bound plan which, however appropriate to a compulsory system, was not appropriate to a voluntary one.
§ MR. HALDANE
thought the controversy turned largely on a question of definition. He had stated the other day, and he now repeated, that their would be certain men whom it would be quite impossible to enlist in the Territorial Force—men whose services would be required in other capacities in time of war. For example, there were a certain number of men required at Woolwich to make cartridges. They could not take those men for filling cartridges in time of war, and also take them to form a part of the force. He had tried to lay down 381 perfectly clearly that, if the Territorial Force was to exist, the men must be available when required. He did not think that men would care to serve with other men who they knew would not be available if an emergency arose. He did not mean to say that it was intended to disband any particular corps. It was perfectly plain that in order to provide for the defence of the country employers i of labour as well as the Government would have to make sacrifices, and part with a proportion of their men. But the work of a great arsenal could not be carried on without men; therefore, the logical conclusion was, not that particular corps should be disbanded, but that they should be particular as to how many men they could allow to go from each department. They did not want to see the Elswick works dismantled; but he rather thought that they manned a battery which went to the Transvaal war. That would show that a certain proportion of men could be taken even from those occupations which would be most busy in time of war. The Government ought to be ready to part with as many men as possible for so necessary a need as that of securing the defences of the country. It was possible that under Clause 12, the men would be so free that they could be counted upon to do something more than that and undertake obligation for foreign service. That was a class which stood by itself. He did not think they ought to enlist those men whose services they knew would be required for other functions in time of war. What he wished to convey was that they needed to consider a great deal more carefully than it had hitherto been considered, the whole question of what proportion they could take from such employments. He did not believe it was desirable to take that class of men to train and put into units merely because training was a good thing for them, if they could not be called on to assist in fighting. That was a great deal too costly a process, and he could conceive I nothing more demoralisings to the Territorial Force than to have those men in it. Every man in that force should be under one liability, and expected to perform the same dudes, and any differentiation should be guarded against. That was why he objected to the Amendment. He could not look with the least favour 382 upon any proposal to bring in a further differentiation.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR (City of London)
contended that they ought not in time of peace to lay down exclusive and excluding regulations for the simple reason that they could not foresee what was the precise kind of need that would be felt. They ought not to say to a willing Volunteer, "We cannot permit you to have the opportunity like your fellow-citizens of enrolling yourself in the Volunteer Army, because, your trade being what it is, you will be required in some other capacity, and therefore the money spent on your training will be money thrown away." He did not know now exactly the principle the right hon. Gentleman wished to adopt with regard to the workmen at Woolwich. Undoubtedly they could imagine a war arising when their services would be required, not in the field, but at Woolwich; but they should not be excluded from training now because conceivably that training might be thrown away. They ought not to lay down principles excluding particular classes of the community from the privilege of serving their country under arms in case of a national emergency. His right hon. friend the Member for Dover had mentioned the case of the leather merchants and saddlery. It was certain that in case of a land war there would be a great strain upon the leather trade as well as upon the great arsenals and the manufacturers of cordite and small arms. Ono was quite as certain as the other. It might seem at first sight that the right hon. Gentleman ought to exclude all those engaged in the leather trade, but he did not think that would be at all wise. When the right hon. Gentleman simply laid down the principle that a man should not be counted as a soldier twice, then he was with him, because that was clear, precise, and definite, and it was common-sense. But the right, hon. Gentleman went further and entered the region of speculation as to whether a man would be more useful in the fighting line or in the workshop. That would belaying down a principle which would inflict great hardship and almost a slur on a large part of the population, and he ventured to hope the right hon. Gentleman would do something to depart from. 383 the rigidity of the principle he understood him to lay down. The problem had to be faced by other countries where service was obligatory, and they did not grudge the cost of training a man because he might not be required. That was the principle adopted by the great military powers under a system of conscription, and it ought to be imitated by this country. They ought under a voluntary system to give every opportunity to their young men to learn the use of arms and to obtain that preliminary training in the art of war which was imposed compulsorily upon every man in foreign countries. The scheme of the right hon. Gentleman was not only opposed to common-sense but also to the experience of foreign nations who worked under a wholly different system of recruitment but had nevertheless to face the same problem as faced the House of Commons to-day. He ventured to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should guard himself against too rigid an interpretation of the principle he had laid down.
§ MR. WEDGWOOD (Newcastle-under-Lyme)
said the object of the Amendment seemed to be to set up two classes of Volunteers, those who would and those who would not fight. He did not think they could have anything more detrimental to the Territorial Force. In the first place, it would be bad from the point of view of the camaraderie, and, secondly, it would absolutely ruin the unit if certain members were withdrawn in time of war in order that they might follow their regular occupations. The reason for dividing the Volunteers into two sections was that so many civilians were thought to be necessary for certain work in time of war. He had risen to speak because he happened to be the captain of a battery which went out to South Africa, and he knew how very important certain individuals were for a certain class of work in time of war. Everybody thought their own particular work was essential to carry on a business, and yet when they came to deal with certain kinds of employment in time of war they found that the places of the men who joined the force were quickly filled up. In his opinion they were more quickly filled up in time of war because other people were only too anxious to do the work the troops 384 had been doing. In the case of the regiment to which the Elswick Battery was attached every single officer volunteered for active service. About one-quarter of those officers worked at the Elswick Works, and they could all have been spared. As a matter of fact, five out of the seven officers came from the Elswick Works. During the South African War their naval resources were not taxed, and from every soldier who worked in the Elswick Works upon ships there were five who worked in the ordnance factory. Consequently more than half of those who went out to South Africa were drawn from the ordnance factory. Those men were all readily spared from the Elswick Works, and their places were easily filled, with the result that no serious injury was done to the trade of the country, and the preparations for war did not suffer in consequence. The right hon. Member for Dover had pointed to the saddlery trade as one that would require every man in time of war. The saddlery trade was very busy during the late war, but it should not be overlooked that saddlery employees were extremely valuable to the Volunteers. In the battery to which he had referred they had no difficulty in getting four collar-makers, and their work was absolutely essential. He understood the hon. Gentleman to state that certain men need not go out until actual invasion took place.
§ MR. WEDGWOOD
said they would want every single man to come out at the earliest possible moment to get as much training as was possible before the fighting took place. The hon. Member had instanced a war on the North West Frontier of India which was not likely to entail an invasion of this country and would not necessitate the calling out of these men. Personally he would have thought that that would be an occasion when they ought to call out the Volunteers in case there might be some entangling alliance. It was necessary that the men should have as much training as possible before the invasion took place, and if they postponed the training the danger would be obvious, and they would run the risk of being placed at a great disadvantage. 385 The idea of setting up two different forms of Volunteers—namely, those who were to come out in the case of a national emergency and those who were only to come out in case of an actual invasion— would, in his opinion, as an old Volunteer, be absolutely fatal to the success of the Volunteer movement.
§ * MR. ARNOLD FORSTER
said the arguments put forward by the hon. Member opposite seemed to be in favour of the Amendment. The hon. Member had pointed out that every man in his battery was taken from a great industry. The example of the collar-maker was very relevant not only to the artillery but to all the mounted branches of the force in which it was necessary that there should be collar-makers. He did not see what answer could be made to the contention advanced by the Loader of the Opposition that it would not be wise to exclude from the Volunteers in time of peace persons who might conceivably be required for other purposes in time of war. He did not. think there was any real intention of carrying this exclusive provision into effect, and he did riot imagine for a moment that any corps would have such men turned out. The objection to committing themselves to the theory which had been advanced by the right hon. Gentleman and enforced in the most practical way by the hon. Member opposite was unanswerable. They must train all these men, and when war broke out those who could be utilised with their regiments and battalions would be all the better for the training. He was aware that there wore men in Woolwich who could not be spared, but they had no guarantee that they would be serving the Government at Woolwich when war broke out. No body could say that a man occupying a particular place in industry at the present time would be occupying that particular ' place one year or two or five years: hence. A man who had been in the carriage department or the foundry at Woolwich for five years, and who had transferred his services to some bicycle or railway workshop later in life, would be a most valuable adjunct to any such i unit as the hon. Member opposite took with him into the field in South Africa.
§ MR. COURTHOPE (Sussex, Rye)
said he would like to remind his hon. friend opposite that the Elswick Battery did not go out immediately on the outbreak of war, and the country went through the period of urgent stress while those men were in civil employment.
§ MR. WEDGWOOD
said the battery he referred to were embodied within three months of the beginning of the war.
§ MR. COURTHOPE
said the stress was, over in three weeks after the commencement of the war. [Cries of "No."] In the case of the men who went out people came forward eagerly to fill their places and learn the work, and thus a largo number of men were released from their civil employment. It seemed to him that they were somewhat at cross purposes in regard to the Amendment, and the Secretary of State for War appeared to have overlooked one or two things which he had said at an earlier stage. If they were to refuse recruits employed in industries which were likely to be urgently required during war, what would happen? Some of the great industrial centres might be deprived of their power to repel a sudden raid. The great railway centres were well able to protect themselves against any sudden rush, but under the scheme before the House they would be absolutely at the mercy of a single troop of cavalry if the men at the great railway works were not allowed to join the Territorial Army. What was required in the scheme was greater elasticity. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would bear that fact in mind. Whether he accepted the exact form of words which his hon. friend had suggested or some other words to the same effect, it was, in his opinion, an urgent matter that they should not refuse to enlist a man in the Territorial Force simply because he might be required in civil employment during a war.
§ CAPTAIN CRAIG
said he would like to have the opinion of the Secretary of State for War with regard to the permanency of the employment to which he had referred. It was just possible that a man who up to quite recently had been employed at Woolwich, and who would 387 under this scheme be forbidden to join a local corps, might find after a month or two that his services would be dispensed with at Woolwich, and he would have no knowledge of the corps to which he would like to belong. Many young men belonging to cadet corps or some local association might find them selves at the age of seventeen or eighteen discharged from the postal service, and they would have no knowledge of drill or of the work required in the Territorial Force. A large number of eligible young men might in that way be debarred from joining. The Secretary of State for War was unconvincing in the answer he had given that afternoon. The other day the right hon. Gentleman asked the right hon. Member for Croydon if he thought it was intended to enlist men who would be required at their ordinary vocations when war occurred, and a few days afterwards he said he did not anticipate that any serious consequences would follow if this Bill became law. The question and the statement seemed to be rather opposed. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would make a clear and precise statement on the point, because, so far, it was shrouded in mystery. In the case of large works where war materials were made, such as ammunition, guns and carriages, it might happen that the men in a particular department would not be required at home at all. Those men would immediately become available for service abroad, but by the selection which he understood must take place under the Bill the recruiting officer might say that they could not be allowed to join a particular corps because in the event of war they would be required at home. That was a dangerous position to be in. It was more dangerous than if the men were allowed to join the most available corps under the scheme. If their services were required at home, they could be released at once. The experience in regard to the Elswick battery in the South African War was the best example that could be cited to prove the utility of having available for service abroad men with expert knowledge. The Secretary of State for War was incurring serious responsibility in picking and choosing the men who were willing to volunteer for service abroad. He sincerely hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not allow it to go forth that railway men who 388 were willing to join were to be interfered with in any way under the Bill. Their services would be invaluable in the event of war breaking out in this country. Were or were not railway men to be allowed to join? He asked the right hon. Gentlemen to give a clear answer to that question in order that the House might know the views of the War Office.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said he might be allowed to make a suggestion in order to bring both sides together on this matter. There did not seem to be a very wide difference of opinion on the most important aspect of the question. He did not think the words proposed by his hon. friend were very satisfactory. His hon. friends idea would, he thought, be better carried out by inserting after the word "force" in line 11 the words "and in particular to make such special arrangements as they think proper with regard to units or individuals whose services are required in other than a military capacity." If those words were inserted the men at Woolwich would not be debarred from joining the Volunteer Force, but the Amendment would enable the Army Council for the time being to see that the public service did not suffer by their going under arms when they might be more usefully employed in looking after their own special business.
