To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many accidents have been reported to him by the police cellaneous, No. 2, 1894) [by Command] to lie upon the Table.

To ask the Secretary of State for India if his attention has been called to a decision of the Chief Court of Mysore, in the case of Dasappa v. Chikkamma, in which a convert to Christianity was, by reason of his change of faith, deprived of the right of guardianship over his children and of other civil rights; whether the Durbar intimated their readiness to remove by legislation these disabilities so far as they relate to rights of property; and whether any steps have been taken with respect to this legislation. (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) I am aware of the case referred to by my right hon. friend, which occurred in 1895, but my attention has not been called to any cases of similar hardship as having arisen since then. The Mysore Government have recognised that some action towards reducing the disabilities of converts from Hinduism is both equitable and necessary, but have added that "the exact point at which legislation ought to stop, and to what conditions and limitations the rules of inheritance of the Hindu Law when relaxed should be subjected, so as to prevent coparceners remaining in the religion of their birth from avoidable and vexatious interference and annoyance, requires most careful consideration." The Durbar, I understand, has the question still under consideration. Having regard to the views which they have expressed and to the fact that the Maharaja has only recently succeeded to administrative powers, I think that the matter may be left to the Mysore Government. I may add that the" India Act XXI. of 1850 has been applied to the station at Bangalore.

To ask the Secretary of State for India whether the project of granting an international decoration to the troops of the various nations who took part in the operations in China is still under consideration, and when a decision is likely to be arrived at. (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) His Majesty's Government had at one time under their consideration, in consultation with other Powers, the question of bestowing an international medal upon those who took part in the defence of the Legations at Pekin. This medal was not in any way to take the place of such medals or decorations as each State might think well to confer upon its own nationals. In consequence, however, of an absence of unanimity among the Powers concerned, it was finally decided to abandon the proposal.

To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will take into consideration the question of repealing the Excise duties on the production of Indian cotton mills, together with the corresponding import duties, as soon as the state of the Indian Exchequer will warrant his doing so. (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) I cannot hold out any hope at present of reducing the Customs duties now in force in India.

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is aware that no Government grant has been paid in respect of the elementary school at Mydrim, Carmarthenshire, since last May, and that the school is only kept open by the teachers on their own responsibility; and whether he will state what steps should be taken in order to secure the annual Government grant. (Answered by Sir William Anson.) As the hon. Member is doubtless aware, the managers of the Mydrim School declared that they were unable to continue the school after 30th May last, and it was accordingly removed from the Annual Grant List. The Board understand that since that date the school has been conducted as a private adventure school by the headmaster. The trustees, or any other responsible body of managers, are at liberty to re-open the school as a public elementary school, and to make applications for its being again placed on the Annual Grant List. But the conditions of the Code as sanctioned by Parliament make it impossible for the Board of Education to pay grants in respect of a school carried on as a private adventure school.

To ask the hon. Member for North Hunts, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether, having regard to the fact that the Serpentine has not been cleaned out since 1871, he will consider the desirability of having this done at an early date in the interest of bathers and swimmers. (Answered by Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.) His Majesty's Government regret that they are unable to give any assurance in this matter; the task of cleaning out the Serpentine would be very costly and would occupy a very long time. There have been no complaints from bathers.

TO ask the Postmaster-General whether he is now able to announce his decision as to the request of the inhabitants for improved telegraph facilities in the Keyham Barton district of Devonport. (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I wrote to the hon. Member on the day before his Question appeared in the Paper and explained to him the reasons why I did not feel justified in establishing a telegraph office at Keyham Barton.

To ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware that the maximum salary of the female supervisors at the counter offices in Liverpool, who occupy positions involving heavy responsibilities, is £30 less than the maximum salary of the ordinary male counter clerks, and that the female counter staff in Liverpool, whose duties include monetary responsibilities and consequent risk of loss, are paid upon the same scale as officers who are employed entirely in the telegraph department and have no such responsibilities and risks; and will he say whether he proposes to take any, and if so what, steps to remedy this alleged grievance. (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) As I informed the hon. Member in this House in December, † it has repeatedly been decided by my predecessors that the salary of the female supervising officers is sufficient for the duties performed, and I have not yet been able to come to a conclusion on the reconsideration of the matter which I then promised. I hope, however, shortly to be in a position to announce my decision to the officers concerned.

To ask the Postmaster-General whether the members of the postal telegraph service are permitted to approach Members of Parliament with reference to matters affecting their conditions of service; whether the men or their representatives have the right to place copies of the correspondence between the aggrieved persons and their official heads in the hands of Members of Parliament. (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The rule applicable to this matter is as follows:—" A postmaster is to address to his surveyor, and a subordinate officer is to address to the postmaster (who will forward it to his surveyor), any application from himself having reference to his duties or pay, or any communication he may desire to make relating to official matters; and if the applicant is dissatisfied

† See (4) Debates, exv.,839.

with the result he may appeal direct to the Post master-General. But it is strictly forbidden to make any such application or other communication through the public, or to procure one to be made by Members of Parliament or others; and, should an irregular application he received, the officer on whose behalf it is made will be subject to censure or punishment proportionate to the extent of his participation in the violation of the rule "But it has been my practice to treat the rule as applying only to applications so made in the first instance, and I have raised no objection to an officer who had appealed to me, and was dissatisfied with my decision, applying subsequently to a Member of Parliament. But official correspondence between officers of the Department must not be made public without the Post master-General's assent being first asked and obtained.

To ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that the service of letters between Johnstown, Galmoy, Crosspatrick, and Garry baun districts of thy county Kilkenny is not supplied on Sundays; and whether, in view of the convenience to the trading interests of these places, and seeing that there is a letter carrier engaged for six days of the week conveying the mails to and from the existing sub-offices at Galmoy and Crosspatrick, he can arrange that one delivery and one collection shall also he made on Sunday. (Answered, by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I will make inquiry as to the possibility of providing a Sunday delivery and collection of letters at the places in county Kilkenny referred to by the hon. Member; and f will communicate the result to him as soon as possible.

To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Dutch Government some four years ago brought to the notice of His Majesty's Government certain resolutions passed by the Institute of International Law, and confirmed by the International Law Association, of which the Lord Chief Justice is president, and proposed to call a conference of European Powers to reconsider the existing rules applicable to the limits of territorial waters for fishing purposes, and, seeing it was owing to the refusal of His Majesty's Government to take part in it that the conference fell through, whether he will now reconsider the advisability of promoting this conference. (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) No such proposals were made at the time mentioned. But in 1895 the Dutch Government consulted Great Britain and other maritime Powers on the expediency of calling together a conference for the purpose of determining in a uniform manner for all nations the distance of the limit of territorial waters from the shore. The limit was to be discussed only with reference to fisheries. His Majesty's Government, and, we believe, other Governments concerned, were of opinion that no advantage would be gained by opening such a discussion, and, as far as I am aware, nothing has since occurred to modify that opinion.

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will consider the possibility of placing some of the clerks to the surveyors of taxes at the disposal of the chief inspector of taxes in England for temporary assistance in the offices of surveyors where there is a pressure of work, having regard to the fact that the inspectors of taxes in Scotland and Ireland have at their disposal for emergencies experienced clerks of this character, while the relief given in England is by the temporary engagement of inexperienced men who can render no real assistance. (Answered by Mr. Hayes Fisher.) Incases where expert assistance is required: to meet temporary pressure of work in a surveyor's office, such assistance is provided by sending out a surveyor from the head office staff It is not considered either necessary or desirable to adopt the arrangement suggested by the hon. Member. It is not the fact that such an arrangement exists in Scotland or Ireland.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, if an assistant teacher give instruction in Irish during the year, his or her name must necessarily be returned at the end of the year, i.e., at the annual examination, as having taught such subject; and whether the Commissioners will insist on the name of every teacher who gives instruction in any extra subject in a national school being returned on the yearly returns as having taught such subjects during the year. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) I am informed that the name of every teacher who gives instruction in a national school must be submitted to the Commissioners for approval, and should appear on the yearly returns from each school. There is a special form of report for extra subjects showing the name of the person or persons giving the instruction, and of the pupils receiving instruction.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Local Government Board have sanctioned in 1901 the erection of six labourers' cottages in the Tarbert electoral division of the Listowel Union; and, if so, will he explain why those cottages have not been built or the plots of land given to the labourers. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The Local Government Board by Provisional Order dated 10th May, 1901, authorised the District Council to erect one cottage and to provide seven additional half-acre plots for cottages already built in this electoral division. The arbitrator's award fixing the compensation to be paid for the lands 'was completed in June last. The carrying into execution of the scheme sanctioned by the Board and of putting the labourers into possession of the plots is entirely a matter for the District Council.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Local Government Board auditors have sent notices of audit to the Killarney Urban Council, the Kanturk Rural Council, and other places, for St. Patrick's Day; and if he will give instructions to have all audits fixed for this day postponed. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) It is not proposed to hold any audits on the date mentioned.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is prepared to grant the Return in reference to the Labourers' Acts standing on the Paper. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) I am quite prepared to grant a Return. In its present form, however, it is open to improvement. The alterations that I suggest, and which I have communicated to the hon. Member, will, I think, commend themselves to his colleague in whose name the Return stands.

To ask the Secretary of State for War, whether, in drawing up regulations dealing with the future education of officers in His Majesty's Army, he will consider the possibility of including a provision by which a non-commissioned officer who qualifies himself may attain commissioned rank. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The promotion of non-commissioned officers to commissioned rank is already fully provided for in the regulations. The question of the relation between the future education of officers and the qualifications necessary for promotion from the ranks will not be lost sight of,

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he will agree to the appointment of a Committee of this House to inquire into the practices which have obtained in the Grenadier Guards in respect to mock Courts-martial by and on officers, and the punishments inflicted, with a view to elucidate what officers have been responsible for such practices; and whether anything of a like nature has existed in other regiments.

