HC Deb 04 August 1909 vol 8 cc1855-955

Order for second reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

The EARL of RONALDSHAY

I desire to bring to the notice of the House some glaring examples of the unfortunate habit into which the War Office are falling of ordering and obtaining manufactured goods from foreign firms, to the obvious detriment of firms in this country. According to the latest Return I have seen—for the period ending 31st March, 1908—the War Office are responsible for spending no less than a quarter of a million sterling upon manufactured goods from foreign countries. That, I think, is a deplorable habit for any Government Department to fall into. No doubt the Secretary of State will endeavour to defend the action of his Department by saying that the goods purchased abroad cannot be made economically in this country. The fact, however, that while the right hon. Gentleman was spending £250,000 of the taxpayers' money in subsidising foreign labour, the Government of which he is a Member compelled' the taxpayers to find £300,000 to provide artificial labour for British workmen who have been thrown on the streets, will be a sufficient answer to any defence the I right hon. Gentleman may bring forward on economic grounds. But it so happens that in the case of the particular contract to which I wish to refer, the right hon. Gentleman is debarred from advancing any argument of that kind. The contract in question was for large quantities of a very simple class of gymnastic apparatus, commonly called wall-bars and beams, for the military depots of the country. In spite of the fact that the cost of the apparatus when ordered from abroad is somewhat greater than the cost of the apparatus when made in this country, the right hon. Gentleman sanctioned the giving of the contract to a foreign firm. In reply to a question which I put to him on 8th March last, he stated:— An order for Swedish gymnastic apparatus was recently placed with a Swedish firm, as the apparatus submitted by them was considered more suitable for the requirements of the service than the apparatus submitted by others. I think the right hon. Gentleman must have been misinformed on the first point, as I believe the contract was given, not to a Swedish firm, but to a Danish firm, of Copenhagen. As to the second part of the answer, would it be believed, in the face of that reply, that the most minute specifications and drawings of the apparatus required were issued by the War Office in their tender form? It is obvious that no question of the apparatus submitted by one firm being more suitable than that submitted by another firm could possibly arise, because by the very terms of the contract itself the apparatus could not vary from the specifications and drawings issued by the War Office themselves. Another remarkable statement of the right hon. Gentleman was that the apparatus is A special Swedish apparatus made only by these people. It is rather, dearer than the apparatus here, too. If the apparatus is made only by the Swedes, it seems on the face of it rather an absurd proceeding to give the contract to a firm of another nationality who, on the showing of the right hon. Gentleman himself, do not make the apparatus; and it would also seem a little unfair that the War Office should put British manufacturers to the trouble and expense of tendering at all. But, as a matter of fact, the right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. The apparatus, which is of a most simple character, is, and has been for many years past, made by English firms to the complete satisfaction of Swedish experts. To show that I am not making wild state- ments on my own authority I will quote one or two experts on the matter. The following extract is from a letter from a firm in the North of England:— May we be allowed as manufacturers of gymnastic apparatus for the last quarter of a century, and of Swedish apparatus for the last IS years to emphatically protest against the statements made by Mr. Haldane with regard to the above (Swedish apparatus for military depots) in the House of Commons on the 8th March. The apparatus more particularly mentioned—the wall-bars (or rib-stools)—are one of the simplest pieces of apparatus to make, and we have no hesitation in saying that they can be produced as efficiently and as cheaply in England as abroad. We have fitted Swedish training colleges, schools for education committees and public and private gymnasia on the Swedish system, all over England and in Scotland. … That we may not be suspected of any personal feeling in the matter, may we say that we were not interested in the present contract in any way, but solely with our reputation as English manufacturers. I would like to give one further example of the extraordinary simplicity of this apparatus, to obtain which for our military depots the right hon. Gentleman thought it necessary to go abroad. The following extract is from a letter which I have received from a firm of manufacturers in London:— This apparatus is the simplest of all gymnastic gear to manufacture, purely joiners' work, and has been and is made not only by every maker of gymnastic apparatus in the United Kingdom, but frequently by local carpenters. May we give one instance of many—we can furnish others if required—the Marischal College Gymnasium, Aberdeen, to which we supplied all the gymnastic fittings that called for expert workmanship, but the items of wall-bars and beams were deleted from our specification on the advice of the builders' foreman of works, who, having previously viewed our outfit—in which wall-bars and beams were provided—at the Dundee Academy, was of the opinion that they could be made by the carpenters on the works. This was sanctioned by the college authorities, and the locally made wall-bars and beams are quite as satisfactory as what we, or any other gymnastic manufacturer, could have supplied. I would just like to give one more instance, perhaps an even more remarkable one than either of those I have given, to show the simplicity of the apparatus required. A British manufacturer volunteered to set up at his own expense a sample of the particular gymnasium apparatus required at Aldershot by the War Office. He did so. Having done so, he invited the Chief Inspector of Gymnasia at Aldershot to invite instructors of gymnastics, selected by himself, to put this apparatus to a severe test. The Chief Inspector of Gymnasia declined, but a little later he wrote as follows:— The double beam and the two pairs of wall-bars fixed by you in this gymnasium appear to be satisfactory up to the present date. In the opinion of the Chief Inspector the apparatus up till then appeared to be satisfactory. This piece of apparatus was Blade by two young English carpenters, one aged 15 and the other 17, who had only been in the employ of the manufacturer for about four months. Under these circumstances the right hon. Gentle man, in going abroad for this apparatus, was inflicting a great hardship and in justice upon the carpenters of this country—an injustice all the more evident when we recall the fact that at that very time when this contract was being given to foreign labour trade unions of this country, with a membership of 35,000 employed in the furnishing and wood-working trades reported no less than 10.3 per cent, of unemployed members. But it was not only carpenters and the workmen that suffered from this action of the War Office. The manufacturers have suffered very considerably in their reputation from the statement which was made by the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. HALDANE

What statement?

The EARL of RONALDSHAY

The statement that they were incapable of making this apparatus.

Mr. HALDANE

I never made any such statement. Please quote my words, not what the manufacturers say that I said.

The EARL of RONALDSHAY

I will quote the right hon. Gentleman's own words: "It is a special Swedish apparatus, made only by these people"—the Swedes. Obviously, if only made by the Swedes, it cannot be made by the British manufacturer.

Mr. HALDANE

I did not say incapable.

The EARL of RONALDSHAY

The right hon. Gentleman said it was a special Swedish apparatus made only by the Swedes. Are we to understand that it is, or is not, made by British manufacturers? Obviously, the only inference to be drawn is that it is not made by British manufacturers. The inference is perfectly obvious.

Mr. PHILIP SNOWDEN

It is not obvious that they cannot make it.

The EARL of RONALDSHAY

The right hon. Gentleman says they do not make it. I shall prove that the right hon. Gentleman is not correct in his assumption. As a matter of fact, British manufacturers do make it. If they do not make this particular kind of apparatus, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will explain how it is that the leading Swedish experts in this country invariably use British apparatus? How was it that the leading Swedish exponent in this country of this particular form of physical training, Mr. P. Mauritzi, who, in company with Dr. Broman, introduced this very system into the Navy not very long ago, in introducing it employed exclusively British-made apparatus? I have heard no complaint that the British naval authorities considered that the British-made apparatus was not satisfactory. I put a question to the First Lord of the Admiralty upon this very point. He assured me that no complaint had ever been received from the naval authorities or experts, and that, to the best of his knowledge, the apparatus made by the British firms was entirely satisfactory. Are we to understand that in the Navy the men are receiving inferior training, and are being supplied with an inferior class of apparatus! I do not for one moment believe that to be the case. Let me here quote the words of an expert in this particular kind of physical training, Mr. A. Alexander, the late President of the National Society of Physical Education, who, I believe, is a recognised authority upon these matters. In a letter to me he says:— I should like to point out that so far as my experience goes, the Swedish apparatus made in England is much preferred by experts to that made in Sweden. He goes on to say, towards the conclusion of his letter, that His Majesty's Inspector of Physical Training while visiting this (Southport) college the other day, seemed to greatly admire the apparatus in use and inquired the name of the firm who supplied them. I gave him the address of the British firm. Let me give the House more striking proof of the obvious fact that British manufacturers not only do make this apparatus, but make it in the most efficient manner. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman must be aware that at the International Hygiene Congress, 1907, it was a British firm that was awarded the silver medal for this particular kind of apparatus. British firms competed against Swedish, Danish, and other firms, and were given the highest award for this particular kind of gymnastic apparatus. Let me read an extract from an article in the "Local Government Officer and Contractor," in which was described the exhibition of gymnastic apparatus at that Congress. In speaking of the necessity of physical training in our schools, colleges, Army, and Navy, and so on, the article said:— But whatever has been the shortcomings in practice, the conviction is now rapidly gaining ground that physical training must in future take its rightful place in the educational scheme, and the gymnasium, where-ever possible, form a part of the school buildings. Some such considerations were, no doubt, present to the minds of many who were irresistibly drawn to the exhibit of Messrs. Spencer, Heath, and George, Limited, the well-known gymnasium outfitters of Goswell Road, E.C., but no doubt the interest shown was chiefly due to the remarkably attractive character of the exhibit itself. Among other things there was"— I call the House to pay particular attention to this point:— a set of Swedish apparatus (Ling's system of educational gymnastics). As we announced last week, the firm received the silver medal, the highest award for this class of exhibit. Surely that disposes of the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman to the effect that this class of apparatus is not made in this country. Perhaps I have said enough to show, in the first place, that the apparatus required by the War Office is, as a matter of fact, apparatus of the most simple description, which is quite capable of being made, and even is made, to the complete satisfaction of experts by ordinary carpenters in this country; secondly, that, whether the apparatus required be simple or complex in its design, British manufacturers are quite capable of making it. I have quoted the right hon. Gentleman himself to show that the apparatus, as made abroad, is more expensive than the apparatus made in this country. The only line of defence, so far as I can see that the right hon. Gentleman can bring forward now in support of the action of his Department, is that the apparatus, as made by the foreigner, is better in finish and more durable in character than that made in this country. I know the right hon. Gentleman thinks that is so, because in answer to another question which I put to him on the subject as to whether the foreign apparatus was more durable and better finished, he said, "Yes, and it lasts longer." I think it is quite easy to prove that that is not by any means the case. I quote the case of the special piece of foreign apparatus made and set up at Aldershot. I am informed that very shortly after the installation of that particular piece of apparatus the uprights on which it was supported collapsed. I am quite aware that the right hon. Gentleman denies that, but I would never venture to make that statement unless there were good grounds for doing so. My authority are two eye-witnesses, who declare they had seen this piece of apparatus in a state of collapse, and are prepared to make an affidavit before the Commissioner of Oaths as to the veracity of that statement. Either the right hon. Gentleman has been misinformed, or else those eye-witnesses have been under a grievous delusion as to what they saw.