§ MR. ASHLEY
asked leave to with draw his Amendment in favour of the words suggested by the right hon. Gentleman.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed to the Bill —
In page 13, line 11, after the word 'Force' to insert the words 'and in particular to make such special arrangements as they may think proper with regard to units or individuals whose services are required in other than a military capacity.'"—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ MR. HALDANE
thought they were all agreed that there might come cases where, for example, for the defence of a great arsenal the workers should 389 be trained to repel a raid upon it. That was the kind of case which he thought the right hon. Gentleman had in his mind. It was quite right that there should be elasticity sufficient to provide for that and other cases. He gathered from what the right hon. Gentleman had said that he did not think the words would add very much to what was already in the Bill, but that they would operate as a suggestion. On that footing he was glad that he could accept the Amendment. He did not think they were inconsistent with the rest of the clause.
§ *MR. CARLILE (Hertfordshire, St. Albans)
did not think the definition of the right hon. Gentleman was comprehensive enough. He felt pretty sure that his right hon. friend did not wish the Amendment to be tied down to the case of arsenals. He himself did not wish that anybody should, because of any civil employment, be debarred from qualifying to act in the defence of the country. Very many of the persons to whom the right hon. Gentleman had referred were the élite of the classes to which they belonged. Hon. Members who had had experience of the Auxiliary Forces know that men who were selected for positions as heads of departments in business concerns were frequently appointed because they were in the Volunteer Force. He remembered when it was his good fortune to be in command of a Volunteer battalion in an industrial district, a man at the head of a large industry, who was not himself a Volunteer, was asked by him why he selected men from the Volunteer Force as heads of his different departments, and his reply was that he did so because they were accustomed to receive words of command and to see that they were carried out. He found that that was a great advantage to both employers and employees. The same thing applied to men employed in the railway departments, and in the Post Office service. Why should such men be deprived of a privilege which they valued highly, as was clearly proved, because they undertook such duties? He could not understand why the right hon. Gentleman, who would have difficulty enough in securing sufficient recruits for his Territorial Force, should hesitate to accept those who would form perhaps the most valuable part 390 of the force, and who, although they might not be available at the outbreak of war, would be available in a national emergency. He quite realised that for the sake of symmetry the right hon. Gentleman wanted a force which he could call out complete, but he and those beside him thought that the other side of the question was so important that they ventured to put it before him. If what the right hon. Gentleman proposed to do was carried out, it seemed to him that probably the hon. and gallant Members for Abercromby and East Edinburgh would be conspicuous by their absence from the very places where they would be bright and shining lights.
§ MR. WYNDHAM
moved the addition of the words "excepting men enlisted under Clause 29," after the words "Army Reserve." Those who were present at an earlier hour of the sitting would, he thought, agree with him that those words would only carry out the meaning which the right hon. Gentleman attached to the position. If this automatic embodiment did not take place, and if all the Reserves were called out, that would not happen until the fourteen Yeomanry squadrons and the 101 ordinary battalions of Militia Infantry, and the third and fourth battalions, which were not in the First Class Army Reserve, were called out. From the point of view of creating an impression, he thought it would be an advantage to the Minister occupying the position of the right hon. Gentleman in a time of great national emergency to have his hands free, and be able to call out the Territorial Force, not waiting for the calling out of the Yeomanry and Militia battalions. He therefore hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to accept the Amendment.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
In page 13, line 14, after the words 'Army Reserve' to insert the words 'excepting men enlisted under Clause 29.' "—(Mr. Wyndham.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ MR. HALDANE
said that he had fully considered the matter, and he preferred 391 the words of the clause as they stood. Under the first part of subsection (1), the Secretary for War had the power, though he was not under the obligation, to call out the Territorial Force. But if there was a contingency so serious as to require the expeditionary force to be set in motion, then he thought that the Territorial Force ought to be embodied. When the whole of the First Class Reserve was called out, then obligation arose.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH (Maid stone)
moved an Amendment to substitute the words "or any part of, "for the words" the men belonging to." He could not understand why the right hon. Gentle man did not reserve to himself the right to call out a small or large portion of, or all, the Territorial Force as circumstances might require. He thought that there was not sufficient elasticity in the Bill in that regard. Much of the success of the right hon. Gentleman's scheme would depend on the way in which it was received in the country, and he thought that the elasticity, on which the right hon. Gentleman laid stress, would be secured by adopting his Amendment, which left it to the discretion of the Army Council whether all or part of the Territorial Force should be called out. He knew that the words did not appear to indicate any very important change in the Bill, but he thought they would give to the Army Council a discretion which it was desirable they should have.
§ CAPTAIN CRAIG
in seconding the Amendment, said the clause as it stood would compel the Army Council to call out the whole of the Territorial Force, but the Amendment would give them an option to call out the whole or any portion of it. They might find it desirable not to call out certain portions of the force because they were engaged in manufacturing articles for the Government, such as munitions of war, clothing, saddlery, etc.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
In page 13, line 16, to leave out the words 'the men belonging to' and insert the words 'or any part of.' "—(Viscount Castlereagh.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. HALDANE
said the clause they were discussing was one framed in order to meet a special emergency such as a great war, when the whole force of the country was to be put in motion. Power to call out "any part" of the Territorial Army was taken in another portion of the Bill. But when they came to this proviso, to insert the words "or any part of" and omit "the men belonging to" would defeat their object, because under this clause the whole of the Reserve Forces would be in motion, the object being to present before the enemy the impressive spectacle of the whole nation mobilised and under arms. He did not think that any case would arise in which the whole of the First-Class Army Reserve would be called out and mobilised at one time. Such a thing as that could only happen in times of extraordinary emergency. It was one thing to embody a Territorial Army and bring them under the War Office, and another thing to bring them out all together. They could tell portions of them to go on furlough and come up upon notice being given to them. For these reasons he thought it would detract from the scheme of the clause if they were to say that the embodiment should not extend to the whole of the Territorial Forces.
§ MR. WYNDHAM
was curious to know why, if that was the view of the right hon. Gentleman, he did not give effect to the last Amendment. There was so little that made for progress in the clause that he did not think it mattered whether the right hon. Gentleman accepted the Amendment or not. They wanted to bring the clause up to the point they desired, but it was so hopeless that he did not think the Amendment would have any real effect.
§ MR. ASHLEY
said the only reason the right hon. Gentleman could give against the Amendment was that it would prevent the embodiment of the whole Territorial Force. He could not see that that embodiment would win a battle, and a certain amount of elasticity being necessary in the clause, he failed to see why the right hon. Gentleman could not accept the Amendment.
§ Question put394
§ The House divided: —Ayes, 238; Noes, 71. (Division List No. 241.)395
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Essex, R. W.||Lupton, Arnold|
|Adkins, W. Ryland D.||Esslemont, George Birnie||Lyell, Charles Henry|
|Agnew, George William||Evans, Samuel T.||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)|
|Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Everett, R. Lacey||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Bg'hs )|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry||Faber, G. H. (Boston)||Maclean, Donald|
|Astbury, John Meir||Fenwick, Charles||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.|
|Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)||Ferens, T. R.||M'Callum, John M.|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Fiennes, Hon. Eustace||M'Crae, George|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Findlay, Alexander||M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald|
|Barker, John||Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter||Manfield, Harry (Northants)|
|Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Freeman-Thomas, Freeman||Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)|
|Barnes, G. N.||Fuller, John Michael F.||Menzies, Walter|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Gill, A. H.||Molteno, Percy Alport|
|Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.||Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John||Money, L. G. Chiozza,|
|Beale, W. P.||Glover, Thomas||Montagu, E. S.|
|Bell, Richard||Goddard, Daniel Ford||Montgomery, H. G.|
|Bellairs, Carlyon||Grant, Corrie||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)|
|Benn, W.(T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.||Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward||Murray, James|
|Berridge, T. H. D.||Gulland, John W.||Myer, Horatio|
|Bertram, Julius||Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Napier, T. B.|
|Bethell,Sir J.H.(Essex, R'mf'rd||Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)|
|Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis||Nicholls, George|
|Billson, Alfred||Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)||Nicholson, Charles N.( Doncast'r|
|Black, Arthur W.||Hart-Davies, T.||Norton, Capt. Cecil William|
|Boulton, A. C. F.||Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||Nussey, Thomas Willans|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Hazel, Dr. A. E.||Nuttall, Harry|
|Bramsdon, T. A.||Hemmerde, Edward George||O'Grady, J.|
|Branch, James||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Brigg, John||Henderson, J. M.(Aberdeen, W.)||Pearce, William (Limehouse)|
|Brooke, Stopford||Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.||Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke|
|Brunner, J.F.L. (Lancs., Leigh)||Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)||Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)|
|Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J.T. (Ches.||Higham, John Sharp||Pickersgill, Edward Hare|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Hobart, Sir Robert||Pollard, Dr.|
|Buckmaster, Stanley O.||Hobhouse, Charles E. H.||Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Hodge, John||Priestley, W.E.B. (Bradford, E.|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Holland, Sir William Henry||Radford, G. H.|
|Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles||Holt, Richard Durning||Raphael, Herbert H.|
|Byles, William Pollard||Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||Rea, Russell (Gloucester)|
|Cairns, Thomas||Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N.||Rea, Walter Russell(Scarboro')|
|Cameron, Robert||Horniman, Emslie John||Renton, Major Leslie|
|Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Horridge, Thomas Gardner||Richards, T.F. (Wolverh'mpt'n|
|Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Richardson, A.|
|Cawley, Sir Frederick||Hyde, Clarendon||Rickett, J. Compton|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Idris, T. H. W.||Ridsdale, E. A.|
|Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Illingworth, Percy H.||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Cleland, J. W.||Isaacs, Rufus Daniel||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)|