The matters referred to have been dealt with by the Commander-in-Chief, and I cannot for a moment consent to interfere with his authority in the direction suggested by the hon. Member. I have no information in regard to mock Courts-martial in other regiments, with the exception of one case, which is now the subject of investigation.

Will the right hon. Gentleman, if he will not agree to give this Committee, lay on the Table of the House the evidence before the Court of Inquiry, which he promised to do if he were asked for it? I ask for it.

I went as far as to say that of course I should lay on the Table of the House, in any case, the evidence of Colonel Kinloch, which I quoted last night. I also said I would, if I were pressed for it, lay the whole of the evidence on the Table. But, at the same time, I would strongly appeal to the House not to insist on this very unusual course. I believe there is no precedent for laying on the Table the evidence of a regimental inquiry of this character; and, unless there is a belief that substantial injustice has been done, I do not think the House will press for it.

Will the Prime Minister tell me whether he can give me a day to press the Secretary of State for War?

The hon. Gentleman can, of course, resort to the ballot in the ordinary way.

On a point of order I desire to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether a Minister, having quoted from a document as to which he is not prepared to say it would be contrary to the public interest to lay it upon the Table of the House, is not bound, at the request of any hon. Member, to lay it on the Table.

On the point of order, I would submit to you, Sir, that I have proposed to, and shall, lay on the Table the document to which my hon. friend alludes—namely, the evidence which I quoted.

I have nothing to add to what I stated in answer to the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich yesterday evening. That was, I believe, a correct statement.

Is it not the rule when a correspondence is referred to, to lay on the Table the whole of the correspondence. Are there not precedents which govern that the document from which the right hon. Gentleman quoted was part and parcel of the correspondence?

There have been cases; and it is perfectly correct to say that when a Minister does quote part of a document he may be called upon to lay on the Table the whole of that document. I also stated last night that that was subject to this provision—that if the Minister stated that it was contrary to the public interest that the Paper should be disclosed, he is at liberty to say so, and he takes the responsibility upon himself.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the grave injury which will ensue to military discipline from the publication of the documents, he will reconsider his decision not to grant a Court-martial in this case?

On the point of order, Sir, am I to understand that when you said document you meant the whole of the correspondence germane to the question, and not merely a single document?

I never said anything so vague as that.

Does the right hon. Gentleman say that he declines to lay on the Table the whole of this evidence on the, ground that it is contrary to the public interest?

I cannot actually say that it will be contrary to the public interest, but I say it is contrary to precedent, that, in my opinion, it is also entirely subversive of the interests of discipline to lay details of discipline cases before the House. May I be allowed to explain '? My point is this. Nobody alleges that there was intention on the part of the Command;; r-in-Chief either not to protect these subalterns or to prevent the recurrence of the same chain of circumstances. Under these circumstances the mere revelation of a number of names and incidents, to which a great deal too much importance has been attached, would be, I think, highly undesirable. I have not the slightest desire to conceal anything. So far as the War Office is concerned there is nothing which cannot be published to-morrow; but I would appeal to the hon. Member and to the House not to press for a course which would be very unusual. In reply to the hon. Member for North Aberdeen I can assure him that, the Commander-in-Chief having dealt with this matter of discipline fully, and no doubt effectively as an example to all, I shall certainly not accept the idea of a Court-martial.

I have to ask you, Sir, whether, as the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War says he is not prepared to say that it is contrary to the public interest that this evidence should be submitted to the House, he is not bound, by your explanation of the rule, to lay it before the House?

I hardly understood precisely what the right hon. Gentleman did say on that point. I understood him to say he considered it would be subversive of military discipline: but whether he considers, in saying that, that it would not be in the public interest I do not know. The responsibility of whether it is contrary to the public interest or not must be on him and not on me.

I would call your attention to the fact that, unless I am very much mistaken, the right hon. Gentleman himself said that he could not say that it was contrary to the public interest.

I did not gather that those were his words. Of course, if that is so, I think he is bound to lay the document on the Table.

Am I not right in saying that the right hon. Gentleman said he could not say that it was not in the public interest?

I certainly drew a distinction between what might be considered in the public interest and the interests of the discipline of the Army. I certainly think that anything which tends to interfere with the authority of the Commander-in Chief is contrary to the discipline of the Army, and in that sense, of course, t is contrary to the public interest. May I be allowed to say that the publication of the evidence of one officer, whose conduct has been brought before the House, does in no sense involve the publication of the evidence of a number of other officers whose conduct has not been brought before the House? It would be only similar to what has been done in many other cases—namely, to publish an individual letter or despatch without publishing the whole of the correspondence relating to it.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in reference to his statement last night as to a breach of the King's Regulations, in the flogging of two drummer boys, he will place on the Table of the House the evidence in regard to that transaction.

No, Sir, I have given my own statement as to a matter of fact, and I see no reason whatever for laying the Papers on the Table of the House.

Will the right hon. Gentleman grant me the return as to flogging which I have put on the Paper?