I do not rest my case against foreign manufacturers only upon that. I think I can prove that this apparatus as made by foreign manufacturers is inferior in quality and in finish, and that it does not come up to specification. It was provided that the wood employed for this apparatus should be the best Swedish kind. Well, it so happened there is no wood known by that name upon the English market, and consequently further inquiries were made from the War Office, and then the War Office amplified their description, which then read as follows:— First-class Swedish yellow deal, free from sap, knots, and defects. To my certain knowledge one English manufacturer pointed out to the War Office that this particular kind of wood was inferior, and that it was quite impossible to obtain it without knots. The only answer he received was that if he could not obtain it without knots he had better not obtain it at all. I quote that to show that so far as British manufacturers were concerned the War Office attached great importance to the nature of the wood, but so far as the foreign manufacturers were concerned these restrictions were not adhered to, and if the right hon. Gentleman will go to the Albany-street Barracks he can see for himself proof of what I have stated. I desire to give the opinion of experts as to the character of the apparatus already completed in that barrack. The firm whoso opinion I quote are Messrs. Wade, who are arbitrators by appointment to the London Chamber of Commerce, and they say in a letter that they have seen the apparatus in question at Albany Barracks, Albany-street, and have examined the wood:— The uprights consist of 11 pieces of wood 9 ft. long, 5⅝ in wide, and 1⅜ in full in thickness. Of the 11 pieces only one piece answers to the specification conditions: the other 10 pieces are all more or less of inferior quality, cut from small wood, not out of deal sizes as demanded in the specification, and is wood of immature growth: each piece shows a number of both splayed and dead knots, the pith is showing in the centre of many of the pieces, and being light in die indicates that the pieces have been cut from small wood; the principal part of each piece is sap wood, and they are not straight-grained. I will only quote one more extract from the report:— The term 'to be selected from first-class Swedish yellow deal' is intended to convey that the material is to be sawn from wood of mature growth. None of the wood I saw answered to this qualification. What I did see was wood such as is used for ground-floor joists, partitions and ceiling joists of suburban houses built on speculation and where the quality is of little import. I think I have said enough in the course of my remarks to show that the right hon. Gentleman unintentionally did do the manufacturers in this country a certain amount of harm by the statements he made in answer to the series of questions put by me on this point. I think I have shown that the foreign apparatus, instead of being superior, is, as a matter of fact, inferior to the English apparatus, and that it does not in many cases come up to the specification laid down by the War Office. I hope when the right hon. Gentleman comes to reply to the charges which I have brought against his Department, namely of giving contracts for manufactured goods to foreign firms, that he will say something to mitigate and to counteract the damage which is done to British manufacturers in his answers to the questions I have put to him earlier in the week.

Sir GILBERT PARKER

I will not venture to deal with the arguments urged by my Noble Friend in a case which is of very considerable importance, and upon which I am certain other Members upon this side of the House and upon the other side will speak later on. We shall all wait with very great interest the reply of the right hon. Gentleman to that particular case. I rise for a different purpose. We have all during the past week been greatly impressed by the announcement which was foreshadowed by the Minister of War some months ago, that a Territorial Reserve was to be formed to, as it were, complete the circle of the defence in this country. I was one of those who, when the right hon. Gentleman first introduced his Territorial scheme, spoke of it, I am bound to say, not with the entire approval of all the Members on this side or on the other side of the House, as a great and an epoch-making scheme. I thought it was the only scheme, while we maintained our voluntary system, which could work up the military organisation of this country effectively to accomplish all the necessities of defence. I will say this, and I do not say it with any sense of flattery at all, that the right hon. Gentleman has always in this House treated his opponents with very great consideration; he has continually given us information when we asked it without surrounding himself by an Olympian distance of secrecy, to which we have been somewhat accustomed from other right hon. Gentlemen who sit upon the Government Benches. He descends from his Olympian position from the gods to the little fishes, and more than that, he has done his own work. He has not resorted to sensational methods, and at the same time he has been his own commercial traveller. He has worn himself to a thread in working out this great organisation, which I believe to be very great. It was not great until the moment when he decided to fill up the gaps with the Territorial Reserve.

The organisation is great, and very great, in its design, and may accomplish the needs, with all the necessities, which for a generation have been desired. At the same time, there are one or two questions I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman. The good points in his organisation are many. In the first place, he is making use of the officers who have served in the Regular Army or in the auxiliary forces, and who are capable officers probably, but who are at any rate officers willing to work. Hitherto, except they went into the Militia, there was practically nothing for them to do. The right hon. Gentleman, I believe, has in his mind the idea of gathering together all the possible forces that might work for, and suit our purpose, and he would bring into his scheme all the elements in the country which could forward his organisation. I have no doubt the use of these officers will work out well. The use of the ex-reservist soldier is another matter. He is going to permit officers who have been in the Reserve, regular or auxiliary, to join the new Territorial Reserve. Will the right hon. Gentleman say why he does not make use of the soldiers—the rank and file—who have served with the colours and passed into the Reserve and who have served their time in the Reserve? The right hon. Gentleman, of course, must be aware there are great numbers of these men who still have not passed the age at which they will be entitled to be employed in the Territorial Forces, and I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he could expand his sources of supply and enlarge his reservoir by including these ex-reservist soldiers as well as the ex-service officers in his scheme. Then I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is quite satisfied with the amount of payment he is going to give to these Territorial Reservists, and also whether these Territorial Reservists are going to be adequately supplied with ammunition and firearms? I went through his scheme very carefully indeed, and it seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman was realising that probably next year he would be resisted by the Treasury when it came to supplying him with the necessary funds, and that he rather vaguely suggested that there would be equipment for the Territorial Reservists, but he said nothing in his proposals, financially, concerning that equipment, except that they were to receive one day's practice and 20 rounds of ammunition included. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman himself can be satisfied with that amount of training. No doubt it is perfectly justifiable if he cannot get all he wants at once to follow the course he is pursuing, but we must not attach too much importance to the training of the Territorial Reserve as it stands under the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman. I believe his scheme to be thorough, but to make it efficient will mean much more money than the right hon. Gentleman has at his disposal now. The Secretary for War is associated with hon. Gentlemen who claim to be the friends of economy, and who have promised to reduce the expenditure on the Army and Navy. I believe the right hon. Gentleman is one of the few Members who sit on the Treasury Bench who did not categorically state before the last General Election that they would reduce the expenditure on the Army and Navy. The expenditure on the Army and Navy has not been reduced, and, in providing this reserve, the right hon. Gentleman must also provide a large sum of money which, of course, we cannot discuss to-day, for the Territorial Reserve. This scheme involves great responsibilities in the future, which, I have no doubt, the right hon. Gentleman has thoroughly foreseen, and if he has not given the public more information, it is because he wants to go step by step. I should like to know why the right hon. Gentleman prevents a man from coming into the reserve who has not been in the service subsequent to 1st January, 1905? There are a great number of men who are still young who would be eligible if that particular condition was not imposed. I notice also that men are not allowed to remain in this reserve for more than four years. The right hon. Gentleman has done one wise thing. He has not, as was pointed out by the "Westminster Gazette" last night, made his proposals into regulations, but he has delegated authority, thus living up to the principle he laid down in 1907. He is delegating authority to those who have gained experience by these county asso- ciations throughout the country. With regard to the application of the county associations' principle to the Militia, I admit frankly that far more has been done and greater success has been attained by the right hon. Gentleman than I and those who interested themselves in the Militia and the Territorial Forces anticipated. I am not quite certain yet that his proposal is going to achieve all that he anticipates. The Secretary for War has also done another wise thing. Under the old establishment you had 73 per cent, strength, but under the present establishment you have 313,000 men, which gives you 84 per cent, strength. That is an achievement, and it is very important. Under the present establishment the balance is well preserved, and it is better than it was under the old auxiliary forces. With respect to the training, probably the right hon. Gentleman will point out that all these men have been trained before. I think any military officer will be "prepared to say that no matter what the training has been in the past, although men with previous training will automatically fall into the routine of drill more easily, the training which is supplied under these proposals is wholly inadequate, and I trust we shall have some assurance that the right hon. Gentleman is going to increase that training which, under the present circumstances, will be almost futile, and will be training merely in name. With regard to the technical reserve we have bad no indication how that organisation will be achieved. In another place Lord Lucas said they were leaving this particular reserve scheme to develop. I think it would satisfy a great number of people if the right hon. Gentleman would go a little further and say how he intends to organise the technical reserve. It is to include veteran Service men, civil and railway engineers, and telegraph personnel. The Secretary of State for War will agree with me when I say that other countries are far ahead of us in this kind of organisation. In Austria-Hungary there is a railway regiment consisting of men with special training in that kind of work. We have only had experience in the Soudan, but we may have to construct military railways in new countries, and it is absolutely essential that there should be besides the Regular fighting force this particular technical reserve, possessing the skill to do not subsidiary work, but work which runs parallel with the combatant work of an army, and also to take part in the combative work as well. That, I think, is one great thing which has been added to our auxiliary system which we have never had before. The right hon. Gentleman was one of those who, in the last Parliament, insisted with other Army reformers that our voluntary system as it then existed would be utterly useless in time of war because there was no proper equipment for a field force, no artillery, and practically no commissariat, and nothing of that organisation which was necessary to make our auxiliary forces a complete and effective weapon in time of war. We have gone a long way since then, and made some effort to get the Government to recognise the importance of our auxiliary forces. I am aware of the difficulties that were in the way. Many military officers of high distinction did not attach the same importance to this force because they saw it was an ineffective weapon. Nevertheless, those who favoured an auxiliary force believed that if you once instilled the idea of a Home Defence Army into the people of this country the right hon. Gentleman and his Department would get the money required to make it efficient.