|Clough, William||Jenkins, J.||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)|
|Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)||Johnson, John (Gateshead)||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Br'df'rd|
|Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Robinson, S.|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire||Rowlands, J.|
|Collins, Sir Wm. J.(S. Pancras, W||Jowett, F. W.||Runciman, Walter|
|Corbett, C. H.(Sussex, E. Grinst'd||Kearley, Hudson E.||Russell, T. W.|
|Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Kekewich, Sir George||Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)|
|Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Kincaid-Smith, Captain||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)|
|Crombie, John William||Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Crosfield, A. H.||Laidlaw, Robert||Schwann, Sir C.E. (Manchester)|
|Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster||Seddon, J.|
|Davies, Timothy (Fulham)||Lambert, George||Seely, Major J. B.|
|Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Lamont, Norman||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)|
|Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)||Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington)||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Lehmann, R. C.||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)||Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich||Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John|
|Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)||Lever, W. H.(Cheshire, Wirral)||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie|
|Dunne, Major E. Martin (Wals'l||Levy, Maurice||Snowden, P.|
|Edwards, Frank (Radnor)||Lewis, John Herbert||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Elibank, Master of||Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David||Stanger, H. Y.|
|Erskine, David C.||Lough, Thomas||Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)|
|Steadman, W. C.||Vivian, Henry||Wiles, Thomas|
|Stewart, Halley (Greenock)||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Strachey, Sir Edward||Walsh, Stephen||Williams, J. (Glamorgan)|
|Straus, B. S. (Mile End)||Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Summerbell, T.||Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)||Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)|
|Sutherland, J. E.||Waring, Walter||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Taylor, John W. (Durham)||Watt, Henry A.||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)||Wedgwood, Josiah C.||Winfrey, R.|
|Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)||Weir, James Galloway||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)|
|Thorne, William||White, Luke (York, E.R.)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.|
|Torrance, Sir A. M.||Whitehead, Rowland||Whiteley and Mr. J. A.|
|Ure, Alexander||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)||Pease.|
|Verney, F. W.||Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer|
|Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F.||Fell, Arthur||Nield, Herbert|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Fletcher, J. S.||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Forster, Henry William||Randies, Sir John Scurrah|
|Ashley, W. W.||Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.||Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall|
|Balcarres, Lord||Haddock, George R.||Salter, Arthur Clavell|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, H.||Hamilton, Marquess of||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Hervey, F. W. F.(Bury S. Edm'ds||Sloan, Thomas Henry|
|Bowles, G. Stewart||Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)||Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)|
|Boyle, Sir Edward||Hills, J. W.||Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Houston, Robert Paterson||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Butcher, Samuel Henry||Kenyon-Slaney,Rt. Hon. Col. W.||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Keswick, William||Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)|
|Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W.||Kimber, Sir Henry||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-||King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull||Turnour, Viscount|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)||Lane-Fox, G. R.||Valentia, Viscount|
|Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham||Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R||Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|
|Courthope, G. Loyd||Lowe, Sir Francis William||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)|
|Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Craik, Sir Henry||M'Calmont, Colonel James|
|Dalrymple, Viscount||Magnus, Sir Philip||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Viscount Castlereagh and|
|Duncan, Robert (Lanark, G'v'n||Morpeth, Viscount||Captain Craig.|
§ SIR HOWARD VINCENT
moved an Amendment in Clause 17 (Disembodying of Territorial Forces) providing that it should be lawful for His Majesty by proclamation to order that the Territorial Force be disembodied, and thereupon the Army Council should give such directions as might seem necessary or proper for carrying it into effect "upon the expiration of thirty days notice." He argued that it would be very hard were the members of the Territorial Force to be disembodied suddenly and without adequate notice, during which those who had been in a civil occupation might have an opportunity of communicating with their former employers. An opportunity should be given to find civil employment at the end of their service. Nothing would be more unsatisfactory than that a large number of men should be disembodied without having had such an opportunity. Disembodiment should be as gradual a process as possible, in the interests both of 396 the men themselves and of law and order. It would be a most serious thing to have large bodies of men wandering about the country without occupation. He begged to move.
§ MR. ASHLEY
seconded the Amendment. He said it would not only be a great hardship to the men to be dismissed without adequate notice, but it might have a very serious effect on good order if they were suddenly turned adrift without an occupation to go to.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
In page 14, line 2, after the word 'effect' to insert the words 'upon the expiration of thirty days notice.' "—(Sir Howard Vincent.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ * Mr. HALDANE
said that it had been the practice in modern times to give a 397 man six weeks furlough so that he might receive six weeks pay; and in future that would no doubt continue to be the practice. He thought that this was one of those cases that had to be judged by circumstances, and the Amendment would not cover all the cases that were contemplated by the hon. Member. It would be preferable to leave the question to administrative freedom, with subsequent responsibility to Parliament.
§ VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH
thought it would be a good thing if something definite could be put into the Bill. He quite agreed it was the practice to give a month's furlough, during which time the soldier did his best to obtain some kind of employment, but he could not see any reason why the Amendment should not be accepted.
§ * MR. ACLAND
said that the whole of the point was covered by the Army Regulations. In 1902 the notice to be given to the men on demobilisation was a minimum of forty-two days.
§ CAPTAIN CRAIG
admitted that there was a great deal in what the hon. Member said, but he thought it would be better to put a definite time in the Bill. He would suggest that the Amendment should be "upon the expiration of at least thirty days." His hon. friend would agree to that, and he thought it would meet the point of the right hon. Gentleman, who objected to the Amendment upon the ground that it did not cover the whole point. There was one important point and that was the payment of the men. In some cases that was most unsatisfactory. The Volunteers did not know definitely upon what terms they were engaged, whereas if a man joined the Regulars he knew from the day he signed his attestation papers what the terms would be. He submitted that the right hon. Gentleman ought to take as much precaution with the enlistment of the Volunteers as with the enlistment of the Regulars. It was upon such details as these that the success or otherwise of the Bill depended. What they wanted was that when the recruiting sergeant was sent to a district, he should be able to answer the questions of intending recruits, and tell them that they would be expected to do so many drills, and to train on enlistment for so 398 many weeks; he ought to be able to in form recruits that when they were de mobilised they would not be thrown on the country at short notice to pick up a livelihood. He thought the right hon. Gentleman might really accept the Amendment, which would, from the point of view of the Volunteers, be very much appreciated.
§ * MR. MCCRAE
said the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just sat down had confused two things. He had spoken about Volunteers coming back from war, and he had altogether omitted to observe that the clause did not refer to active service abroad, but only to embodiment for home defence.
§ CAPTAIN CRAIG
said he understood from the Secretary of State for War him self that he expected a large number of the Territorial Force to go out and help in time of war.
§ * MR. McCRAE
said that that was the very reason why the hands of the Secretary of State should be perfectly free, because if they laid down a hard and fast line under this clause, he was quite sure they would got into difficulty. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had said that he could speak for Volunteers, but for himself he would say that the view of Volunteers would be that, as soon as circumstances would allow of it, they should get back to their civil employment. Therefore, he thought it would be a mistake to stereo type the conditions under which disembodiment would take place. He would go further and say that of the many complaints they had against the War Office he had not come across one as to the treatment which the men had received when relieved from active service. He did not think the Amendment was really in the interests of the Auxiliary Forces. He should certainly say that the proper course to pursue was to leave the Secretary of State a free hand, and he was quite sure that the Auxiliary Forces would rely on getting fair and generous treatment as they had received in the past.
§ SIR HOWARD VINCENT
asked leave to amend the Amendment by inserting the words suggested by his hon. and gallant friend, so that it would read—"at least" thirty days. 399 Proposed words inserted in the pro posed Amendment.
§ MR. WYNDHAM
said he understood that the Amendment as amended was now before the House, and if that was so he could not see the relevance of the hon. Gentleman's speech. The Amendment now said that there was to be at least thirty days, but the hon. Member opposite had said that they had better leave it to the sense and consideration of the Secretary of State. But let them remember that never had there been a war concluded without many complaints being raised. What they had to consider, however, was the question of recruiting. Conversations took place with recruiting officers, and those conversations were not under the guillotine. The candidates would ask as many questions as they pleased, and undoubtedly those who in future wanted to join the Territorial Force would desire to know when and how the six months training began and when and how it ended. The six months term, as the right hon. Gentleman had pointed out, was not in the Bill, but it was a period thrown out by way of suggestion. The period might be a much longer term; it might be as long as the emergency endured or as long as the Territorial Force was embodied. He took it that it would not be disembodied so long as it ought to be serving, and the period might be a year. If that were so, what became of the other point, that the service would in
§ many cases be at home? A man who was withdrawn from his employment for six months or longer required a margin at the end of that time during which he should be paid as a soldier while he was picking up the thread of his civil occupation. Why should they not lighten the task of the recruiting officer and assist him to get the men of the Territorial Force by putting into his mouth the promise that, at any rate, if a man joined the force, he would have a month's pay after his military service, during which he could look after civil employment either in his old place or elsewhere? If they could make the period of pay longer so much the better, but a man wanted to know what was to be granted to him by the action of the House.