No, Sir, I cannot in its present form.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War under what authority, statutory or otherwise, have Boers taken prisoner in the late war, who have been deported to India, Ceylon, or Bermuda, been detained in imprisonment, and in many instances treated as common criminals, for nearly a twelvemonth after the conclusion of the peace. The hon. Member had the following Questions down on the same subject: To ask the. Secretary of State for War how many Boer prisoners of war are at present detained in Bermuda, and under what circumstances are they now detained, and when will they be sent back to South Africa. To ask the Secretary of State for War at what stations in India are Boers, who have been taken prisoners in the late war, imprisoned at the pre cent time, and what are the numbers of the Boers detained at each station; by whose authority, and on whose responsibility, was a communication made to Boers thus imprisoned that default in taking the oath of allegiance would prolong their stay in the hotter districts, whereas the taking by them of that oath would secure their removal to cool hill stations; and what course does the War Office intend to take with reference to these prisoners.

Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to answer these Questions.

No, Sir, I will not.

Then do I understand it is not the intention of the hon. Member to put these questions?

Yes, Sir, I put them to the Secretary for War. This is a matter for personal explanation. The Postmaster General is no doubt willing to answer, but I decline to allow him because I have received, and I have in my possession, a letter from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War promising me that he would answer these three, questions to-day.

My reply is that the whole matter was handed over to the Colonial Office in June last, and, therefore, the hon. Member must address his Questions to my right hon. friend.

Why did you send me a letter saying that you would answer these questions to-day?

I said I was willing to give an answer to a question you asked me, that question being whether I would reply to these questions.

And now you decline to reply to them.

Order, order! The right hon. Gentleman has stated that these are matters for the Colonial Office, and, therefore, the hon. Member must address them to that Department.

Now I want to ask the Secretary for War a question, of which I have given him private notice. It is: Whether the control and treatment of the Boers who were taken prisoners in the late war, and who have been deported to India, Ceylon, and the Bermudas, and detained there notwithstanding the conclusion of the war and the proclamation of peace, are within the purview of the War Office, and within his sphere as Minister for War.

Order, order! The hon. Member is merely carrying on a debate as to whether these questions should be dealt with by the War Office or the Colonial Office. He has been told that the Colonial Office deals with them, and I think he is now carrying the privilege of putting supplementary questions too far. If he wishes to make any more inquiries he must put his question down.

I can only say that I put my question to the right hon. Gentleman in accordance with a request which he made to me. The hon. Member proposed to address the questions to the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General, but he had left the House.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that an object of the movements in Somaliland is to give a prominent share in the campaign to the Somali levies, who are stated to be without courage, and who require the severest disciplinary measures; and what further information he can give on the subject.

There is no foundation whatever for the statement that the Somali levies are to be given a prominent share in the campaign. There are none employed in General Manning's column. The only Somalis now employed belong to the permanent local battalion of King's African Rifles, and have been left under the orders of the officer commanding the lines of communication in the Protectorate.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what this war is all about?

They cannot.

Order, order!

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the prizes for good lance practice now awarded annually to the non-commissioned officers and men of Lancer regiments are to be discontinued.

At the time when the extra service pay of sixpence a day was sanctioned it was determined to treat twopence of this pay as the reward of increased efficiency in shooting, gunnery, or skill in lance practice, etc.; consequently special prizes will not be given for these services.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will reconsider the question of regiments of Lancers, Dragoon Guards, and Dragoons retaining the lance for active service and ceasing to carry the sword.

This question has been very thoroughly considered by the military authorities, and it would be impossible for me to reopen the decision come to entirely on military grounds.

was understood to ask if the Order had been issued with the approval of the new Inspector-General of Cavalry.

It is most unusual to ask in this House as to what special officer has been cognisant of a particular Order; and I may say, in reply to my hon. and gallant friend, that an entirely erroneous impression was produced on the House the other day by a statement to that effect with regard to the Inspector-General of Auxiliary forces. I have not the sightest doubt that the Inspector-General of Cavalry was fully consulted in this matter.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty can he state the names of the members of the Committee of the highest recognised authorities in the country appointed to assist the Board of Admiralty in dealing with the problems of marine engineering; in what respect does the equipment of the Board require strengthening for this purpose; and how will the exercise of its functions by this Committee affect the action and the responsibility of the Engineer-in-Chief.

The Committee to which my hon. friend refers has not yet been appointed, and no steps will be taken to constitute it until the present Boiler Committee has completed its inquiries. It is believed that it will be an advantage to the Admiralty to obtain the advice of a Committee composed of the highest engineering authorities in the country on such questions as may be referred to it. It is hoped that the Committee will render to the engineering branch of the Navy services similar to those which have been rendered with great advantage by Sir Frederick Bramwell and Sir Benjamin Baker to the Ordnance Branch. The appointment of the Committee will not in any way diminish the responsibility of the Engineer-in-Chief.

Can the hon. Gentleman say when the Committee will be appointed?