Since then there have been other changes in the situation. We were then working in the day when it was believed that there could be no invasion of this country at all. Within the last year we have had a great deal cleared up in that direction, and I remember two speeches by the Secretary of State for War, and speeches by the Prime Minister, and the Leader of the Opposition, which have cleared the ground on this point. We now believe that there may be a raid on this country with 10,000 men. We now see that it is not only necessary to have a sufficient Home Army to repel 10,000, but we want a sufficient number to repel 100,000 men if necessary, or rather, to have our Territorial Army so large that any foreign country would have to invade us with at least 100,000 men or not attempt an invasion at all. Therefore, there is a vast responsibility attached to the Home Defence Army, and it is with those responsibilities that I am attempting to deal. There is now an understanding in the country that the Territorial Force is a real Home Defence Army rapidly moving in the direction of being an effective implement of war. For this reason I ask the right hon. Gentleman to clear the ground for us a little more to-day to enable us to understand more of what he intends in the first place concerning the training of the Territorial Force, and in the second place concerning the organisation of the technical reserve, and lastly the Veteran Reserve. The right hon. Gentleman believes that a man of 55 can still do very effective service in connection with the Territorial Force in the Veteran Reserve, and he is allowing these veterans to register themselves. That is a good thing, and it is at least a start, and it is what nobody has done before. The value of uniform has been pointed out again and again, and this is a drawback to the Special Reserve scheme which has never been overcome. Anyone who reads the report of Sir John French in relation to this matter must realise that the Special Reserve force has the one deficiency of not having tradition and personnel. Now he can develop his Veteran Reserve, so that it will have associations, not in the dim past of service, but associations in the present, thus enabling them to take a pride in themselves. If he could do this he would find a wonderful response. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will get all the money he wants for this scheme, because at the most it is not much. The Roumanian Army cost £1,800,000, and I think there were either 300 or 500 thousand men. The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to sufficient money, if we accept his scheme at all, to do the thing as it ought to be done; and I only hope next year he will get all the money he requires.

I intended to say something about Sir John French's Reports on the Territorial Force, but I do not want to stand in the way of others who have important questions to bring up. Sir John French remarks upon the insufficient equipment, the inadequacy of rifle ranges and medical units, upon men to train who had not horses, upon horses without training in their particular work, and, lastly, about adjutants who cannot do their work. He says:— I have been forced to the conclusion that a considerable proportion of the adjutants of the Territorial Force are either unfit for their work or do not take their duties sufficiently seriously. At present the position offers few advantages, and their are certain disadvantages which deter many keen officers from considering the possibility of accepting the position. The whole of Sir John French's Report upon the Territorial Army, as it stands, speaks well for the organisation, but not for the physical fitness of the men on the whole, or for those other things to which I have referred. He speaks well of the Special Artillery Reserve, but he said the men in the infantry were not up to the standard of the artillery, and the general impression created by his Report was that Sir John French, in trying to be fair and just, still left it for the reader to conclude that equipment was unsatisfacotry, that training was still unsatisfactory through unsatisfactory adjutants, and that the physical standard was not reached. We hope it will be reached. The right hon. Gentleman has had much to contend with. He has had his Special Reserve in competition with his Territorial Reserve, and he has only had the old lot to draw from. We really wish to help him, and we really desire to see this scheme a great success; we are as enthusiastic supporters of his scheme as any hon. Member on his own side of the House, and we sincerely hope he will continue his labour of organisation and equipment, and will give us to understand that by hook or by crook he will get the money necessary to complete that organisation, which is the only thing which stands between us and conscription.

Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR

I desire to draw the attention of the Secretary of State for War and of the House to a matter that may appear to be of comparatively small importance, but, although it is a small matter in itself, it is one which might possibly under the circumstances have a very far-reaching effect. It relates in some degree to the condition of the soldier after he has left the service. I have observed with satisfaction from time to time that efforts are made by military officers and by organisations to provide for the welfare of the retired soldier. These efforts have been from time to time successful. They have been backed up by the War Office, and they have had the official approval of various Secretaries of State for War. It happens, however, that there are still cases of hardship with regard to men who have retired from the service under circumstances that disable them from pursuing a successful business career. I have to bring before the House one single case of peculiar hardship in this respect. It is the case of a man named Patrick Fitzpatrick, who in the year 1900 joined the Royal Garrison Artillery for the purpose of the war then going on between this country and the South African Republic. His battery was not sent to South Africa. It was sent to India. At the time he joined he was examined by the surgeon-colonel at Naas, in the county of Kildare, and he was declared to be a sound man and was taken into the service. A year after that, when his training had been completed, and before he was sent on foreign service, he was re-examined medically at Devonport by the principal medical officer of the district, and he was again declared to be sound and fit for foreign service. He went to India and served there for six years. In 1902, at the camp of exercise at Delhi, he caught a cold which developed in the course of time into consumption, and on 12th February, 1907, he was invalided and discharged at the age of 25. Since that time ho has been a consumptive inmate of the Naas workhouse. At the time he was discharged he received a pension of 8d. per day, but that pension expired in October, 1908. He cannot work, as I shall prove by documentary evidence. Dr. Waring, the captain-surgeon of the hospital at Naas, says:— I have seen pensioner Patrick Fitzpatrick, and certify he is suffering from tubercle of the lung in an advanced stage, and do not think he is capable of contributing anything towards earning a livelihood in any capacity whatever This is borne out by another doctor, Dr. William Murphy, who, writing from Naas Hospital, says:— This is to certify that Patrick Fitzpatrick is suffering from phthisis, and is quite unable to work in order to support himself. Under these circumstances this retired soldier thought he would be justified in applying for a continuance of his pension, and he did so. He was told the circumstances of his case did not entitle him to the award of any further pension. He then took the only step which could occur to a poor Irishman, and wrote to the Member of Parliament representing the district where he happened to be suffering at the time. He accordingly wrote to me, and I addressed a letter to the War Office. I got a reply dated 30th December, 1908, which says: In the opinion of the Board of Medical Officers, by whom the man was invalided, his disability, tubercle of lung, was not the result, either of military service or of climate. The Director-General of the Army Medical Service, who has now been consulted on the case, concurs in this report. What a lot he knew about it. Under these circumstances and having regard to Patrick Fitzpatrick's short service, 7 years and 12 days, the regulations will not admit of the award of any pension beyond the 8d. per day for 21 months which he has already received, and it is regretted therefore that your application on his behalf cannot be acceded to. I should like to ask if I am to understand that if this soldier had had longer service be would have got a pension, or whether it is withheld because the disease is to be attributed to another cause, and not because he only served seven years. It follows from the reply that the disease was not contracted, according to them, on service or in the camp of exercise at Delhi, but that it must have proceeded from some other cause. What other cause can it have proceeded from? Is it suggested that he is suffering from a hereditary disease. Is it suggested that he comes from a delicate family? If that be so, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War that this man comes from a healthy family. He has a brother at the present time serving in the Army, and he has a brother who has served his full time in the Army, and is now working in Scotland, and they are both healthy. I have had an investigation made into the records of all the hospitals surrounding the place where these men were brought up, and there is no record of any member of his family ever having suffered from the disease he is now suffering from. How, therefore, can the medical officers of the Board of Health, who never saw the man, very probably, justify the statements that they have made in their letter to me? The man when he joined the service, and again when he was sent into foreign service, was declared to be sound. He comes from a healthy family; he caught a cold, that is admitted, while he was in this camp of exercise, and from that day to this he has not had a day of sound health. What, under these circumstances, was the man to do I His application has been refused. My application on his behalf has also been refused. He has asked that his pension should be continued. I think it might be continued, even if it be not in accord with the regulations, under the head of "Compassionate Allowances." The condition of this man is well known throughout the district. What is that district? It is close to one of the largest camps in the three Kingdoms—the town of Naas is only half a dozen miles1 from the great Curragh camp. This man's condition is known in the Curragh, and when I stated that the condition of retired soldiers was a matter of some importance I had in my mind the effect that this man's position might have on the soldiers now serving in the Curragh camp. It might also affect the conditions of recruiting for your forces in Ireland. I may be told that there are abundances of applications for service in the Army at the present moment, and that you do not need any more recruits from Ireland or elsewhere. But the day may come when you want recruits. The horizon is not so clear that you can say the time is far distant when you will have to ask for soldiers, from Ireland. It is not long ago that there was an agitation—a widespread agitation—against recruiting in Ireland, the object being to prevent young men from joining the Army through patriotic motives. That agitation, which I think still exists, has had no backing from men like myself, but if we find there are many cases like this of Fitzpatrick, if we find cases of hardship of this kind to exist in any number, it may arouse us to give some countenance to that agitation against recruiting in a country which has furnished great soldiers in the past and which has also furnished men who have served with distinction in every Department of the State throughout the broad domain of the Empire in all parts of the world. If the case of Fitzpatrick becomes generally known it may have a more widespread effect on that agitation than one would imagine. It may not only keep Irishmen from joining the Army, but it may further prevent those who are not now hostile to your Empire in Ireland from giving their services when they hear of the mean and contemptible treatment to which this unfortunate man has been subjected.