§ MR. HALDANE
said he could not accept a hard and fast line. A man might only come up for one day, and per haps not even that, and yet in such a case they proposed that at least thirty days should elapse before he was free from legal liability. And in the second place, would it be right to compensate such a man in the same way as they would the man who had been actually out for service? For that reason he thought the Amendment was about the worst that could be proposed.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 56; Noes, 222. (Division List No. 242.)401
|Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F.||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Nield, Herbert|
|Arnold-Foster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.||Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan||Pease, Herbert Pike( Darlington)|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.||Fell, Arthur||Randies, Sir John Scurrah|
|Balcarres, Lord||Fletcher, J. S.||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecelesall)|
|Baring, Capt. Hn. G (Winchester||Forster, Henry William||Salter, Arthur Clavell|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry. N.)||Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)||Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.|
|Beach, Hn. Michael HughHicks||Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)||Sloan, Thomas Henry|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Haddock, George R.||Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)|
|Bowles, G. Stewart||Hamilton, Marquess of||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Boyle, Sir Edward||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Heaton, John Henniker||Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Hills, J. W.||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Houston, Robert Paterson||Valentia, Viscount|
|Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.||King, Sir Henry Seymour(Hull)||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)||Lane-Fox, G. R.||Wilson, A. Stanley (York. E. R.)|
|Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)||Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Lowe, Sir Francis William|
|Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.)||M'Calmont, Colonel James||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Craig, Captain James(Down, E.)||Magnus, Sir Philip||Sir Howard Vincent and|
|Dalrymple, Viscount||Morpeth, Viscount||Mr. Ashley.|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)|
|Agnew, George William||'Astbury, John Meir||Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Gulland, John W.||Pickersgill, Edward Hare|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)|
|Barker, John||Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)|
|Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Hall, Frederick||Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)|
|Barnes, G. N.||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis||Radford, G. H.|
|Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)||Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)||Raphael, Herbert H.|
|Beale, W. P.||Hart-Davies, T.||Rea, Russell (Gloucester)|
|Bell, Richard||Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'|
|Bellairs, Carlyon||Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.||Renton, Major Leslie|
|Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets. S. Geo.||Hazel, Dr. A. E.||Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th|
|Berridge, T. H. D.||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton|
|Bertram, Julius||Herbert, Colonel Ivor(Mon., S.)||Richardson, A.|
|Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford||Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)||Rickett, J. Compton|
|Bethell, T, R. (Essex, Maldon)||Higham, John Sharp||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Billson, Alfred||Hobart, Sir Robert||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Hobhouse, Charles E. H.||Robertson, Sir G. Scott( Bradford-|
|Black, Arthur W.||Hodge, John||Robinson, S.|
|Boulton, A. C. F.||Holland, Sir William Henry||Rowlands, J.|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||Runciman, Walter|
|Brace, William||Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N.||Russell, T. W.|
|Bramsdon, T. A.||Horniman, Emslie John||Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)|
|Branch, James||Horridge, Thomas Gardner||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)|
|Brigg, John||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Brooke, Stopford||Hyde, Clarendon||Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)|
|Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)||Illingworth, Percy H.||Seddon, J.|
|Brunner, Rt Hn Sir J. T. (Cheshire||Jacoby, Sir James Alfred||Seely, Major J. B.|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Jenkins, J.||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)|
|Buckmaster, Stanley O.||Johnson, John (Gateshead)||Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Byles. William Pollard||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire||Simon, John Allsebrook|
|Cairns, Thomas||Jowett, F. W.||Snowden, B.|
|Cameron, Robert||Kekewich, Sir George||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Kincaid-Smith, Captain||Stanger, H. Y.|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Laidlaw, Robert||Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)|
|Cawley, Sir Frederick||Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster||Steadman, W. C.|
|Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Lamont, Norman||Stewart, Halley (Greenock)|
|Cleland, J. W.||Lehmann, R. C.||Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)|
|Clough, William||Lever, A. Levy (Essex. Harwich||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)|
|Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)||Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral||Summerbell, T.|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Levy, Maurice||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Collins, Sir W m. J. (S. Pancras, W.||Lewis, John Herbert||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd||Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David||Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)|
|Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Lough, Thomas||Thorne, William|
|Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Lupton, Arnold||Torrance, Sir A. M.|
|Cremer, William Randal||Lyell, Charles Henry||Ure, Alexander|
|Crombie, John William||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Vivian, Henry|
|Crosfield, A. H.||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)|
|Dalziel, James Henry||Maclean, Donald||Walsh, Stephen|
|Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)|
|Davies, Timothy (Fulham)||M'Callum, John M.||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||M'Crae, George||Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)|
|Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)||M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Waring, Walter|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Manfield, Harry (Northants)||Watt, Henry A.|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)||Masterman, C. F. G.||Weir, James Galloway|
|Elibank, Master of||Menzies, Walter||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)|
|Essex, R. W.||Molteno, Percy Alport||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Esslemont, George Birnie||Money, L. G. Chiozza||Whitehead, Rowland|
|Everett, R. Lacey||Montagu, E. S.||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)|
|Faber, G. H. (Boston)||Montgomery, H. G.||Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer|
|Fenwick, Charles||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Ferens, T. R.||Myer, Horatio||Williams, J. (Glamorgan)|
|Ferguson, R. C. Munro||Napier, T. B.||Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n|
|Findlay, Alexander||Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)|
|Freeman-Thomas, Freeman||Nicholls, George||Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)|
|Fuller, John Michael F.||Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Gill, A. H.||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Gladstone. Rt. Hn. HerbertJohn||Nuttall, Harry||Winfrey, R.|
|Glover, Thomas||O'Grady. J.||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||Parker, James (Halifax)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.|
|Grant, Corrie||Pearce, William (Limehouse)||Whiteley and Mr. J. A.|
|Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward||Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke||Pease|
§ MR. ASHLEY
moved to omit from Clause 19 (Punishment for failure to attend on embodiment) the words providing that any person who knowingly employs a deserter from the Territorial Force shall be deemed to aid him in concealing himself. Hon. Members would observe that in Section 19, subsection (2), it was provided that—Sections 153 and 154 of the Army Act shall apply with respect to deserters and desertion within the meaning of this section.He had no objection to that, but his contention was that the same punishment should be meted out to a man in the Territorial Force as to a man in the Regulars. He considered that a civilian ought not, as he apparently would be under the clause as it stood, treated more severely for an offence committed with regard to a member of the Territorial Force than for an offence committed with regard to a soldier of the Regular Forces. On page 15 of the Bill it was laid down that—Any person who, knowing any man of the Territorial Force to be a deserter within the meaning of this section or of the Army Act, employs or continues to employ him, shall be deemed to aid him in concealing himself within the meaning of the first mentioned section.He did not think it was right to have one law for a deserter in the Regular Force, and a more stringent law for the Territorial Force. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that employers should act as whippers-in for his force in case of embodiment. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would explain this provision more clearly.
§ VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH
thought this portion of the clause should be deleted altogether. The right hon. Gentleman, he was sure, desired to make the Bill as much a reality as possible, and it was for the purpose of removing any difficulty or anything which might act as a deterrent to recruiting for the Territorial Army that he thought the words should be deleted. He begged to second the Amendment.
Amendment proposed to the Bill —
In page 15, line 1, to leave out from the word 'sections' to end of subsection (2) of Clause 19."—(Mr. Ashley.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."404
§ MR. HALDANE
said the hon. Member for Blackpool had not quite appreciated the point to which the clause was addressed. In the case of the ordinary soldier, he was in continuous employment in the Army, and if he deserted he deserted his occupation. This clause referred not to things of that kind, but simply to the man who knowingly and willingly and without lawful excuse did not come up on embodiment. That was the serious emergency dealt with in Clause 16, which provided in subsection (3) that—every officer and man belonging to that part shall attend at the place and time fixed by those directions, and after that lime shall be deemed to be embodied.If hon. Members would turn to Clause 19 they would find that the first sub-clause provided that—Any man of the Territorial Force who, without leave lawfully granted, or such sick ness or other reasonable excuse as may be allowed in the prescribed manner, fails to appear at the time and place appointed for assembling on embodiment.…It was quite true that there were other cases provided for under Section 153 of the Army Act, but this particular clause was directed against the case of a man who knowing that one of his employees was a member of the Territorial Force "employs or continues to employ him." The hon. Member would see that the provision only referred to special cases of a very grave order—namely, cases in which men without reasonable excuse failed to come up on embodiment; that was to say, when the country was face to face with a serious emergency. It was proposed that measures should be taken to prevent a person who had committed that very serious offence from being employed.
§ VISCOUNT VALENTIA (Oxford)
said they ought to be extremely careful not to do anything that would deter the would-be recruit from joining the Territorial Force. They had also to consider the employer of the would-be recruit. He was afraid that the proposals they were now discussing would have the effect of frightening employers and would deter them from allowing their employees to join the Territorial Force. At any rate he felt certain that the provision would give employers an excuse for refusing to allow their men to join the Territorial Army. When a man said that he thought of joining the Territorial 405 Force employers would be inclined to say, "If you are going to enlist I do not think I shall keep you on, because I find on looking through the Bill I might run the risk of being run in for concealing a deserter." An employer could not always remember which of his men were members of the force or which of them had served their time. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman would lose anything by taking out this sub section. Their experience in the past had been that when the Reserves were called out they had answered the call to a man. Some employers were ready enough to find any excuse to prevent their men from joining the Volunteers.
§ CAPTAIN CRAIG
said he supported the Amendment most heartily. He thought the right hon. Gentleman failed to understand the responsibility he was putting on employers. Not only was he asking them to be in a sense recruiting officers, but he was using the very worst form of compulsion. If an employer and his workman were on the most friendly terms during the civil employment, it would be a pity to disturb that feeling. Any man who joined any of the forces under the territorial scheme would, under the proposal now before the House, have to be watched. If on embodiment he failed to join his corps, the employer would be liable to so heavy a penalty that he would say, "You must join because if I keep you here another day I shall fall under this severe penalty." He thought the country could very well do without those men who, instead of turning out voluntarily on embodiment, had to be frightened by their employers into doing their duty. What was required was more fully met by the Army Act.
§ MR. LUPTON (Lincolnshire, Sleaford)
asked his right hon. friend if he really meant to send an employer to prison for six months if he employed a man who had been called out. To send middle-aged men to prison would in many cases kill them. The way in which the jails were managed was a disgrace to the Empire. If a man was called out and did not respond, that could be proved, and it could also be proved that he was at the time working for a certain employer. But how was the prosecution going to prove that the 406 employer "knowingly" employed a man who had not responded to the call? If the employer went into the witness box, a clever counsel might be able to examine him in such a manner as to make him appear guilty, although he was ignorant of what the employee had done. On the other hand, if the accused did not go into the witness box to defend himself he would be assumed to be guilty.
§ MR. HALDANE
replied that the employer would not be convicted unless full knowledge were brought home to him. If the man were punished, the master who had acted knowingly and without any excuse must be punished too. There could be no hardship in that. If the master did not act wilfully, he would not be convicted.
§ LORD BALCARRES (Lancashire, Chorley)
said the man had taken an oath and entered into obligations to the State, but the master had not. These penal clauses were indefensible. The second half of the Bill contained penal clauses which might be right or wrong in dealing with the previously enlisted soldier, but were most unwise when dealing with men who were willing to serve the country in the Territorial Force. He was not one of those who, like the hon. Member for Sleaford, took an extreme view in regard to the treatment of persons in British prisons. He believed British prisons were managed in a more humane manner than those in any other part of the world. It would be impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to find a more drastic deterrent to recruiting than the half-a-dozen penal clauses in this part of the Bill. The fines to which the members of a corps would be liable would not be compensated for by exempting them from service on juries. His opinion was that the five lines which his hon. friend proposed to omit were superfluous. It was a mistake to put an employer of labour, whose relations with workmen in the Territorial Force were purely casual, in the position of being responsible for the whipping up of bismen at the time of embodiment. What was the meaning of "employer" in this section? A man who had been called out and did not respond might have five or six employers during the six months over which the embodiment was to 407 extend. Were all those men to defend themselves in court against the charge of having knowingly employed that man who had failed to turn out when called? He deprecated the enactment of penal clauses which might have the effect of making employers hostile to their employees being connected with the Territorial Force. They had no business to make employers take the place of recruiting officers. He was convinced that those words should be excluded.
§ MR. J. WARD (Stoke-on-Trent)
protested against the whole of the penal suggestions contained in the clause. He was extremely sorry that neither during the Committee nor on the Report Stage had any opportunity been given for the full consideration of those penal suggestions. He believed that if the clause had been thoroughly understood it would not have been accepted in the form in which it now appeared. Hon. Members would remember that on the First Reading of the Bill he called attention to this matter, and in view of the altered character of the Bill he thought it was time for the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider its penal clauses and if possible to mitigate the punishments. There was some reason for these clauses being applied to the Militia, which, to a certain extent, were under martial law when called up for training; but now that they were dealing with the purely voluntary element of the Territorial Force he saw no reason for retaining these penal clauses beyond what in practice had been found to be necessary. He would point out also that there was a general tendency to reduce the penalties attached to offences committed by men on military service and to approximate them as nearly as possible to the penalties imposed in civil life. That was so in the case of France, where in time of peace, the ordinary law was found to be quite effective. If these clauses were to be insisted upon, they might well consider that the Bill was introduced rather to bring the Volunteers under martial law than for any other purpose, and the effect would be most disastrous. There was a strong feeling in the House that to apply more stringent punishment to the Volunteers and Yeomanry was not to improve their general strength nor to adapt the Volunteer organisation to the wants and needs of the country.