No, I cannot.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what are the steps which the Board of Admiralty have already taken to remedy the absence from the Flag List of a due proportion of younger officers; hare these steps been taken in pursuance of the recommendations of the Committee presided over by Lord Goschen; and will he either lay upon the Table the Report of that Committee or the recommendations embodied therein; if so, will he do this before the discussion on the Navy Estimates.

The Report of Lord Goschen's Committee has not yet been fully considered by the Board of Admiralty. It is not, however, proposed to lay the Report upon the Table. Steps have already been taken by the Admiralty to remedy the absenc from the Flag List of a due proportion of younger officers. A certain number of young officers have been added both to the captains' and commanders' lists, and will thus reach flag rank at an earlier age than has lately been usual.

Am I to understand that steps have been taken before the Report of the Committee has been fully considered?

Steps have been taken, but that does not preclude any further steps being taken if it is thought desirable.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, will he state names of the members of the Committee which reported, in 1902, on the increase of the Fleet in commission and reserve in home waters and the consequent congestion of accommodation: and will he lay their Report on the Table, or state its purport before the discussion on the Navy Estimates; and was the selection of the Firth of Forth for the establishment of a Naval base and depot recommended by that Committee in preference to other available sites.

The Committee consisted of Sir William Wharton (hydrographer), Sir James Williamson (Director of Dockyards), Captain G. Patey, R.N. (Assistant Director of Naval Intelligence), Colonel E. Raban (Director of Works), and myself. The Report, which contains other matter than that referred to in the Question, much of which is of a confidential nature, cannot in any case be laid upon the Table of the House before the discussion on the Navy Estimates. Before the introduction of the Naval Works Bill a decision will be arrived at whether this can be done, but no pledge can be given on the subject. The answer to the second paragraph of the Question is "Yes."

I beg to ask the Postmaster General, as representing the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether his attention has been directed to the fact that His Majesty's Governments negotiating contracts for the conveyance of stores to South Africa by vessels owned by companies that are. paying wages below the standard rate for sailors and firemen; and whether, in view of the Fair Wages Resolution of this House, and of the fact that numbers of British seamen who rendered service during the recent war in South Africa are unable to obtain employment on British ships, he can take any steps to secure that such men should receive employment in preference to foreigners.

If the hon. Member refers to shipments by His Majesty's Government this Question should be addressed to the Parliamentary Secretary of the Admiralty; but if he alludes, as I presume be does, to the shipment of stores for the Governments of the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony and for the Central South African Railways, I would point out that any contracts which the Crown agents for the colonies might take for these purposes would not come within the scope of the Resolution of this House to which he refers, and I regret that it is not possible, in the arrangements to which the hon. Member refers, to secure the objects which he has in view.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General, as representing the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he will lay upon the Table a copy of the various ordinances of the late Boer Government in respect to black and white labour in the Transvaal, all changes and new regulations that have been made in these ordinances since the annexation of the Transvaal, and all correspondence on the subject between the Transvaal Government and the Johannesburg Chamber of Mines, or any other persons purporting to be the representatives of the mine owners.

Several of the more important enactments have already been included in the Parliamentary Papers Command 714 and Command 904. I could not undertake to lay all the various Papers asked for, but the laws and proclamations of the Transvaal have been placed in the Library. I have no knowledge of any correspondence of the nature referred to.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Commission, of which Sir C. Scott-Moncrieff is Chairman, appointed by Lord Curzon in 1901 to investigate projects for water storage and irrigation throughout India, began its labours in the latter part of that year, and that evidence was given before it in that year in Northern Guzerat describing several projects for water storage in that province; whether any of these works have yet been put in band; and, if not, whether the Bombay Government can be empowered to undertake them forthwith, so that the rains and surplus floods of the next monsoon may be saved during the current year; and whether any communications that may have been received from Lord Northcote's Government on this subject will be placed before the House at an early date.

The Irrigation Commission, of which Sir Colin Scott-Moncrieff is Chairman, has not yet reported, but the members have stated that "they are very sensible that the question of the extension of irrigation in India, in any large and systematic manner, cannot be treated piecemeal; "and I hold the same view. I have not received any communication from the Government of Bombay as to projects for water storage in Northern Guzerat.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether information has been obtained from India enabling him to state in round numbers how many sovereigns have been paid into the Indian Treasuries for Land Revenue, Customs, or other fiscal payments, since gold coin was made legal tender at the rate of fifteen rupees; also, for the same period, what number of sovereigns have been paid out at the same rate by the departments for the local purchases of materials, stores, salaries, interest, and other State obligations.

Since gold was made legal tender in India £25,282,000 has been received in gold by the Government of India, and £18,825,000 has been issued—viz., £7,000,000 shipped to England and £11,825,000 issued to the public. I am not able to give figures showing the nature of the several transactions in which gold has been used; but I will inquire of the Government of India whether any record has been kept from which any classification of the nature that the hon. Member desires could be prepared.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will agree to give the Return respecting East Africa, &c. (Concessions), notice for which stands on today's Paper.