Captain W. V. FABER

I would like to join in the vote of thanks tendered to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War by one of my colleagues for the invariable courtesy he shows to us on these benches when we ask questions which, at times, must be annoying and sometimes are, perhaps, out of place. I can assure him his courtesy always meets with a ready response on this side of the House. We thank him for it, and in the few words I am going to address to this House on the subject of the shortage of officers in the Territorial Army I would like to say I raise the question with a wish to help the right hon. Gentleman rather than to injure any scheme which he may have in view. It seems the edifice so well built up by the right hon. Gentleman runs some danger through lack of officers, and I think some means will have to be thought out of getting officers for the Territorial Force. The right hon. Gentleman seems to be like a brave man fighting against misfortune. He is invariably combating something. At one time it is the shortage of men. He succeeds in overcoming that. Then there is a shortage of horses, and I fear he will have some difficulty in dealing with that because of the lack of money; but, still, we hope that the county associations will shortly be put in a position to solve that problem. The difficulty with regard to the shortage of officers is not to be so easily overcome, and when one remembers that with a wave of the magician's wand universal service might be brought about, and the right hon. Gentleman would get rid of the difficulty of the shortage of officers and men, one wonders why he prefers to take these hydra-headed monsters one by one and strike off their heads, instead of solving the whole problem with one movement. In another place Lord Portsmouth got a significant admission from the Under-Secretary for War to the effect that in time of invasion the Territorial Army, in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, unless it had six months' training, would not be fit to meet regular troops. That was a remarkable admission, and if it were true in the case of men who require six months' training, how much more true must it have been in regard to the officers who not only need more training, but who, in fact, do not exist. We are in the unfortunate position of having a force without officers, and we have the opinion of that great German expert, Colonel Gädke, to the effect that the Territorial Army in England is not now any more than before in a position to repel an invasion by regular forces. Germany is a great country, whose example we copy in a great many cases, except where, perhaps, we ought to. It is evidently the German idea that, in consequence of the shortage of men and officers, we are not in a position to repel invasion. It may not be difficult to find reasons for this shortage of officers. The first is that the class from which Territorial officers have come in the past has by reason of the weight of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, been rolled out absolutely flat. It does not exist any more. It is, of course, the landed proprietor's class to which I am referring. The second reason is, in my humble opinion, that Territorial officers do not receive sufficient in the shape of pay and allowances for what they have to do. It will no doubt be difficult for any Secretary of State for War to find more money for that, but I hope it may be possible, so as to increase the supply of officers. Another point is that the young men of the present day have not the time they formerly had to devote to service as officers in the Army. There is still a further reason why they will not join the force. I have taken in my own county a certain amount of trouble over the Territorial Army. The other day I was pre- sent at a local race meeting, and I had a talk with three young men who might have been expected to become officers. I said, "Have you gone into the Territorial Army?" They replied, "No, we belong to the jackal class; we are not going into the Army now; we are not thinking of it." I asked, "What do you mean by the jackal class?" The reply was very prompt: "We have been called jackals; we think it rather hard upon us, and, therefore, we do not propose to become officers." I said, "Do not you think anything about that; the words were only used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There are worse things than jackals, and if you will only come and see the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, you will find an urbane Gentleman on the Front Bench, full of good temper, nothing of the jackal about him, and he never loses his temper except possibly in the small hours of the morning." I thought I might persuade them. But worse was to follow. I met a large land-owner—a Liberal land-owner—well known to the right hon. Gentleman. I said to him: "Is your relation" (I mentioned his name) "going into the Territorial Army?" "No, there is no need for him to become a Territorial officer now." I said, "Why not?" The reply was, "He is going with the Chancellor of the Exchequer through the flowery, waving fields of corn, with 400,000 paupers, on the path which leads to the gates of Paradise, and there is, therefore, no reason for him to go into the Army." I mention this because I want to point out that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War cannot eat his cake and have it. He must either side with the class from which these officers have always come, or he must go with our great Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer through the flowery meads which lead to destruction. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to get officers for the Territorial Army, he will find it impossible to get them from the class which is being rolled out flat by his colleagues and himself, because they will have neither time nor money to undertake the work, and they will be going down those flowery paths which, pleasant though they may be for the time being, will probably lead to destruction in the end.

Mr. T. F. RICHARDS

I wish to direct attention to a matter of very great importance, to an industry with which I am associated, and also to the welfare of the taxpayers of this country. I only talk in this House upon matters on which I have an understanding, and as I happen to have some knowledge of the way in which people should be shod, I venture to raise a question of footwear in the British Army. It is generally accepted that the Army moves by two forces, its stomach and its feet, and it is very evident unless a man is properly shod with good boots made of good leather, full of elasticity, which will assist him in walking, he may not be able to reach the enemy with whom he wishes to fight. In the few words I have to address to the House I have no axe to grind; I am only speaking in the interests of economy and efficiency. I am not a contractor; I am not interested in any contracts, and anything I may now say on behalf of contractors is due entirely to the injustice to which they are being subjected at the hands of the War Office Department at Pimlico. I think it is to their credit that we, on these benches, are prepared to step in between them and their employers in order to see that justice is done. I have put many questions in this House. This is my fourth Session here, and I am now driven by this means to direct public attention to the matter in order that public opinion may be concentrated upon the injustice which is being inflicted upon contractors who are endeavouring, to the best of their ability, to serve the British nation. I hope that justice will be the outcome of these remarks. I have endeavoured to find out how it comes about that His Majesty's Government have at this time of day in the year 1909 at last made up their minds that they mean to have a change in the foot wear of Tommy Atkins. I do not know why they should have chosen the machine-made article except that it is for the purpose of cheapness. Probably some people are not aware of the fact that a man who has got to walk long distances must have comfort in his boots. They must have elasticity and a certain quantity of leather to keep him off the stones. I am sure that hon. Members who, unlike myself and my colleagues, indulge in fishing, golfing, or shooting, will endorse what I say, and we shall find that there is no individual in this House who goes fishing, shooting, or golfing in the boots he wears in this House. Why is that? Because the boots we wear nowadays are made largely for riding in and not for walking. Tramways now afford great facilities and give much assistance to the working man, and he does not want such good foundations and solid founda- tions to his boots as he required in past times. The result is that the hand-sewn boot is being discarded; but I should like His Majesty's Government to give us some reason why they are discarding it in the Army? They are making rapid strides in this direction, and while they are tempting some of the boys in my own native town to become hand sewers, what is the use of it when they are strangling the trade and not encouraging any sewn work, which has been dying out except for the War Department? Wherever Army boots are made in this country the numbers of hand sewers are such that, as far as wages and conditions are concerned, we can enforce them wherever the hand-sewn trade is in operation and we are sufficiently organised to command our price; therefore, from that point of view, I would make an appeal to His Majesty's Government that for the paltry amount of difference that there is between a machine-made boot and a hand-sewn boot they should not discard the hand-sewn boot. What is the Government giving for the machine-made boot? Less than 10s. 6d.—I believe the average price is 10s. 5d.—and for that this article is a shoddy and unsatisfactory one.