§ MR. J. WARD
said he understood that the case of the men had been decided, but he hoped not finally. It was a mere chance that the subject had not been thoroughly discussed on the Committee stage; and he believed that there was a general opinion that applying the penal clauses to the men was not a way to improve recruiting, or to meet the needs of the defence of the country.
§ * THE DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Caldwell)
said that the Amendment before the House dealt entirely with the employers. The clause in regard to the men had been passed.
§ MR. J. WARD
said he quite under stood, but was it not rather a novel kind of punishment to inflict on the employer? The clause lent itself to the suggestion that the main object of the Bill was to place the two branches of the Territorial Force under more severe regulations and punishments than hitherto. He would have thought that the last person to suggest such stringent military conditions was a Liberal Minister for War. Those who were in favour of conscription, and who thought that the patriotism of the people was not adequate to the defence of the country, might approve of these penal clauses, but he thought the last to suggest them should have been a Liberal Government. He, and those who agreed with him, did not want to place obstacles in the way of recruits joining the Territorial Force. He did not want to make the conditions so irksome that instead of getting twenty men offering their services, they would get only one.
§ MR. HALDANE
said that he was sure his hon. friend did not wish to misrepresent him. This was a clause which only dealt with embodied Volunteers. In the case of the employer who engaged a man, knowing that he had deserted, then they insisted that the penalty should be applied to that employer. Of course, when the Volunteers were embodied the Army Act applied to thorn.
§ * SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucester shire, Forest of Dean)
said he had referred to this question when the Annual 409 Army Bill was under discussion. In his opinion the position of the Volunteer was certainly changed by the present Bill. He could not be called out now in the case of civil disturbance. The Yeomanry under the Yeomanry Acts could be called on by the Lieutenant or Sheriff of the county, to act within the county or adjacent counties for the suppression of riot, and in so doing were subject to military law. The Volunteers would be assimilated to the Yeomanry in the Territorial Army. The sub-clause now before the House appeared to be an extension to the employers of Volunteers of the penalties for the grave military offence of harbouring a deserter. It seemed to him to be most unwise, and would have a detrimental effect on recruiting, because there would be a difficulty in getting employers to engage men who were Volunteers from the fear of the responsibilities and obligations they would incur under this section.
§ MR. THORNE (West Ham, S.)
inquired whether a person charged with the offence of harbouring a deserter would be tried by a civil court or by a court martial.
§ MR. GUY BARING (Winchester)
pointed out that there might be people who on the outbreak of a war might object to it, and they might find them selves employing a man in the Territorial Army. They might object to the whole spirit of militarism, and they might induce the man to stop with them instead of joining the Territorial Army.
§ MR. HALDANE
replied that a Quaker who now concealed a deserter of the Regular Army was, notwithstanding his creed, liable to the penalties of the law.
§ MR. W. T. WILSON (Lancashire, Westhoughton)
appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider this portion of the clause. It was, doubtless, the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to punish an employer who wilfully concealed a deserter, but he would, in effect, be penalising a large number of working men, because employers would not be 410 inclined to give work to those who were members of the Territorial Force if these conditions were attached to the service. Another point he would like the Secretary of State to make quite clear was, whom did he intend to proceed against in the case of a limited company giving employment to, and concealing a man who was a deserter? Speaking as an old Volunteer, he would not enlist in the Territorial Army under the conditions contained in the Bill, and he trusted that in the interests of the scheme itself the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to modify the penal clauses of the Bill.
§ MR. ACLAND
said he would like to point out that under the old Volunteer Act there were infinitely more severe penal clauses than were provided for in this Bill. The liabilities under this Bill and under the old Volunteer Act were precisely the same, that they were to be called out to serve in times of national danger or of great emergency. The Territorial Force would not, under the Bill, be embodied until the Army Reserves had been called out, and that would not happen until a national danger or a great emergency had arisen. The words "great emergency" would re main in the one case as in the other. Under the Volunteer Act, at present, there was no possibility, as there was under this clause, of granting leave for any cause except serious illness. That was provided for under Section 17 of the Volunteer Act, but in this Bill a provision was inserted to the effect that leave could be granted upon "a reasonable excuse" being given. If the Bill were examined it would be found to be much more favourable to the Volunteer than the existing law.
§ * MR. LANE-FOX (Yorkshire, W.R., Barkston Ash)
said that by this clause the right hon. Gentleman proposed to put before the employers of Volunteers far more clearly than before what his liability might be if he incurred a penalty. It put the case far more strongly, but the mere fact of bringing his liability to the notice of the employers of Volunteers would, he thought, make it more difficult to obtain recruits, and he wished to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman the enormous difficulty that at present existed of getting facilities for men who 411 enlisted in the force. He would not belittle the great patriotism of the vast majority of the employers of the country; but still there must be a very grave tendency on the part of employers, especially if they increased their obligations, to consider whether it was worth their while to employ men who belonged to the Territorial Force. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider whether he could not modify these pro visions, or, at any rate, the wording of this clause.
§ * Mr. McCRAE
said that, dealing with the question from the employers' point of view, under present conditions
§ by the provisions of the Act of 1863, officers, non-commissioned officers and men, who did not respond to the call if not incapacitated from active service, would be treated as deserters. The Act said they "shall" be so treated. This clause only dealt with the position of affairs after the force was embodied under certain definite terms of service, and therefore the position was improved by the present Bill which rather modified than accentuated, existing conditions.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 190; Noes, 74. (Division List No. 243.)413
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Laidlaw, Robert|
|Agnew, George William||Davies, Timothy (Fulham)||Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster|
|Allan, Charles P. (Stroud)||Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Lamont, Norman|
|Astbury, John Meir||Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)||Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)|
|Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)||Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras. N.||Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)|
|Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)||Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)||Levy, Maurice|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Elibank, Master of||Lewis, John Herbert|
|Barker, John||Essex, R. W.||Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David|
|Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Esslemont, George Birnie||Lough, Thomas|
|Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)||Evans, Samuel T.||Lyell, Charles Henry|
|Beale, W. P.||Everett, R. Lacey||Lynch, H. B.|
|Bell, Richard||Faber, G. H. (Boston)||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs|
|Bellairs, Carlyon||Fenwick, Charles||Maclean, Donald|
|Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.||Ferens, T. R.||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.|
|Berridge, T. H. D.||Findlay, Alexander||M'Callum, John M.|
|Bertram, Julius||Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter||M'Crae, George|
|Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, R'mf'rd||Freeman-Thomas, Freeman||Manfield, Harry (Northants)|
|Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Fuller, John Michael F.||Marnham, F. J.|
|Billson, Alfred||Goddard, Daniel Ford||Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)|
|Black, Arthur W.||Grant, Corrie||Menzies, Walter|
|Boulton, A. C. F.||Gulland, John W.||Molteno, Percy Alport|
|Bramsdon, A. T.||Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Mond, A.|
|Branch, James||Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||Money, L. G. Chiozza|
|Brigg, John||Hall, Frederick||Montagu, E. S.|
|Brooke, Stopford||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis||Montgomery, H. G.|
|Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh)||Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Hart-Davies, T.||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)|
|Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Harvey, W. E. ( Derbyshire, N. E.)||Myer, Horatio|
|Buckmaster, Stanley O.||Hazel, Dr. A. E.||Napier, T. B.|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Henry, Charles S.||Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Hon. S.)||Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r|
|Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles||Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)||Norton, Capt. Cecil William|
|Byles, William Pollard||Hobart, Sir Robert||Pearce, William (Limehouse)|
|Cairns, Thomas||Hobhouse, Charles E. H.||Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke|
|Cameron, Robert||Holt, Richard Durning||Pickersgill, Edward Hare|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N.||Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)|
|Cawley, Sir Frederick||Horniman, Emslie John||Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.|
|Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Horridge, Thomas Gardner||Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)|
|Cleland, J. W.||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)|
|Clough, William||Hyde, Clarendon||Radford, G. H.|
|Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)||Illingworth, Percy H.||Raphael, Herbert H.|
|Corbett, CH. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd||Johnson, John (Gateshead)||Rea, Russell (Gloucester)|
|Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'|
|Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea||Rendall, Athelstan|
|Cremer, William Randal||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Renton, Major Leslie|
|Crombie, John William||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire||Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th|
|Crosfield, A. H.||Kekewich, Sir George||Rickett, J. Compton|
|Dalziel, James Henry||King, Alfred John (Knutsford)||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Robinson, S.||Strachey, Sir Edward||White, J. D. (Dunbartonshire)|
|Rowlands, J.||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Russell, T. W.||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)||Whitehead, Rowland|
|Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)||Thomas. Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)||Whiteley, John Henry (Halifax)|
|Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr||Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer|
|Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)||Torrance, Sir A. M.||Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarthen|
|Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)||Trevelyan, Charles Philips||Wills, Arthur Walters|
|Seely, Major J. B.||Ure, Alexander||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)||Vivian, Henry||Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)|
|Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Sherwell, Arthur James||Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds. S.)||Winfrey, R.|
|Shipman, Dr John G.||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Simon, John Allsebrook||Waring, Walter|
|Soares, Ernest J.||Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Stanger, H. Y.||Watt, Henry A.||Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A.|
|Stewart, Halley (Greenock)||Wedgwood, Josiah C.||Pease.|
|Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)||Weir, James Galloway|
|Acland-Hood, Rt Hn Sir Alex. F.||Glover, Thomas||Salter, Arthur Clavell|
|Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.||Haddock, George R.||Seddon, J.|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, t. Hon. Sir H.||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George|
|Balcarres, Lord||Higham, John Sharp||Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)|
|Baring, Capt. Hn. G(Winchester.||Hills, J. W.||Snowden, P.|
|Barnes, G. N.||Hodge, John||Steadman, W. C.|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Houston, Robert Paterson||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks||Jenkins, J.||Summerbell, T.|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||King, Sir Henry Seymour(Hull)||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Lane-Fox, G. R.||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Boyle, Sir Edward||Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)||Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)|
|Brace, William||Lowe, Sir Francis William||Thorne, William|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Lupton, Arnold||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Tumour, Viscount|
|Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)||M'Calmont, Colonel James||Valentia, Viscount|
|Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)||Magnus, Sir Philip||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Nicholls, George||Walsh, Stephen|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers||Nield, Herbert||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||O'Grady, J.||Williams, J. (Glamorgan)|
|Duncan, Robert (Lanark. Govan||Parker, James (Halifax)||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)|
|Fell, Arthur||Pease, Herbert Pike( Darlington||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Fletcher, J. S.||Randies, Sir John Scurrah||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Forster, Henry William||Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton|
|Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)||Richardson, A.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)||Mr. Ashley and Mr. John|
|Gill, A. H.||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)||Ward.|
Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and agreed to.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
In page 15, line 5, at the end, to add the words, 'Where a man of the Territorial Force commits the offence of desertion under this section the time which elapsed between the time of his committing the offence and the time of his apprehension or voluntary surrender shall not be taken into account in reckoning his service for the purpose of discharge.' "— (Mr. Haldane.)