We are expecting despatches from Africa in the course of a few days, and will then be in a better position to judge whether this Return can be granted.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General whether, in view of Mr. Justice Buckley's decision to direct the Official Receiver, as liquidator of the London and Globe Finance Corporation, to institute proceedings against Mr. Whitaker Wright at the expense of the creditors on the ground that a prima facie case of fraud has been shown, he will now reconsider his decision not to direct the Public Prosecutor to institute the necessary proceedings at the public expense.

May I at the same time ask the Attorney-General whether, in view of Mr. Justice Buckley's decision, he still proposes to introduce new legislation to facilitate the prosecution of persons charged with the publication of a fraudulent balance-sheet.

The answer to the Question of my hon. friend is in the negative. I think the control of these proceedings should remain in the hands of the Official Receiver and of the solicitors and counsel instructed by him. The Government will, of course, take all steps that will be necessary for the purpose of bringing the accused back. With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, I think an amendment of the law in this matter is wanted. A Bill is being drafted, and I trust I shall be in a position at an early period to introduce it.

I beg to ask the Home Secretary, in accordance with notice which I have given privately, why directions were not given, in accordance with practice, to the police to watch the movements of Mr. Whitaker Wright immediately after the preliminary steps; had been taken for the institution of criminal proceedings against him, for the purpose of guarding against any evasion of justice on his part. Why was Mr. Whitaker Wright permitted to leave the country without any attempt by the police to obtain information as to his destination?

The private notice of the hon. Member I found when I came to the House just now, I do not think this is a Question which should be asked without notice. The question of the directions given in this case and the knowledge of the police in search of a fugitive are certainly not matters which can be made public in the interests of justice at the present moment. I am prepared to tell the House what I know, but I cannot prejudice the interests of justice by giving answers likely to defeat the very object we have in view. I stated last night that a warrant for the arrest of Mr. Whitaker Wright was granted at the Guildhall Police-court yesterday morning. It is now in the hands of the City Police for execution. The Metropolitan Police are cooperating with the City Police, and I have satisfied myself that all possible steps have been taken by the two forces to effect arrest. I would repeat that the Government will use every means to that end. The police inform me that Mr. Whitaker Wright has not been at his home since 21st February. The judgment of Mr. Justice Buckley was not given until 10th March, and the prosecution did not apply for a warrant till 11th March.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, after the statement made by the Attorney General that there was no case against him, Mr. Whitaker Wright said, "I think I will go away to Egypt for a time?"

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been directed to the fact that the present accommodation in the Court of Session is inadequate for the public requirements; and whether, seeing that plans showing the requisite additions were prepared by officials in the Board of Works Office nearly twenty years ago, the Government propose to take any immediate steps to remedy the existing deficiency of accommodation.

The question of the additions required to provide for proper accommodation in the Court of Session has been receiving the attention of the Board of Works, and I am hopeful that progress will be made in the matter at no distant date.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, in view of the opinions expressed in regard to death certificates in the Report of the Cremation Committee recently issued, will the Secretary for Scotland consider the expediency of introducing legislation at an early date relative to death certificates in Scotland, especially having regard to the fact that the last published Returns show, that out of 6,620 deaths in the Highland Crofting Counties in one year, no less than 1,479 were uncertified.

The Secretary for Scotland cannot at present undertake to introduce legislation on this subject.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether at the time when the Board suggested that the children in the intermediate department of the High Pavement School, Nottingham, should be sent to All Saints' National School, his attention had been called to the fact that the High Pavement School is more than a mile from All Saints' School, that the bulk of the children proposed to be transferred live on the side of the High Pavement School away from All Saints' School, that the space between the schools is open land, unoccupied and unprotected, and that, owing to the assaults that have taken place on this land, children have been forbidden to. play there. And, whether, in view of the danger the children living on the far side of this unoccupied land may run. in, going to and from All Saints' School, he will reconsider his refusal to allow the School Board to continue, for the purposes of the intermediate school, the temporary use of the rooms which have been so used since August 1892.

From reports in their possession the Board of Education understand that the distance between the High Pavement School and the All Saints' School is not more than half-a-mile, and they have no reason to think that the space between them, though open, is dangerous. As I said on Tuesday,* the All Saints' School was not the only school suggested, though it was especially mentioned by name, as it was known to have a large number of

*See page 266

vacant places. The Carrington Road Board School is also only half-a-mile distant, and the Scotholme Board School is sufficiently near for the children of that school to use the laundry of the High Pavement School. There are, I believe, vacant places in both these schools. The Board of Education, as at present advised, see no reason to alter their decision with regard to the laundry and gymnasium of the High Pavement School, the use of which does not affect that school only. But they will, of course, he prepared to consider carefully any representations which may be made to them on the subject. I may point out that the date at the end of the Question should be August 1902, not August 1892.

Will the hon. Gentleman further inquire as to the distance and nature of the ground between the two schools?