I dare His Majesty's War Department to give out boots to two battalions, giving to one the machine-made boot and to the other the hand-sewn boot, and compare them, taking 12 or 18 months' experience, as to the wear of the articles and their durability and comfort to the soldiers. If they take into consideration, at the end of that time, what is the wearing capacity of the boots and the satisfaction to the men, I am quite sure that this mad idea of cheapness will be abandoned absolutely. I daresay the House would like to know what the Government could get the hand-sewn boot for. It would cost 11s. 9d., only 1s. 4d. more, and, under the circumstances, one is not surprised to find in the Press letters such as I have here, which was sent to the "Leather Trades Review" recently in this very year. It is very evident that this letter is written by a manufacturer, and it conveys, to a very large extent, the treatment that these contractors are receiving. With the permission of the House, I should like to read the letter, because it is public information, and I think the British House of Commons ought to possess what the public are already in possession of. He says:— Dear Sir,—Although Army boot contractors, as a whole, have undoubtedly had just cause for serious complaint against their treatment by His Majesty's Government from time to time, never, I think, has there been quite so much dissatisfaction amongst the majority of them in Raunds as I he unfair allotment of the recent contracts has called forth. As is only too well known, trade in the Army districts has been at a low ebb for some time, but employers have done their best to keep their hands on in anticipation of securing a share of the Government contracts which they certainly had a right to expect. In the first place, only a comparatively small quantity of boots were asked for, and this naturally induced many contractors to think that some regard would be paid to equal distribution, or as far as possible, if the nature of the tenders permitted, to spread the work over the district. Instead of this, it transpires that only three firms in Raunds have any at all, whilst one Kettering firm is reputed to have secured almost half the total amount asked for and few odd thousands going elsewhere. It is obvious that the officials at Pimlico do not favour a live-and-let-live policy. The opinion is held, however, and pretty plainly expressed, that in this surfeiting of the few and starving the many there is something not quite understood. What at first blush looks surprising is the fact that those who have secured the contracts appear no better pleased than the unsuccessful ones, who say they have taken the work at such a low price that they may well look glum about it. According to other opinions, shared by the men, who by the way, have spent the whole of their lives in making Army boots, there is no recognised standard, for some men can get boots passed which are, in point of quality, of material and workmanship, fully 1s. 6d. per pair below those which other contractors get rejected wholesale. Army boot making to-day is not worth the candle if you are outside the 'ring,' they say. Now, according to local reports, the accepted price is 1s. 3d. per pair less than last year's prices. Assuming this to be correct, by what sort of reasoning does the Government or its officials expect to get boots up to the alleged; 'standard'? or, glancing at the other side, how can those whose tenders are accepted expect to get the materials to enable them to produce boots which they may reasonably expect to get passed? One wonders whether a few rich tanners have witnessed the illogical melodrama, "An Englishman's Home." and become so patriotic as to give their stock of Army hides away? I think I had better finish the letter, because it expresses the position, and being a public statement shows that I am not unduly prejudiced. It goes on:— Assuming, as, perhaps, we safely may, that the alleged 'ring' is all moonshine, and, further, that the passing or rejecting of Army boots, which is quite a serious business, is treated as such by tile responsible officials—that it is in fact, an unquestionably fair and unbiassed test of technical skill and the highest standard of practical boot making ability—why need the Government accept such ridiculously low tenders? Why cannot they pay as much for Tommy Atkins' boots as they have hitherto? Is cur National Exchequer in such a deplorably insolvent state that we must get our soldiers' boots at sweating prices, or at such prices that those who secure the contracts must trust to the generosity of the tanner to help him to execute them? It must not be inferred that I suggest the Government should have accepted the highest tenders; this would have been neither sound finance nor common-sense spending of the nation's taxes. I do, however, share the opinion that the Government could afford to pay at least last year's prices, and this would have meant a more humane snaring of the work. The man in the street, who takes the trouble to think at all, knows that, when leather goes up he must pay more for his boots, or get an inferior article; presumably the Pimlico lights imagine they can get the same article by paying an inferior price. In concluding, I would venture to ask if it is by any sort of reasoning fair that men who have made the Army requirements their life study should find, when contracts are given out, that they have not been entrusted with the making of a single pair of boots, and should; have to discharge their men wholesale. Eighty men were recently discharged from one factory alone, and these men by the way are the pick of the Army boot makers. Need I add, that these men are neither being enrolled in the Territorials, nor singing Rule Britannia.' That puts the case in a nutshell, and I want to point out that His Majesty's Government is responsible for causing those of us who have been in the trade during the whole course of our lives, for very many years, to put our reliance in it, but there are men now walking the streets, who have served His Majesty's Government for 50 years, who have now no employment whatever, while the Government have not yet satisfied experts that they have chosen the best and cheapest article; and I am sure that the examination which is made at Pimlico will not bear the strictest investigation. I have been down there on many occasions, and on the last occasion I took my friend the hon. Member for Enfield, who happened to be like myself—a practical maker of boots. He examined six or eight pairs of "rejects" of boots, which had been cut open, and he inquired what they had been rejected for? He went through the whole of those six or eight pairs, and at the end of the time he turned round to the viewer, and said, "I will tell you what I would not do. I would not contract for His Majesty's Government, if that is the treatment that you deal out to contractors." Because we knew as boot-makers that you cannot expect in boots the same regularity that you do get in fabrics. The materials from which boots are made are not made by machinery. The materials grow, but there is no adaptability or flexibility down at Pimlico. There they choose good leather from bad, according to its thickness, or its thinness, and they have the opinion down there that it must be of a certain substance, in spite of the fact that the very best leathers this world has ever seen are of the thinnest description. Any man who knows anything about leathers knows that. But when a question is asked in this House on the subject no notice is taken of it, and I say this, with all sincerity, that there is no person outside Pimlico who is a practical man in this boot and shoe department, and I ask why, seeing that we spent £199,0000 last year, more consideration is not shown to the taxpayers? I had the honour on one occasion of going with a deputation to the War Office with two manufacturers, who, for the first time in their lives, dared to complain of the treatment they had received. I am told that men in the Army dare not complain if things are not right. I belong to a military family, being the only one of five who has not been in the Army, and my brothers told me that it would not do to complain in the British Army, and, if you did, you never heard the last of it. That is my experience, gained from men whom I have asked who had been in the Army during the time that I was working at the bench, and I have experienced exactly the same persecution because I persuaded two contractors to go to the War Office last year, because the result has been that those men have had less orders from the War Department. One of them has ceased to tender, and he is wiping his hands of the Department altogether. He will have nothing to do with Army contracts in future. He says he wants to be treated a little more fairly, and if he has a complaint to be made he wants to make it and have it considered in a reasonable fashion.

Then I want to ask, further, why it appears that some men have to send in heels of boots which are built by hand, while others can send in boots built by machinery; and how is it that some men have to send in boots which are closed by hand, while others can send in boots which are closed by machinery? Less than 12 months ago the right hon. Gentleman was receiving machine closed boots, which gave the manufacturer an advantage of 3d. or 4d. a pair, and he was not getting a penny for the advantage which he was giving to the individual contractor. These things are not satisfactory. I have no personal interest in the matter, and finding that a large proportion of the employers in this industry deal with our members in a just and reasonable fashion, I cannot refrain from raising a protest on their behalf. Not only that, but I find the members of my own union complain bitterly that their employer, who sends good boots to Pimlico, gets them rejected. Further, we must bear in mind that according to custom the Pimlico Department can rip up at least two pairs out of every 12 for examination, and even if the boots are quite satisfactory the man has to put them down again free of charge. This is a cost that is put on the top of the contract for which the Government has to pay, and as a consequence surely there ought to be a little more reason and common-sense. The standard pattern of the ankle boot of the British Army is nearly 50 years old. No alteration has ever been made, even in the eyelet. If our soldiers happen to be on the march and are surprised in the dead of the night they cannot lace their boots up without a candle, because the eyelets are on a level with the surface of the boot. I and others have suggested that celluloid eyelets should be used, as they are in nearly all other boots, so that a man can feel the holes when he is going to put a lace in, but such a suggestion is not listened to. We make another suggestion, that instead of having a strap at the back of the boot, which costs about 2d. per yard, there should be a leather strap for the pulling on of the boot below the top, so that the lace can go through and be fastened without cutting the foot and hurting the man while on the march. But no suggestion of this description will the War Office listen to. They have made up their minds that the boot that Tommy Atkins has is satisfactory, and there it must stop.

So far as the bottom of the boot is concerned, there is no one connected with the House who uses a strong boot who has leather filling put in between the insole and the outsole. Everyone else has a common piece of felt, but in the soldiers' case they fill it up with solid leather. I asked why they put in big lumps of leather which are not used for wear, but only for stiffening, and they said, "it is the Army orders." I said the Army must be mad to make a suggestion of this description. Instead of making the boots flat bottomed they make them bible-backed to make people believe it is solid leather. Those who understand the making of boots know that solidity is not required between the outsole and the insole. When we sew an ordinary hand-sewn boot the needle goes through the insole, and there is a solidity there which cannot be pulled out even by putting the insole under your foot, but with your machine-sewn welted boot there is a small thin leather lip, which is run round the whole of the insole, and then the upper is sewn on to it. Those who do a lot of riding can afford to wear welted boots, but a man who has to walk will never wear them, because they will not last long enough, and have the reputation in my trade of being objected to because they are not generally capable of repair.

I think the Government could protect themselves. I know they are afraid of a ring, but the idea in Northampton is that the ring have the orders, so that instead of escaping the ring the ring has the War Department at present. Under these circumstances I want to know why the Government cannot protect themselves in just as sensible a way as they have pro- tected themselves against the wholesale clothiers. They have put down a tailoring establishment in Pimlico, and they can put down a boot and shoe establishment, and by that means they could have practical men always at their beck and call. I know the largest buyers in the United Kingdom have to adopt this policy to protect themselves against the contractors, and surely the Government, for the small sum of £5,000 or £10,000, could protect themselves in a similar way, especially if they are going to experiment, as they are doing, in teaching boys the art of hand-sewn work who have never been hand-sewn men before. If the object is to draft the boys into the regiment so that they can become regimental cobblers, how beneficial would they be to the Government if their ability and knowledge were used. I do not blame the Secretary of State for War when one considers that he has for the past four years had his mind concentrated on the Territorial Force and the reorganisation of the British Army. I do not blame one individual for not knowing everything, but I think when we make so many appeals we ought to get a little more attention, and I strongly protest against these men who have come forward and proved their case being persecuted as a consequence. This is not the last which will be heard of boots in this House if the matter is not rectified.