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
In page 15, lines 13 and 14, to leave out the words 'less than twenty shillings and not more than' and insert 'exceeding.' "—(Mr. Haldane.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."414
§ LORD BALCARRES
said he at this stage desired to renew the protest he had previously made. The Amendment moved did not affect the £5, but only the 20s. It would have been far more suitable if the Amendment had related to the £5 instead of the 20s. Upon this point the right hon. Gentleman had apparently given way to the criticisms in Committee, and was going to introduce a sliding scale. Upon what system was the scale to be graduated?
§ THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BUCHANAN,) Perthshire, E.
was understood to say that the desire of his right hon. friend was to make the clause as elastic as possible.
§ * MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
said it was becoming increasingly evident that none of these provisions would be enforced. One by one they were being blotted out of the Bill. The time for which a man served did not matter. The penalty a man might incur was to be £5; now it might be only 6d. They might have been told at the beginning that the whole thing was a sham. They were going to call the Volunteers by a new name, but they would be under exactly the same regulations as now.
§ * MR. CARLILE
said that many hon. Members would have preferred to have seen the £5 taken out altogether. Because the Volunteers devoted a large amount of time and money to qualifying themselves to serve their country, were they to be subject to this serious penalty, whilst those who had no public spirit and did not come for ward got off scot-free? If the right hon. Gentleman desired to amend the clause he should have done so by taking off the heavy liability on men who came forward in times of peace to qualify themselves to assist their country in time of war. If the right hon. Gentleman thought these penalties would help recruiting he was much mistaken. This Amendment might have been moved for the purpose of relieving the members of the Territorial Force of these liabilities, but if that was the intention it should be put down in black and white. He thought its effect would be to deter the best men from coming forward.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ Proposed word there inserted in the Bill.
§ CAPTAIN CRAIG
moved an Amendment to provide that the penalty should be recoverable by "his commanding officer," instead of by "the prescribed officer." He felt very strongly, he said, on the question of the prescribed officer having full jurisdiction in matters which should be under the control of the commanding officer. All matters pertaining to the control of the regiment should properly be in the hands of the commanding officer, and he thought that the Bill from first to last 416 went in the direction of making the commanding officer feel that he had not full control of the men under his command. They could not possibly start a new scheme in a worse way than by making those responsible for the management of a number of men feel that they were not trusted, in the first instance by the War Office, and secondly by the County Associations. If the penalty of £5 was to be recoverable by somebody appointed by the County Associations they would strike at the root of the discipline of the force by weakening the hands of the commanding officer. That was a detail in one sense, but it was of great importance in another. The opportunity which a commanding officer would have of showing that he could be lenient sometimes while dealing with these penalties was taken away from him; but he hoped that now at the last moment the Government would accept the Amendment, and show that they were fully alive to the fact that a commanding officer could not be expected to control his men in the true sense of the word unless the Army Council were prepared to trust him with all the powers a commanding officer should have. Not only would the appointment of the prescribed officer have a bad effect on the men who would not know who their prescribed officer was, but it would militate against the influence of the commanding officer, who in ordinary circumstances was looked up to for guidance in all matters affecting the interests of the regiment. The Government were placing this scheme in the hands of officers to make the best of it by bringing in men to serve, and the moment they raised the regiment all the necessary attributes of the commanding officer were taken away, and the authorities were going to act through the adjutant in matters such as were de scribed in Clause 20. He had urged in Committee that there should be less of this board of guardians or county council officer, or whoever was to be the functionary interfering between the commanding officer and the men under his control. The prescribed officer might be under the colonel of a regiment which competed in popularity with the corps of the colonel over whose head the prescribed officer would be set. It seemed to him to be one of those absurd and unnecessary propositions which were introduced by some busy-body at the War Office in order 417 not only to make the Bill fail in essential details, but also to confuse the mind of the House in its consideration. The County Association was to be formed of commanding officers of units in the county, lords-lieutenant, and in some instances the higher officers of the county councils. These men together were to prescribe the officer who was to go to the colonel of perhaps a first-class Yeomanry regiment and say to him, "You are not the person who is to have this forfeit paid over to him." It was conceivable that it might be a sergeant-major who would have to say that. Many of the men felt strongly on the point, and he thought that the right hon. Gentle man ought to accept the Amendment. If he did so, he might be assured that those who were interested in the scheme would be prepared to back it up in a way which would leave the supreme control in the hands of the commanding officer.
§ VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH,
in seconding the Amendment, said he welcomed the opportunity of putting forward this principle, because on the Committee stage he was led to believe by the right hon. Gentleman that it was his intention to do something in this respect, in fact to give a little more power to the commanding officer; but he was sorry to say that on the Report stage the right hon. Gentleman had taken no notice of what he had put forward on the Committee stage. It was obvious that the right hon. Gentleman did not realise what the position of the commanding officer was. He imagined that the Secretary of State for War looked upon the commanding officer of a Yeomanry regiment or of a Volunteer corps as called upon to carry out certain duties, and with regard to other duties to be ignored altogether. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman must have taken his lines from some decayed Volunteer corps.
§ MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Caldwell)
said the Amendment simply pro posed to leave out "the prescribed," in order to insert "his commanding." The discussion must be limited entirely to the question of who was to recover the penalty whether "the prescribed" or "his commanding" officer.
§ VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH
said that while he believed that in a great many 418 cases the prescribed officer would be the commanding officer, yet they had to remember that the prescribed officer was to be appointed by the County Association, who might nominate some junior officer to have a jurisdiction in this matter greater than that of the commanding officer. Instead of "prescribed" it was most important that the word "commanding" should be inserted. If the prescribed officer was appointed by the County Association it was obvious that the commanding officer must lose that sense of duty which would be his if he had all the duties connected with the regiment under his control; if that control were taken from him, obviously he was deprived of that which was a main factor in the command of a regiment. The ruling from the Chair had precluded a certain amount of argument on the point, which was perhaps unfortunate, because they had had very little opportunity in Committee to discuss the matter. He would, however, raise that question on the Third Reading.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
In page 15, line 15, to leave out the words 'the prescribed,' and insert the words 'his commanding,'" —(Captain Craig) — instead thereof.
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. BUCHANAN
said the Amendment revived a question which they had discussed on various Amendments in Committee, and he could not agree with the noble Lord who supported the Amendment as to the want of discussion, for he thought that the position of the commanding officer had been debated at considerable length on different occasions during the Committee stage. His right hon. friend had endeavoured, at any rate in some degree, to meet the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite, on Clause 14. In putting "prescribed officer" into the Bill they in no degree whatever intended to reflect on the authority or position of the commanding officer. It was perfectly true that, owing to the inclusion of County Associations in the Bill, the position of the commanding officer of a Volunteer corps did not remain quite the same under the now system as it was under the old. But with regard to this 419 particular duty the hon. and gallant Gentleman was under the misapprehension that the prescribed officer was nominated by the County Association. That was not so. The prescribed officer was an officer "prescribed" by order or regulations drawn up by the Army Council. They had come to the conclusion that it was better to leave to the Army Council the discretion of nominating any officer they chose rather than impose that duty on the commanding officer only.
§ SIR HOWARD VINCENT
said he was sorry that the hon. Member had not seen his way to accept the Amendment. The refusal was another indication of the tendency shown throughout the speeches of the Secretary for War to give the go-by to and to ignore the commanding officer. If the force was to be a success, it could only be by being ad ministered with the good will and hearty co-operation of the commanding officers. The commanding officer was responsible for the efficiency of the unit, and the regiment ought to look up to him in regard to all matters affecting the regiment. If the Army Council was not going to place any confidence in the commanding officers the sooner it said so the better. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had moved a most reasonable Amendment in a reasonable and moderate speech. He could not understand why the Financial Secretary to the War Office was unwilling to accept it, because it must commend itself to anyone who had any practical experience in the administration of military affairs. Why should the term "prescribed officer" be inserted at all? Who was the prescribed officer? He hoped the hon. and gallant Member for Down would press his Amendment to a division.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
hoped the Amendment would be pressed. The hon. Gentleman had told them that commanding officers were such fainéants that they did not wish to have the unpopularity of enforcing certain duties on their men. Who had told him that? Was it some soldier? Was there any officer at the War Office who would like to have this slight put upon him? He had heard what the hon. Member for Central Sheffield and the hon. Member for East Down had said, and everybody knew that the person to 420 deal with the men was the commanding officer, and why they should have introduced a person of whom nobody knew the name or the functions he was utterly at a loss to understand. He had taken out a collection of papers about half-an-inch thick of the things about which the Government had not been able to tell them anything in regard to this Bill. Why should they be left in this state of ignorance? As far as they could make out the Government did not know themselves. Surely the Government did not wish to pass the Bill in the dark. He complained of the inadequate information given by the Government about their Bill; they did not seem to know what the answers were to nine-tenths of the questions put by the Opposition. The Financial Secretary said he did not know, and it was a most unsatisfactory state of things. Who was the prescribed officer? Was he to be the commanding officer? If he was going to be a senior officer why not say so? Did the Financial Secretary to the War Office really mean that any soldier in the War Office had told him that he, as a soldier, would submit to a regulation of that kind? He did not think that any officer commanding a regiment in the Army would tolerate for a moment the substitution of another per son to perform one of the elementary duties of a commanding officer. And yet the Financial Secretary refused to to give them a plain answer to these questions.
§ MR. BUCHANAN
said that on the few occasions upon which he had intervened in the debates he had endeavoured, at any rate, not to imitate the discourteous tone of the speeches which had been delivered by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and particularly by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon. They had all heard the speech which the right hon. Gentleman had just delivered, not once but several times, and he had merely chosen a new text for an old sermon. He strongly repudiated the perversion of his remarks by the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman attributed to him the statement that commanding officers were afraid to undertake unpleasant duties. He had said not a syllable to warrant such a charge.
§ MR. BUCHANAN
said he made no such remark as that attributed to him by the right hon. Gentleman. The mover of the Amendment had suggested that a man might accept this position from a desire to become popular. Upon that he simply remarked that this was a duty which would not be particularly attractive or one likely to bring popularity to the man who discharged it.
§ MR. WYNDHAM
said the hon. Gentleman in the course of his irregular intervention in debate had touched on many topics, the merits of the Bill, the skill of his chief in conducting it, and so on; but in the heat of the moment he had altogether forgotten to deal with the question, "Who is the prescribed officer?" The hon. Gentleman had referred the House to Clause 35, and there it appeared the expression meant "prescribed by orders or regulations." But who issued those orders and regulations? Was it the County Association?
§ MR. WYNDHAM
asked whether they were requested to believe that the Army Council would concern itself with the penalty to be imposed upon a man in any battalion absent without leave? The hon. Gentleman must be misinformed; it was not credible A man absent without leave granted by his commanding officer was liable to a penalty, and who was to en force it? Who would know of the absence? Did the hon. Gentleman know what happened on parade? Yet they were told that it was not the commanding officer, but somebody else appointed by regulation issued by some unknown body, which the hon. Gentleman—singular in his belief—said was the Army Council.