Yes, but I may say I have here information which does not correspond with the description given by the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a licensing case against Mr. Edmond O'Flaherty at the Charleville Petty Sessions on the 2nd instant., and to the evidence and conduct of Acting Sergeant Hourihane: is he aware that the case was dismissed by the unanimous decision of the magistrates; and, in view of the terms in which this policeman alluded to certain traders of the town, will notice be taken of his conduct by the constabulary authorities. I beg further to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the attention of the constabulary authorities has been called to the conduct, on recent occasions, of Acting Sergeant Hourihane, now stationed in Charleville, County Cork; is he aware that this policeman committed an assault on Mrs. James Martell of that town in the month of February, which was duly reported to the district inspector, Royal Irish Constabulary; has his attention been directed to the statements of this constable to a respectable merchant, Mr. Biggane, on his leaving Charleville Petty Sessions Court on the 2nd inst.; and will he say what steps do the constabulary authorities intend to take in regard to this police officer.

The hon. Member has been good enough to send me a newspaper report of the proceedings in this case. Charges have been preferred against the Acting Sergeant (three of them at the suit of Mr. O'Flaherty), which will be investigated by the magistrates in Petty Sessions on Monday next. For the present, therefore, I am debarred from discussing the action of the acting sergeant.

Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire as to whether this constable assaulted Mrs. Martell?

Yes; but as judicial proceedings are pending, I feel debarred from expressing any opinion on the matter.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state when the National Board of Education intend to place teachers in their respective grades according to the new regulations; and will each teacher be placed in the grade not lower than the class he now holds under the old rules.

I am informed that all teachers in the service prior to the 1st April, 1900, came under the new system of gradation in accordance with the terms of Rule 200 (e) and (f), and have been graded accordingly. Classification Las been abolished for all future teachers, and in the case of teachers in the service prior to 1st April, 1900, there is no necessary correspondence between their former classes and their present grades.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether trained teachers will be awarded increments in the case of schools where the general proficiency of the pupils at the annual inspection is described by the inspector as fair, but which suffer from irregular attendance.

The course adopted by the Commissioners in this respect is defined by Rule 200 (b) of the Code. Awards of good service salary will also be contingent on the actual incomes of individual teachers, the average attendance at their schools, and other considerations. Each case will be judged on its merits, subject to the general rules governing all cases.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to a resolution of the Tuam Technical Instruction Committee in December last requesting the County Galway Technical Instruction Committee to allow a sum of £10 a year for rent of a house for technical instruction at Monivea, County Galway; and whether, seeing that this sum was voted by the County Technical Instruction Committee on the 11th December, 1902, will the Department of Technical Instruction raise any objection to the County Committee paying over the sum of £10 to the local Committee.

Provision for the payment of the sum mentioned was not made in the County Technical Instruction Scheme for the year ending July next, which has been approved by the Department. There is no power, there fore, to approve of payment now, but the matter can be adjusted when the scheme for next year is Under consideration.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on the Upper Bann River, County Down, the fishing season closes every year by order of the Coleraine Board of Conservators on 30th September, while in the other County Down rivers the season is open till 31st October by order of the Dundalk Board of Conservators; and whether, in view of the inconvenience caused by the enforcement of the earlier date to the Upper Bann fishermen, and of the refusal of the Coleraine Board of Conservators to accede to the request of the Belfast Anglers' Association to recommend the extension of the time on the Upper Bann, he will arrange for an inquiry to be instituted locally with a view to the extension of the season, or to the transfer of the control from the Coleraine Board to the Dundalk Board.

The facts are correctly stated in the first part of the Question. With respect to the holding of a local inquiry a legal disability exists which the Bill introduced by me last year, but which failed to become law, was intended to remove. The inquiry cannot, therefore, be held until the new Department is empowered by legislation to deal with such questions.

Docs the right hon. Gentleman propose to introduce the Bill?

Yes, if there is any prospect of it passing; but we already have a very heavy legislative programme.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the wife of a policeman stationed in the village of Castletown, Queen's County, has been appointed postmistress there; and, in view of the inconvenience of the premises, whether he will state who recommended this postmistress, and lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the memorial from the inhabitants of Castletown and district recommending Mrs. Murphy for the appointment.

I appointed Mrs. Quinn on condition that she became tenant of suitable premises, and that her husband retired from the constabulary, as I considered her to be the candidate most suitable for the appointment. I cannot comply with the request contained in the latter part of the hon. Member's question.

Had the husband resigned about the time of the appointment of his wife?

The post was offered to the wife on the condition that her husband did resign.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the official who was forced to resign the postmaster-ship of Banbridge, County Down, has been restored to the public service; and, if so, will he state what appointment he now holds, and under what circumstances he has been reinstated.

The officer in question has been appointed Postmaster of Coupar Angus, as I considered that although he had failed in his management of the Banbridge Post Office he might safely be entrusted with the charge of a smaller office.

And this is the only Irish postmasterappointed to aScotch office (luring the last ten years!

Can the Prime Minister state when it is likely that the Irish Land Bill will be introduced?