I have asked a few questions in the House about the women button-holers at the Pimlico tailoring establishment. These women for 16 years have had a certain rate of pay for piecework—in other words, the harder you work the more money you get. They have averaged a good wage—23s. a week. The War Department have come to the conclusion that 28s. for a woman is too much. I do not think so. Any woman who does the same number of hours as a man, and does as much work, ought to have as much money, and I am astounded to know that the Government should have, gone out of their way to lower their wages from 28s. to £l 5s. 6d. It is all very well to say women ought not to earn so much. Several of them are widows, and are the breadwinners of their families, and have to keep a shelter over their heads in a place like London. I wonder that some of them are capable of doing it. I know that operatives in factories where machines are introduced cannot always demand the same wages if assistance is going to be given by the firm, which costs the firm something to give, but there is no assistance given to these women, and they have deliberately and quietly reduced the wages. It is very rough. You cannot expect my vote when Ministers want their salaries raised from £2,000 to £5,000. I am wondering whether this reduction has been brought about for the purpose of finding this £3,000 a year. I am really against reductions, and I have not yet moved a reduction of Ministers" salaries, much as some of them deserve it. But I regret exceedingly that the Government should have lowered these wages, because from each poor person they are getting a miserable £7 10s. per year. When they tell me they are prepared to pay the best wages, and they say they are paying the best wages, I ask them whether they are prepared to pay the same wages as some of my friends in Leicester, who have seats in this House, are paying to-day? It is all very well to say you are going to pay the best wages when you find a woman was getting 2s. or 3s. more than the average, but when men are receiving 5s., 10s., or 15s. more than you are paying in London for capable, competent measure cutters, you are not prepared to rise. Where does your quid pro quo come in under circumstances of that kind. It is regrettable that the Government should have reduced these women's wages, and I shall raise this question whenever I have an opportunity whilst the wages of operatives are being decreased.

Mr. PHILIP FOSTER

I wish to appeal to the Secretary of War with reference to two subjects on which I have asked questions. After the eulogy passed on him by the hon. Member (Captain Faber), I shall probably find him in a generous mood. I want to appeal to him on behalf, first of all, of certain sergeant-majors and colour-sergeants in the Special Reserve. I understand that a sergeant-major who has been put in the Special Reserve receives 3d. a day less than the old depot-sergeant-major used to receive, and he, at any rate, whatever the War Office may think, thinks he is doing the same amount of work or possibly more, because he gets the six months' drill of all those who enlist into the Special Reserve. Not only does this man get 3d. a day less pay, but he gets, on completion of his service, 3d. a day less pension—3s. 9d. against 4s. This seems rather hard on these men. The colour-sergeants who are brought into the Special Reserve from their battalions are receiving 6d. a day less than before, and there is the anomaly that, supposing a Juan misconducts himself slightly, and is sent back to his regiment, he at once automatically gets the 6d. a day again. The amount at stake is very small, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is felt very much indeed by these reserve non-commissioned officers. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give these men their little extra pay which they feel they ought to have, and which would remove a very great deal of unpleasant feeling towards the War Office.

One other question with regard to the Yeomanry. So far as I understand it, there are at present men serving and getting the old rates of pay, which are a fairly considerable salary. But under certain circumstances they come under the new rate of pay. Of course, if a man joins now, he goes at once on the new rates of pay, but if he is promoted to be a corporal in this year, or promoted from corporal to sergeant, he automatically comes under the new rate of pay, which is a very considerable reduction. I do not think that is much encouragement for a man to do his best to get promotion. I wish to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, until all ranks come under the new rates of pay, which will be next year or the year after next, to let a man when he gets promotion continue under the old rates. It would be a great encouragement to the men, and I think it will do good. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I do wish him well as regards the Territorial Army. Not long ago I went through an election which I fought very largely for him as against compulsory service. If he can possibly see his way as regards the Yeomanry camps to get forage and supplies from the district I am sure that would have enormous effect towards getting the recruits which he so much desires. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to be generous at this particular moment, and I am sure his generosity will have the reward it deserves.

Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY

I wish to direct attention to what I think is certainly the most serious thing which presents itself as regards the Army, namely, the shortage of 1,000 officers in the Special Reserve. Anyone who has' had experience of military matters will realise that such a shortage is a serious danger to the country. It is all very well to say that officers of the training corps would fill up this blank. Given time, it may be possible to train them sufficiently to do their duties; but we are not sure of getting time. It does not do to gamble with time. We have already seen the unwisdom of that, Rosyth is a clear instance where two years were wasted. We are now doing all we can to make up the time which was wantonly and foolishly lost, but we never can make it up. In regard to the young officers' training, that cannot count for much. It is quite insufficient to qualify them as leaders of troops in time of war; they will be blind leaders of the blind, and to put the lives of brave men in charge of insufficiently trained officers, however valiant they may be, is something worse than a blunder—it would be a crime. Nothing could excuse such a mad experiment. Thoroughly trained officers are vitally necessary if troops are to be led in the best way in war. It is only by having efficient officers that you can attain victory. You may improvise infantry very quickly, but you can only do that if you have officers, commissioned and non-commissioned, sufficiently trained. It is no use trying to go into battle with a mob. No victory was ever gained in that way. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to fill up this most grievous gap of 1,000 officers, because if we had trouble with any foreign Power whatever it would be quite impossible to improvise officers at short notice.

Mr. ARTHUR Du CROS

I wish to call attention to the question of the regulations affecting enrolment in the Army Motor Reserve. As the Secretary of State for War is aware, any persons engaged in the motor trade are excluded from service in the Army Motor Reserve. The conditions say that persons applying for enrolment in that body shall possess a car and have practical knowledge how to use it. They also give the commanding officer discretion to refuse the applications of claimants for admission. The commanding officer in this case exercises his discretion by refusing, broadly speaking, anybody engaged in the motor trade. I have letters in my hand bearing on that subject, which I will read. An application was made by a gentleman who was in a very responsible position in the motor trade. He was known to myself as eligible in every respect for service in any branch of His Majesty's Forces. In reply to his application he received a letter from the adjutant, who said:— I regret to inform you that the commanding officer is unable to recommend for commissions in the Army Motor Reserve gentlemen who are engaged in the motor trade. Of course, I understand it is necessary that certain qualifications should be re- quired in the case of gentlemen applying for commissions in His Majesty's forces, but I have never yet heard that a distinction has been made as against individuals engaged in one particular trade, and that, as in this instance, in regard to gentlemen engaged in the trade which most fits them for this particular service. This gentleman wrote asking—(1) whether, in the eyes of the commanding officer or members of the corps, any particular stigma attaches to the motor industry; (2) whether there exists a War Office Regulation whereby a number of gentlemen who are exceptionally qualified are precluded from giving their services to the nation; and (3) if neither of the foregoing, what then is the special objection to members connected with the motor industry. The answer he received was simply this:— I am directed to inform you that the question of recommending gentlemen for commissions in the Army Motor Reserve is left entirely in the hands of the commanding officer who does as he thinks best. That correspondence took place in 1906. Three years have passed since then, but the position remains the same. An application was made in the early part of this year by a gentleman who was being pressed to accept a commission in another branch of the Service. That gentleman, who is a man of means, and who represents all that is practical in the motor world, preferred, if he was going to serve in the forces, to serve in the Army Motor Reserve. The reply he received was in the following terms:— The conditions certainly are actually the same as they were before, but it is not desired to lose the services of men like yourself. What we cannot quite see our way clear about is how to actually let two or three in without having undeshables down on us. He did not get a definite answer at that time, but he received a letter, dated 22nd April last, containing the following:— I now write to say that I do not see my way clear to make exceptions in the rule hitherto applied as regards the admission of gentlemen connected with the motor trade into the Army Motor Reserve. I think that was a most unfortunate decision, and a very invidious distinction, as against a number of men who are particularly fitted for service in this particular branch of His Majesty's Forces. The effect of this is that, claimants may be admitted from any other trade. It might be possible for undesirables to find admission to the Army Motor Reserve, but, on the other hand, desirable gentlemen who are connected with the motor trade are excluded. I know the Secretary of State for War has always said that the success of the voluntary system to a large or, at all events, to some extent, depends on the goodwill of employers. I know that to be the case. The right hon. Gentleman has appealed to them on more than one occasion to assist in the Territorial scheme. I have always encouraged the enlistment of men in the Territorial force, and, as a matter of fact, the concern with which I have the honour to be associated has to-day a battalion 1,000 strong. It is up to its full strength. This regulation which excludes certain gentlemen from the Army Motor Reserve has left an unfortunate impression on the mind of employers in the motor industry. It appears to me to be a useless and very undesirable regulation. It is very mischievous, inasmuch as it has antagonised men who are engaged in that trade. I understand that the regulations are at this moment under consideration. I hope that this objectionable distinction which has been applied to one trade will be eliminated. Motorists, as a body, are very anxious and willing to give their services to the State, and it does seem a hardship that they should be excluded from doing so in the particular branch of the Service in which they are most fitted to serve. If I may say so, the right hon. Gentleman's Administration has been distinguished by very broad-minded considerations, and I am sure he does not agree with a distinction of this kind, which, I understand, came into being for a reason which, in my opinion, does not carry any more weight. I believe it was feared that if men connected with the motor industry were admitted into this corps they might endeavour to take the opportunity of advertising particular makes of car. That was in years gone by, and I am sure if any danger of that sort did exist it has long since passed away. Everybody knows a great deal about the names of motor makers now, and I do not think members of that trade who enlisted in this branch of the Service would endeavour to push their business under the circumstances. I think that was an unworthy suggestion, and I have heard no other suggestion to account for the peculiar and unprecedented regulation which excludes men connected with the motor industry from this branch of the Service. If the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to alter the regulations so as to leave the Army Council to find out what gentlemen are eligible for the corps, I think he would be rendering a service which would be greatly appreciated.