§ MR. COURTENAY WARNER (Staffordshire, Lichfield)
hoped the heat would 422 die out of the discussion. There was a point here of some importance. It was clear that only the commanding officer could have the responsibility for inflicting punishment for absence without leave. He did not see how discipline could be maintained unless the commanding officer was the person made responsible. It seemed to him that there was another difficulty in the matter. If the Army Council had the privilege or power of appointing somebody else to perform this most important duty, he thought it would be very difficult for the commanding officer to remain in command. He did not know how it was going to work if some junior officer was to have the power of superseding the commanding officer. The clause either meant that the Army Council was to have power to do something underhand in the way of putting somebody over the commanding officer, or it meant that the power was to be given to a civilian. There were certain arguments which recommended a civilian authority for this purpose, but certainly there were very strong arguments against it. He hoped the Secretary of State for War would consider the point and see if something could not be done to leave the power in the hands of the commanding officers.
§ MR. STANLEY WILSON (Yorkshire, E.R., Holderness)
said the Financial Secretary had made the most extra ordinary speech delivered during the debate. He got up to answer a question and did not make the slightest reply, but simply lost his temper. It was not surprising that he was seldom allowed to take part in the debates. [Cries of "Oh, oh," "Order," and "Withdraw."] Now that the Secretary of State for War had returned to the House, perhaps he would state who was the prescribed officer. Who was to have the right to make the orders and regulations? When the Financial Secretary said it was the Army Council, he did not know whether the hon. Gentleman was speaking from his knowledge of the Bill or not. 423 He and his friends wished a straight answer from the Secretary of State for War.
§ MR. HALDANE
said that he entirely agreed with all that had been said by the Financial Secretary, as it had been reported to him. These units were units of which the commanding officers might be absent, and such contingencies must be provided for. It was necessary that the Army Council should have the power to make regulations as to who should exercise this authority. If the commanding officer were the right person, then the Army Council would prescribe him. If he were not, they would appoint some one else to take his place.
§ SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD (Somersetshire, Wellington)
said that the right hon. Gentleman was introducing an extraordinary idea of discipline into the future Territorial Army. The Secretary of State had said that if the commanding officer was the right person, the Army Council Would prescribe him. But if he were not the right person, why on earth was he made commanding officer?
§ SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD
asked whether the officer second in command was to be prescribed by the Army Council.
§ SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD
asked why, if he was not to be prescribed by the Army Council, was he put in the responsible position of second in command? Supposing he were absent, there would be a junior major or a senior captain. 424 Were they to have no powers of discipline? No doubt we had been reduced to a democratic state of affairs, and perhaps discipline was to be enforced by the chairman of the education committee or the chairman of quarter sessions. If the subordinate officers were not fit to be trusted in the absence of the commanding officers, they were not fit to hold their commissions. In making that statement he was backed up by every man in the Yeomanry, Volunteers, and Militia.
§ MR. LANE-FOX
asked what com plaints the Government had received as to the enforcement of discipline in the past to make it necessary to insert this provision in the Bill. Why should not the commanding officer have the right to delegate his powers to the next in command?
§ SIR SAMUEL SCOTT (Marylebone, W.)
said that what happened in the Regular Army when the commanding officer went on leave was that he delegated to the second in command his powers to administer the regiment. Why should not that system be carried out in the Territorial Forces?
§ MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY (St. Andrews Burghs)
said it seemed to him that the right hon. Gentleman had forgotten the military law, written and unwritten, that throughout the service there was a chain of responsibility. The commanding officer was appointed, and he was responsible for the whole of the discipline of his regiment. Supposing he disappeared the duty devolved on the next officer in rank, and so on, down to the junior corporal. The word "prescribed" was unnecessary, unless there was mistrust of the officers, in which case they should be superseded.
§ Question put.426
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 260; Noes, 102. (Division List No. 244.)427
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Laidlaw, Robert|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)||Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster|
|Adkins, W. Ryland D.||Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras. N.||Lambert, George|
|Agnew, George William||Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)||Lamont, Norman|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)||Layland-Barratt, Francis|
|Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)||Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)||Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras. E.|
|Armitage, R.||Edwards, Frank (Radnor)||Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington|
|Astbury, John Meir||Elibank, Master of||Lehmann, R. C.|
|Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)||Essex, R. W.||Lever, A. Levy( Essex, Harwich|
|Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)||Esslemont, George Birnie||Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Eve, Harry Trelawney||Levy, Maurice|
|Barker, John||Everett, R. Lacey||Lewis, John Herbert|
|Barlow, John Emmott(Somerset||Fenwick, Charles||Lough, Thomas|
|Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Ferens, T. R.||Lupton, Arnold|
|Barnard, E. B.||Fiennes, Hon. Eustace||Lyell, Charles Henry|
|Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)||Findlay, Alexander||Lynch, H. B.|
|Beale, W. P.||Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)|
|Bell, Richard||Freeman-Thomas, Freeman||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'gas|
|Bellairs, Carlyon||Fuller, John Michael F.||Maclean, Donald|
|Benn, Sir J. Williams(Devonport||Gibb, James (Harrow)||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.|
|Benn W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.||Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John||M'Callum, John M.|
|Berridge, T. H. D.||Goddard, Daniel Ford||M'Micking, Major G.|
|Bertram, Julius||Gooch, George Peabody||Mallet, Charles E.|
|Bethell, Sir J. H. ( Essex, Romf'rd||Grant, Corrie||Manfield, Harry (Northants)|
|Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Grey, Rt. Hon. Sit Edward||Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)|
|Billson, Alfred||Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill||Marnham, F. J.|
|Black, Arthur W.||Gulland, John W.||Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)|
|Boulton, A. C. F.||Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Massie, J.|
|Brace, William||Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||Menzies, Walter|
|Bramsdon, T. A.||Hall, Frederick||Molteno, Percy Alport|
|Branch, James||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis||Mond, A.|
|Brigg, John||Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)||Money, L. G. Chiozza|
|Brooke, Stopford||Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh.||Montagu, E. S.|
|Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh)||Hart-Davies, T.||Montgomery, H. G.|
|Brunner, Rt Hn. Sir J. T(Cheshire||Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Harvey, W. E. ( Derbyshire, N. E.||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)|
|Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Harwood, George||Murray, James|
|Buckmaster, Stanley O.||Haworth, Arthur A.||Myer, Horatio|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Hazel, Dr. A. E.||Napier, T. B.|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Hemmerde, Edward George||Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)|
|Buxton, Rt. Hn Sydney Charles||Henry, Charles S.||Nicholls, George|
|Byles, William Pollard||Herbert, Colonel Ivor(Mon., S.)||Norton, Capt. Cecil William|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)||Nuttall, Harry|
|Cawley, Sir Frederick||Higham, John Sharp||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Channing, Sir Francis Allston||Hobart, Sir Robert||Pearce, William (Limehouse)|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Hobhouse, Charles E. H.||Philipps, J. Wynford(Pembroke|
|Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Holland, Sir William Henry||Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)|
|Cleland, J. W.||Holt, Richard Durning||Pickersgill, Edward Hare|
|Clough, William||Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N.||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)||Horniman, Emslie John||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)|
|Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Horridge, Thomas Gardner||Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)|
|Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras W||Hyde, Clarendon||Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford. E.)|
|Cooper, G. J.||Illingworth, Percy H.||Radford, G. H.|
|Corbett, C H. (Sussex, EGrinst'd||Isaacs, Rufus Daniel||Raphael, Herbert H.|
|Cotton, Sir H. J S.||Jackson, R. S.||Rea, Russell (Gloucester)|
|Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Jacoby, Sir James Alfred||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')|
|Cremer, William Randal||Jardine, Sir J.||Rendall, Athelstan|
|Crombie, John William||Jenkins, J.||Renton, Major Leslie|
|Crooks, William||Johnson, John (Gateshead)||Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th|
|Crosfield, A. H.||Johnson, W. (Muneaton)||Richardson, A.|
|Crossley, William J.||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Rickett, J. Compton|
|Dalziel, James Henry||Jones, William(Carnarvonshire||Ridsdale, E. A|
|Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Kearley, Hudson E.||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Davies, Timothy (Fulham)||Kekewich, Sir George||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)|
|Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)||Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.)||Waring, Walter|
|Robertson, Sir G. Scott(Bradf'rd||Steadman, W. C.||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan|
|Robinson, S.||Stewart, Halley (Greenock)||Waterlow, D. S.|
|Roe, Sir Thomas||Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Rogers, F. E. Newman||Strachey, Sir Edward||Weir, James Galloway|
|Rowlands, J.||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)||Whitbread, Howard|
|Russell, T. W.||Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)|
|Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)||Summerbell, T.||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)||Whitehead, Rowland|
|Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)||Taylor, John W. (Durham)||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)|
|Scarisbrick, T. T. L.||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)||Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer|
|Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)||Wiles, Thomas|
|Seaverns, J. H.||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)||Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E||Williams, J. (Glamorgan)|
|Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)||Tomkinson, James||Wills, Arthur Walters|
|Sherwell, Arthur James||Torrance, Sir A. M.||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)|
|Shipman, Dr. John G.||Trevelyan, Charles Philips||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Silcock, Thomas Ball||Ure, Alexander||Winfrey, R.|
|Simon, John Allsebrook||Vivian, Henry||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)|
|Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie||Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Soares, Ernest J.||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)||Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A.|
|Stanger, H. Y.||Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)||Pease.|
|Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. T.||Fardell, Sir T. George||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Fell, Arthur||Richards, T, F. (Wolverh'mpt'n|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major||Fletcher, J. S.||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.||Forster, Henry William||Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter|
|Ashley, W. W.||Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)||Salter, Arthur Clavell|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.||Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Balcarres, Lord||Gill, A. H.||Seddon, J.|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Glover, Thomas||Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.|
|Baring, Capt. Hn G.(Winchester||Haddock, George R.||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)|
|Barnes, G. N.||Hamilton, Marquess of||Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Snowden, P.|
|Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Heaton, John Henniker||Starkey, John R.|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Sutherland, J. E.|
|Bowles, G. Stewart||Hills, J. W.||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Boyle, Sir Edward||Hodge, John||Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Houston, Robert Paterson||Thorne, William|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Jowett, F. W.||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.||Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W||Valentia, Viscount|
|Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-||Kincaid-Smith, Captain||Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)||King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)||Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)|
|Clark, George Smith(Belfast, N.)||Lane-Fox, G. R.||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|
|Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)||Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)||Walsh, Stephen|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S)||Watt, Henry A.|
|Courthope, G. Loyd||Lowe, Sir Francis William||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)|
|Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.||M'Calmont, Colonel James||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Craik, Sir Henry||Magnus, Sir Philip||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Dalrymple, Viscount||Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Younger, George|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Morpeth, Viscount|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Muntz, Sir Philip A.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness||Nield, Herbert||Captain Craig and Viscount|
|Duncan, Robert(Lanark, Govan||O'Grady, J.||Castlereagh.|
|Faber, George Denison (York)||Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington|
|Faber, Capt, W. V. (Hants, W.)||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
§ SIR HOWARD VINCENT
moved to omit from Clause 23 (Trial of Offences and Application of Penalties) sub-section (1), which provides that any offence 428 under that part of the Act or under the Army Act, if committed by a man of the Territorial Force when not embodied, which is cognisable by a Court-martial 429 shall also be cognisable by a Court of summary jurisdiction, and punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or a fine not exceeding £20, or both. He said that the clause dealt with the penal provisions of the measure, and it looked as if a poor unfortunate member of the Territorial Force might not only be punished by his commanding officer, but be dragged off by police before a magistrate and fined £20. He was to be punished by both fine and imprisonment, and that indignity was to be inflicted upon him for some very trifling offence, perhaps for being a few minutes late on parade. Why such an indignity should be put on the Territorial Force he could not understand. Upon what ground were these penal pro visions put into the Bill? The Labour Party had protested against them in Committee, and hon. Members would remember the words of the hon. Member for Merthyr, that if a Conservative Government had introduced such a mea sure there was not a man sitting on that side of the House who would not have denounced it in the most unmeasured terms. He would take care that the matter was ventilated on the platforms where greater interest was taken in these penal provisions than by hon. Gentlemen opposite. He begged to move.