Mr. ROWLAND HUNT

I want to call the attention of the House to the question of placing contracts abroad. Manufacturers in this country are obliged to comply with the fair wages clause. An hon. Member on the Labour Benches said that the Government gave their contracts abroad for the sake of cheapness, and that the mad idea of cheapness must be abandoned. I quite agree that cheapness in these matters is not everything.

If Free Trade and cheapness means the same thing, then you must have cheap labour. The consequence is that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Haldane) has been obliged to reduce the wages of the women employed by the War Office. I must say I cannot see how it can be right to do as the right hon. Gentleman has been doing in getting contracts from abroad. We have heard of the action of the Navy in getting Norwegian granite, and not only have 700 skilled, honest men been driven to America in that one industry, but the moment the Norwegians succeeded in ruining that particular kind of granite industry up went the prices. Surely it cannot be right to lay down that in this one country men shall not work unless at a certain rate of wages, when work is taken from men in other countries who work for less. I believe it is quite right that men should be paid not less than a certain amount, but when you say that men in this country must not earn their living except, at certain wages, and then have the War Office or the Navy going to countries abroad where the men are allowed to work for lei3 than what they are allowed to work for here and deliberately buying from them the things made by cheap labour, surely there cannot be any sense in such a proceeding. That is what the right hon. Gentleman does, and I cannot see that there is any answer to that. Every industry which is carried on in this country pays rates and taxes, probably amounting to £10 or £15 on every £100, but while you make your contractors in this country pay rate?, and also taxes to the British Government, you buy the products of cheap-foreign labour, which does not pay a penny to you in taxes. These are points with which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will deal. What is to happen if he continues to pursue the principle of giving to foreign workmen a very considerable advantage over the workmen of this country? [An HON. MEMBER: "Or workwomen."] It does not matter whether it is men or women, it is all the same. I do not see how we can back the right hon. Gentleman or the Admiralty up in buying goods abroad under these conditions which I have stated, and which I think cannot possibly be excused.

I think I may be allowed to say something about the food supplied to the Territorial Army, to the men and to the horses. I can take the case of the Shropshire Regiment, which I know, and I know several other regiments as well. In this matter the right hon. Gentleman goes on the same principle, only perhaps it is rather more difficult to apply. The contract for the meat for the men in the Shropshire Territorial Yeomanry was 4½d. a pound, and, of course, it was foreign meat. But I do not think you are justified in asking men to be patriots and to take all the trouble of defending their country and then feed them on bad foreign meat just because you can get it cheaper than you can get good British meat. Of course the right hon. Gentleman himself altered the conditions of the meat supply. He said, "We will not have English any longer; we will have foreign." I believe that he also has foreign oats for the horses. I think that is rather hard on the farmer, over whose land the yeomen often ride. You use their land and then you will not make any return to them at all by buying their stuff, because the oats and all these things also come from abroad. The oats supplied to the regiment to which I have referred were so light that there was no nourishment In them. You had only to blow in the manger and the oats were scattered all over the place. The right hon. Gentleman must understand that a very large number of Yeomanry are farmers, and that sort of thing is not likely to help recruiting. As there were so many complaints made to me personally I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will have the matter put right in order to give the patriotic yeoman as much encouragement as he can. One hon. Member said a great deal about boots. I should think he is very probably right. There is an enormous difference in boots. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to have a pair or two of the American soldier's boots brought over here, so that he might look at them and see how enormously superior they are to ours.

Mr. HALDANE

Do you wish me to buy American boots?

Mr. ROWLAND HUNT

I only put it to the right hon. Gentleman that he might get a pair of American soldier's boots to look at to see how much superior they are to our boots, so that we might be able to get boots like them. Of course, they may be a little more expensive—I do not know—but the trade unionists who went to America said they were cheaper. But, at all events, they are better; and even if they are more expensive, of course America, being a protected country, can afford to pay for them. On the question of the saddles, the saddles of the Yeomanry are, I believe, the same as when I was in it a year or two ago. The difficulty, I believe, is that they are very like ordinary hunting saddles, and when you come to ride on them for a long time they very soon become so flat that they give your hors? a sore back. Some of the saddles that we had in Africa had no stuffing but a rug instead, and so you never got the stuffing rubbed down. They have the further advantage of being very much cheaper and very much lighter, and I cannot help thinking that it might be worth the right hon. Gentleman's while to see whether these saddle? would not be very much better at all events for the mounted infantry in this country. And now a word or two about the Territorial Army. We all understand what an enormous deal of trouble the right hon. Gentleman has taken about it, and what a very excellent organisation he has set up. I know that the right hon. Gentleman thinks that I am rather an opponent of his, but I hope he does not think that I do not recognise the enormous industry which he has put forward in this matter. But, of course, I do not dream of his scheme being of any use. There are very many objections to it besides its inefficiency. There are a great many young men in this country who would be very glad indeed to join the right hon. Gentleman's Territorial Army if they could. They cannot do it. The force of circumstances is too much. They could not make their living if they did. Their employers would not let them go. There are, no doubt, a lot like these. On the other hand, there are a lot of other men who have a very considerable amount of pressure put on them, and are compelled to join practically whether they like or not. Those are two great objections.

Another objection is that you are asking 300,000 men out of the millions of able-bodied men in this country to take upon themselves the whole duty and responsibility, when any danger or trouble arises, of defending their country and their women and children, and you are letting off the whole of the rest of the hundreds of thousands of men in this country with more time and more leisure, and allowing them to do absolutely nothing. The huge majority of these 300,000 are working men, earning from 15s. to £2 or £3 a week as long as they keep their health, and you are asking those men to defend not only their country and their women and children, but to defend the prosperous people who are too idle to take any part in defending themselves. The position, to my mind, is quite indefensible. Surely, the right hon. Gentleman must agree that it is the first duty of every man to learn enough to be able to defend his country in times of national emergency. But, under this Territorial Army scheme, you are making the poor defend the rich.

The numbers of this Territorial Force are not at present what the right hon. Gentleman wishes them to be, and, in fact, it might very well happen that we should not have enough men, even with the small training they get, to defend our country against a raid of 70,000 or 100,000 men, which the right hon. Gentleman himself said was possible. In case of the country being at war we should be perfectly certain that the force would be available on the first opportunity. Under this Territorial scheme, however, we are distinctly not safe. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that as Minister for War he is responsible for the safety of this country—at all events, if the invading army succeeded in getting past the fleet. That being so, if he says that the present Territorial Force is sufficient for our purposes he is putting himself and his opinion in direct opposition to the grave warnings of the great military commanders who are free to speak their minds. I think that is a very serious thing. The right hon. Gentleman must know that the Territorial Army is hopelessly inefficient both in numbers and training, especially in regard to officers. There is only one possible way in which we can get officers, and that is by making everybody servo. For my part, I should let every man have an equal chance to become an officer, and it is only by making everybody serve and by giving this opportunity to rise in rank that the country, in my opinion, can be made safe. In regard to the Veteran Reserve, the right hon. Gentleman said that the supply of rifles, ammunition, and uniform, without which Reserve men would be useless, is under consideration. I suppose it will be under consideration this time next year, and perhaps this time the year after. I believe that at heart the Secretary of State does believe that everybody should learn to take part in the defence of the country either by sea or land; but until we get that we do need at once a National Reserve with uniform, rifle, ammunition, and everything in readiness.

We must have in this country at the present time at least 200,000 or 300,000 men, of whom, at all events, a great number have been well trained and who are able to shoot. There are considerable numbers of men who could be organised into companies in the different counties, and who would be qualified for garrison duty if they could not do anything else. If they were organised into companies they could meet once a year and do a little drill. The company is a unit that could be moved about. I think you will find that men so trained would be a great deal better than lads of 17 or 18 years of age, and it would make an enormous difference-to our chance of peace if the enemy knew that we had got 200,000 or 300,000 soldiers of from 30 to 50 years of age all properly organised and in readiness. I am very pleased that the right hon. Gentleman should be the first War Minister to take this matter up, and I can assure him if I can afford any help in any way I shall be only too delighted, but I do hope that this matter will not be given the go-by for the sake of a little money. It can be done extremely cheap. Probably you could get men for registration at £l a year each, and if you take the interest on the uniform and ammunition and rifles—I worked it out for myself some years ago—it would cost under another sovereign, so that at all events you could get 200,000 or 300,000 men for under £2 each, and they would be really ready and well trained. I sincerely hope that until we get universal military training, we shall have this great national reserve as quickly as possible.

Mr. F. W. VERNEY

I wish to draw attention to one point. You cannot take up any Army report without being impressed by the fact that everybody who has any interest in the Army—the professional heads of the Service and everybody else—has but one idea about the officer—that he shall be more and more highly trained. The hon. and gallant Member for St. Andrews (Major Anstruther-Gray), whom I heard make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman for the better training of officers and non-commissioned officers, said that without very highly-trained officers and thoroughly competent noncommissioned officers, victory could never belong to our Army at all. I agree with him, and I must say that I also agree with what fell from the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir G. Parker) on the same subject. But there is one very curious omission, which seems to be common to every speech that has been made on this subject. When you increase the efficiency of your officers, when you demand from them much higher and more expensive training, when you demand from them work of an entirely different kind from what was demanded only a few years ago, which is within the recollection of a good many of us, surely there is one thing which is absolutely essential, and that is that in one way or another you should improve their pay. If they are to be skilled servants of the State, then I say that everybody who understands the position of skilled workmen—and there are many in this House who do understand that position, because it is one they still continue to hold—should support our giving the necessary amount of increased pay which that skilled work rightly demands. I believe that the working men of this country are thoroughly right in asking for what is really necessary as remuneration for skilled work whether in the Army or anywhere else. They demand it for themselves, and rightly so, through their own organisations. Surely, then, our national organisation should be ready to increase the pay which better work from more highly trained men rightly demands I We all know that there is a tremendous shortage of officers. We all of us know, who have anything to do with the Army, that an officer can never hope to rise in his profession unless he goes through the Staff College. It was stated to me quite recently by one of our greatest authorities on military matters that if an officer hopes to rise in his profession the one thing he should do is to go through the Staff College.

I have no complaint whatever to make as to the increased skill which is demanded from our officers, or from the men also. I heard with great interest the hon. Member for Gravesend refer to the technical instruction which could well be given to our officers, to the immense advantage of the Army and of the country at large. I entirely agree with what he said, but I do say that it is not right or fair in the least to demand a very great increase of knowledge in the services they render to the country unless you come forward with an adequate and fair amount of pay. I am perfectly aware that the right hon. Gentleman himself has no power over the purse of this country, but at all events I hope he will represent the matter to the Treasury as one of simple fairness and justice. I have been looking into the question of the pay of the ordinary officer of the line, and I believe it cannot be contradicted that there has been no very substantial increase. I quite admit there is some improvement in the condition of officers of the line, but there has been no very substantial increase of pay of the ordinary officer of the line since the days of Queen Anne. I venture to state that as a fact, and I believe that if anyone takes the trouble to investigate the matter they will come to very much the same conclusion. Yet the position in the ordinary officer of the line to-day is very different from what it was two or three hundred years ago. In almost every other profession you can name where, there is skilled work done, there has been an increase in the pay of those who are responsible and in authority. I believe that the increase of pay in the Navy has been considerable. I know that the increase of the men's pay in the Army has been considerable, and they now occupy what I believe is generally considered to be in that respect a very good position. I quite admit that there are other matters, excluding the mere question of pay, in which the position of the men may be still further improved. But if you demand increased general and technical knowledge—which I think in itself is an extremely good thing—then there ought to be adequate payment for it. I should be very glad to see men trained in some form of trade at our great military depots in polytechnics and in engineering shops, and I hope that trade unionists will not object or raise any difficulty in the way of these men continuing in any trade when they leave the Service, and that we shall not see—what is now so commonly seen—old soldiers carrying messages here and there instead of being employed in some skilled work, very often depending entirely on what after all must be a miserable pension that A man gets when he leaves the Service. I do ask the right hon. Gentleman to bring all his influence to bear upon the Treasury to give the right amount of money representing the amount of work which is now demanded from the officers and non-commissioned officers, and, the moment you get into skilled occupations, from the men also. I hope that by so doing he will help to diminish the shortage of officers, which is now so alarming a symptom in our military system, and I hope that we shall see our officers put on a somewhat different footing in regard to the pay which they may reckon upon.

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane)

The subjects which have been raised in the course of this Debate have been so manifold and the field covered is so vast that it is impossible for me to answer all the questions which have been put to me. I think it would be most convenient if I began by simply alluding to certain great features which have been in the main prominent in the Debate. There was, for instance, the speech of the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. E. Hunt), which raised the whole question of compulsory service. He gave to me some kind pitying words about the Territorial Force, but he thought it would be better to revert to something which would be much bigger. Then I see sitting near the hon. Member for Ludlow the hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. P. Foster). I had an hon. Friend on this side of the House who was so convinced that the hon. Member for Ludlow was right that he resigned his seat in the Stratford Division and went there to champion the cause of compulsory service. Not only that, but he was supported through thick and thin by the hon. Member for Ludlow, notwithstanding that it was the hon. Member who was sitting behind him who was the orthodox Conservative candidate. What happened? The hon. Member who now sits for Stratford came forward and said: "Away with all this nonsense. I am a common-sense Englishman," and the electors were so entirely of the mind of the hon. Member for Stratford that, notwithstanding the eloquence of the hon. Member for Ludlow, my poor Friend could not get 500 votes. That is not the only thing to which the hon. Member for Ludlow referred. What was the meaning in the mouth of a really good Protectionist, and I think he is a really genuine Protectionist, of those mysterious allusions to American boots. You cannot have things in this world both ways. You must choose one way or the other. I quite agree that you ought to buy the best things wherever you can get them.

That brings me to the speech of the Noble Lord who represents Hornsey (Lord Ronaldshay). He began by saying that we spent, according to the Estimates, £250,000 on things which we ought to buy in this country for Army purposes. That is quite true, but it is an illustration of, I think, a certain want, if I may say so, of profundity in the contemplation of the argument that is put forward for that kind of view. I looked into the items which make up that £250,000, and what are they? I see copper amounts to £83,000, and I ask, how am I to buy copper in this country? I find acetone amounts to £72,000. I do not know whether the Noble Lord has studied this product, but I think he will find it very difficult to get in this country. I hope some day we may get it made in this country, but at present we do not make it in commercial quantities. Then there is a sum of £32,000 for walnut used for the stocks of guns, and walnut cannot be got in this country. There you have £187,000 out of £250,000 spent on things which you simply cannot get in this country.

Earl of RONALDSHAY

What about horse shoes?

Mr. HALDANE

We always make an offer to the manufacturers of this country to produce horse shoes of the quality and price, and we are very glad if we can get them, but unfortunately we do not always get them. The Noble Lord went on to discuss a question to which he devoted the greater part of his speech. That is the question of the apparatus which is used for the teaching of a certain system of gymnastics used in the Army. I was enabled by his remarks to arrive at the fact of the perusal by the Noble Lord of letters from an author whose productions have come very much before me. I mean letters from one of the manufacturers who has got a grievance upon this subject. I have read and re-read his letters. I know every phrase in them, and I think the Noble Lord has also read and re-read them. Let me first of all tell him how it was that we came to buy those things from a Danish manufacturer. A little time ago, as the result of careful scientific investigation, the conclusion was reached that the exercise to which a recruit was put was a bad one, and that it was not suitable from a medical point of view as chest-stretching exercise. As a result a new system of gymnastics was introduced, which required, among other things, certain additional apparatus. The system was the well-known Swedish system adopted in foreign armies. We wanted the apparatus for it, I am giving the report from the experience of the Inspector of Gymnasia. First of all he applied to two well-known British firms for the gymnastic apparatus, and an order was given to them in the first instance. Some of the apparatus which they supplied was very good, but there was another part that was not so satisfactory. Accordingly it was impossible to go on with what he had got at that time. Moreover, it was very expensive. He went to another British manufacturer and gave him an order which was quite satisfactory as to parts, but not so satisfactory as to other parts, and where again the price was very high. He heard then of a certain Mr. Larsen, a very well-known Danish manufacturer of Copenhagen, who manufactured the whole of the apparatus for the Danish Army, and who was also very well known in this country as a great manufacturer of apparatus for schools, and who had done a great deal of business in this country. Then Mr. Larsen submitted designs, and the designs proved—I am quoting from the report made to me—and the apparatus which was constructed according to them proved to be eminently satisfactory and suitable both as regards design and quality for the purpose for which it was required, and the prices quoted were substantially lower than those of the British firms who had not furnished what we wanted. After this the British firms' representatives came and looked at the designs and apparatus. One tendered and the other did not care to go on with the transaction. The inspector of gymnasium arrived at the conclusion that the apparatus of the type designed by Mr. Larsen was the most satisfactory in design, suitability, and cost of any which had been submitted to the War Office. There was no doubt about Mr. Larsen's capacity, and the result was that he got the contract, and that the work has been very satisfactory. I ask, in face of all that, what would any rational person, as well as a War Minister, do? My business is to get the best article I can for the Army, and when I find I am getting this article from a gentleman who, although his business may be conducted abroad, has had great experience here, and is able to supply all I need, I have gone there. As regards the allegations of collapse, it is quite true we did have one, but the report I have is that bad treatment had something to do with it, and not any inherent defect in the apparatus. Quite apart from the inspector of gymnasia, a very distin- guished colonel of Engineers, with large practical experience, whom we sent to make a special inquiry, has reported to me that the quality of the wood is perfectly satisfactory. From beginning to end, I have investigated this matter with great closeness, because I had not only a large number of questions as well as private communications. I am satisfied that we have got the best apparatus under the contract, and that we have got the things at a moderate price, and that what has been furnished is satisfactory as regards the specification.

I pass to the next subject, which is quite a different one, and which was raised by the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir G. Parker). He spoke of the Territorial Reserve, and, in a very friendly way, for which I thank him. He asked a question, and I think it was really the main question put—How do you propose to use this Reserve? As regards the Territorial Reserves, which is separate from the trained and technical Reserve, although you may have your full establishment complete up to strength in time of peace, you always have some deficit if war breaks out, and you must provide for waste of war and for insufficiently trained recruits. If the Reserve wanted is 100,000. you would have 300,000, so that yon will be able to have it at war strength while you are getting your recruits. Then the reason why we do not have Volunteers in connection with the Reserve is because it was deemed essential that the Reserve for the Terri