§ MR. ASHLEY
seconded the Amendment. It was quite right that a man should be taken into military custody when he was on active service or under military discipline, but he objected to the power given to arrest a man and take him into military custody after he had ceased to be under military law.
§ Amendment proposed to the Bill— "In page 16, line 9, to leave out sub-section (1) of Clause 23."—(Sir Howard Vincent.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. HALDANE
explained that the sub-section had been framed with the object of giving an alternative to trial by court-martial when the Territorial Army was not embodied. To see what was the kind of offence they must turn to Clause 10, in which were set out the offences which might be tried by court-martial, and this clause was introduced to give the man an opportunity of being tried by a civil Court. Yet the hon. Member moved to reject it.
§ MR WARD
utterly failed to under stand why these punishments should be inflicted upon men who volunteered for home defence. "Nothing in this section shall affect the liability of a person charged with any such offence." The man might have been charged and tried before a Court of summary jurisdiction, but that was not to save him from military arrest. [Cries of "No."] What did the words mean if they did not mean that? Under these circumstances they were entitled to protest against the clause. It seemed to him now that the Militia had been taken out that the measure was merely a Bill to include and bring under the military law the Yeomanry and Volunteer Forces of the country.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 270; Noes, 123. (Division List No. 245.)433
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Agnew, George William||Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Ainsworth, John Stirling||Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)|
|Adkins, W. Ryland D.||Alden, Percy||Anstruther-Gray, Major|
|Armitage, R.||Fiennes, Hon. Eustace||Manfield, Harry (Northants)|
|Astbury, John Meir||Findlay, Alexander||Marks, G. Croydon(Launceston)|
|Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)||Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter||Marnham, F. J.|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Freeman-Thomas, Freeman||Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Fuller, John Michael F.||Massie, J.|
|Barker, John||Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford, S.||Menzies, Walter|
|Barlow, John Emmott(Somers.||Gibb, James (Harrow)||Molteno, Percy Alport|
|Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John||Mond, A.|
|Barnard, E. B.||Goddard, Daniel Ford||Money, L. G. Chiozza|
|Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)||Grant, Corrie||Montagu, E. S.|
|Beale, W. P.||Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)||Montgomery, H. G.|
|Bell, Richard||Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)|
|Bellairs, Carlyon||Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)|
|Benn, Sir J. Williams(Devonp'rt)||Gulland, John W.||Morpeth, Viscount|
|Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.||Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Morrell, Philip|
|Berridge, T. H. D.||Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||Murray, James|
|Bertram, Julius||Hall, Frederick||Myer, Horatio|
|Bethell, Sir J. H (Essex, Romf'rd||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis||Napier, T. B.|
|Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc.)||Nownes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)|
|Billson, Alfred||Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh||Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)|
|Black, Arthur W.||Hart-Davies, T.||Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncas'r|
|Boulton, A. C. F.||Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||Norton, Capt. Cesil William|
|Bramsdon, T. A.||Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.||Nuttall, Harry|
|Branch, James||Haworth, Arthur A.||Pearce, William (Limehouse)|
|Brigg, John||Hemmerde, Edward George||Philipps, Col. Ivor(S'thampton)|
|Brodie, H. C.||Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)||Philipps, J. Wynford(Pembroke|
|Brooke, Stopford||Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)||Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)|
|Brunner. J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)||Higham, John Sharp||Pickersgill, Edward Hare|
|Brunner, Rt Hn Sir J. T (Cheshire||Hills, J. W.||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Hobart, Sir Robert||Pollard, Dr.|
|Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Hobhouse, Charles E. H.||Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)|
|Buckmaster, Stanley O.||Holland, Sir William Henry||Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Holt, Richard Darning||Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N.||Priestley, W. E. B (Bradford, E.)|
|Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles||Horniman, Emslie John||Rainy, A. Rolland|
|Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Horridge, Thomas Gardner||Raphael, Herbert H.|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Rea, Russell (Gloucester)|
|Causton, Rt. Hn Richard Knight||Hyde, Clarendon||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'|
|Cawley, Sir Frederick||Illingworth, Percy H.||Rendall, Athelstan|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Isaacs, Rufus Daniel||Renton, Major Leslie|
|Cherry, Rt, Hon. R. R.||Jackson, R. S.||Richards, Thomas (W. Monmth|
|Cleland, J. W.||Jacoby, Sir James Alfred||Rickett, J. Compton|
|Clough, William||Jardine, Sir J.||Ridsdale, E. A.|
|Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)||Johnson, John (Gateshead)||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)|
|Corbett, CH. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd||Jones, SirD. Brynmor (Swansea||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd|
|Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Robinson, S.|
|Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire||Robson, Sir William Snowdon|
|Craik, Sir Henry||Kearley, Hudson, E.||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Crombie, John William||Kekewich, Sir George||Rogers, F. E. Newman|
|Crosfield, A. H.||Kincaid-Smith, Captain||Rose, Charles Day|
|Crossley, William J.||Laidlaw, Robert||Rowlands, J.|
|Dalziel, James Henry||Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster||Russell, T. W.|
|Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Lambert, George||Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)|
|Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)||Lamont, Norman||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)|
|Davies, Timothy (Fulham)||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Davids, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Acerington||Scarisbrick. T. T. L.|
|Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)||Lehmann, R. C.||Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)|
|Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, X.||Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)||Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)|
|Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)||Levy, Maurice||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Dunne, Major E. Martin(Walsall||Lewis, John Herbert||Seaverns, J. H.|
|Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)||Lough, Thomas||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)|
|Edwards, Frank (Radnor)||Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||Shaw, Rt, Hn. T. (Hawick B.)|
|Elibank, Master of||Lyell, Charles Henry||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Erskine, David C.||Lynch, H. B.||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Essex, R. W.||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs)||Silcock, Thomas Ball|
|Esslemont, George Birnie||Maclean, Donald||Simon, John Allsebrook|
|Evans, Samuel T.||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John|
|Eve, Harry Trelawney||M'Callum, John M.||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie|
|Everett, R. Lacey||M'Crae, George||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Fenwick, Charles||M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Stanger, H. Y.|
|Ferens, T. R.||M'Micking, Major G.||Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh,|
|Ferguson, R. C. Munro||Mallet, Charles E.||Steadman, W. C,|
|Stewart, Halley (Greenock)||Verney, F. W.||Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer|
|Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)||Vivian, Henry||Wiles, Thomas|
|Strachey, Sir Edward||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Straus, B. S. (Mile End)||Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)||Williams, Llewelyn (Carmart'n|
|Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Sutherland, J. E.||Waring, Walter||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)|
|Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)||Waterlow, D. S.||Winfrey, R.|
|Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)||Watt, Henry A.||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
|Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)||Wedgwood, Josiah C.||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr||Weir, James Galloway|
|Thompson, J. W. H (Somerset. E.||Whitbread, Howard||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.|
|Tomkinson, James||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)||Whiteley and Mr. J. A.|
|Torrance, Sir A. M.||White, Luke (York, E. R.)||Pease.|
|Trevelyan, Charles Philips||Whitehead, Rowland|
|Ure, Alexander||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)|
|Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F.||Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Fardell, Sir T. George||Parkes, Ebenezer|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Fell, Arthur||Pease, Herbert Pike( Darlington|
|Ashley, W. W.||Fletcher, J. S.||Percy, Earl|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.||Forster, Henry William||Radford, G. H.|
|Balcarres, Lord||Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)||Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampt'n;|
|Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester||Gill, A. H.||Richardson, A.|
|Barnes, G. N.||Glover, Thomas||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)|
|Birrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Haddock, George R.||Roberts, S. (Shefield, Ecclesall)|
|Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks||Hamilton, Marquess of||Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford||Salter, Arthur Clavell|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Seddon, S.|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Harwood, George||Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.|
|Bowles, G. Stewart||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Smith, Abel H. (Hereford, East)|
|Boyle, Sir Edward||Heaton, John Henniker||Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)|
|Brace, William||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Hervey, F. W. F. (BuryS. Edm 'ds||Snowden, P.|
|Bull, Sir William James||Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)||Starkey, John R.|
|Butcher, Samuel Henry||Hodge, John||Summerbell, T.|
|Byles, William Pollard||Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Houston, Robert Paterson||Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Jenkins, J.||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Jowett, F. W.||Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)|
|Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.||Kenyon-Slancy, Rt. Hn. Col. W.||Thorne, ; William|
|Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-||King, SirHenry Seymour (Hull)||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Channing, Sir Francis Allston||Lane-Fox, G. R.||Turnour, Viscount|
|Clark, George Smith(Belfast, N.)||Lea, Hugh Cecil(St. Pancras, E.)||Valentia, Viscount|
|Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)||Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham||Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt. -Col. A. R.||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|
|Cooper, G. J.||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.||Walsh, Stephen|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Lowe, Sir Francis William||Williams, J. (Glamorgan)|
|Courthope, G. Loyd||Lupton, Arnold||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim. S.||Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)|
|Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Cremer, William Randal||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Crooks, William||M'Callum, John M.||Younger, George|
|Dalrymple, Viscount.||Magnus, Sir Philip|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers||Mildmay, Francis Bingham||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir|
|Dunean, C (Barrow-in-Furness)||Muntz, Sir Philip A.||Howard Vincent and Mr.|
|Duncan, Robert(Lanark, Govan||Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)||John Ward.|
|Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)||Nield, Herbert|
|Faber, George Denison (York)||O'Grady, J.|
Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn"—(Mr. Whiteley)—put, and agreed to.
§ And, it being after half-past Ten of the clock, Mr. Speaker proceeded, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 6th May, successively to put forthwith the Questions on any Amendments 434 moved by the Government, of which notice had been given.
In Clause 24, page 17, lines 10 and 11, to leave out the words' tried by both of those
courts,' and insert the words 'liable to be tried both by a court-martial and by a court of summary jurisdiction.'
In Clause 27, page 18, line 25, after the word 'defence,' to insert the words 'and shall be liable to dismissal as a punishment.'
In Schedule 1, page 25, line 42, at the end, to insert,' S. 181 (6).' After the word 'Volunteers' there shall be inserted the words 'or the Territorial Force.' "—
§ Agreed to.
§ Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.