I think I have already indicated to the House that the Bill is ready, and that we are anxious to introduce it at the earliest possible moment. On the other hand, as the House knows, there are obligations thrown upon the House by the law which obliges us to get through a certain amount of important financial work before the end of the financial year. As soon as that financial work is disposed of I propose that the Irish Land Bill shall be the first business.

said that so far as these debates on the Army question had proceeded the Committee would not differ from him when he said that they had been marked with great good humour and by the absence of personalities, the only exception being the debate on the preceding night, which every Member of the House would no doubt regard with regret. The Government on their part had Accorded those who differed from them on this question of the Army the greatest facility for laying their case before the House and the country, and they were very sensible that the right hon. Gentlemen, the Prime Minister and the Secretary for War, had not desired on any account whatever to prevent these questions being most thoroughly and carefully discussed. He would venture to express the hope that, if the present debate should come to a conclusion that evening, the Prime Minister would afford them another day for discussing the Report Stage. He wished to emphasise, the fact that they were not criticising the action of the Secretary for War; they were criticising his policy, and the right hon. Gentleman would admit that if in the recent reconstruction of the Ministry he had had the fortune, good or bad, to go to the Treasury, he would at this very moment be regarding those whose action he was no doubt, under existing circumstances, strongly disapproving, as praiseworthy, admirable, and proper Members of the Conservative Party. Had any other Minister occupied the position the right hon. Gentleman now did, and were he pursuing the same policy, he would have met with the same hostile criticism. This was a Vote for money, and it brought home with great force the increasing cost of the British Army. If the hon. Gentleman would look back only five or six years he would see that to-day we were spending upon our armaments double the sum which was then thought necessary. We had built up great fortifications; we had organised new regiments; we had purchased all manner of cannon and all means of protection, and what was the result? No one looking at the question as an impartial man could say that we felt to-day more secure than five years ago, or that we had less cause of apprehension from the other nations of the world. The hon. Baronet the Member for Glasgow told them in debate two nights ago that if it were desired to reduce the expenditure the last item to be touched should be the Army. Surely that was not a proper consideration. If any hon. Gentleman could show the same extravagance to exist in other Departments as undoubtedly existed in the Army, he was sure there would be no lack of Members in that House to draw attention to the fact. The view which had been put forward on that side of the House that those who opposed expenditure upon armaments were necessarily unpatriotic could only be compared with the opinion held on the other side of the House that all who supported [the expenditure on education—whether wise or unwise, whether economical or the reverse—were what he might term obscurantists. Such questions must be dealt with on their merits, and there was no reason why those who approached the question of Army expenditure from the point of view of efficiency should be mistrusted because possibly in their hearts they nourished some love of economy. After all economy and efficiency, so far from being antagonistic, were twin sisters. He wished to draw attention to a few facts which a careful study of the Army Estimates could not fail to bring to the attention of hon. Members who cared to spare the time. The first was the fact of the increasing cost of the Army and the diminishing return proportionately for that increasing cost. He would give a couple of instances taken at random from items of expenditure which fell within the scope of that Vote. The Secretary of State for War talked the other day about too little being said regarding the Militia. He would take the case of the Militia now. In the year 1898–9 there were in this country 103,000 Militia, and Lord Lansdowne estimated the cost for that year at £553,000. In the present year, according to the returns presented to Parliament, it was estimated that there were 102,000 Militia, and they were to cost £903,000. It was quite fair and necessary to say that they must deduct £150,000 for what the Prime Minister had called the Great Militia Reserve—the Great Militia Reserve which every hon. Gentleman, according to his right hon. friend, had omitted to thank the Government forcreating, and which wasat present, of course, absolutely non-existent. But £150,000 was taken in the Votes last year for the formation of this Reserve. But, of course, because it was not in existence it was not necessary to utilise that sum. Putting aside the £150,000 for this valuable force, there remained this fact, which he invited the Committee to consider with attention: the Secretary of State for War had invested £200,000 of public money in the Militia, and as the result of this extra investment he produced 1,000 Militiamen less than he had in the days when Lord Lansdowne administered the War Department. That was one instance illustrating the point he was endeavouring to establish—the increasing cost and the diminishing return. There was another point, namely, the expenditure on the War (Mice General Staff. Of course, when they approached this item in the Estimates they did so with a feeling of hope, because they knew that the great scheme of decentralisation had lately been carried into effect, and that, of course, it must produce pro- portionate economy at Headquarters. His right hon. friend the other afternoon said—

"Scarcely a day passes that we do not transfer work and responsibility from Headquarters to the new Army Corps staff, which are created in the country."

Let the Committee look at the first fruits of this policy of devolution and decentralisation. In 1898–9 the cost of the War Office was £215,000; in the present year it was estimated to cost £301,000. That was air increase of £28,000 on last year's Estimates, and an increase of £56,000 or 20 per cent. on the last normal year. He reminded the Committee that this was after a very liberal reduction had been made of £30,000 allowed for the extra expenses incidental to the South African campaign. Of course "the labourer is worthy of his hire," but he ventured to think that the Committee would be of opinion that an increase of 20 per cent. in the clerical staff of the War Office was a wholly inadequate reward even for the great exertions and achievements of that Department during the last few years. When he discovered in the Estimates, which he had examined carefully, this increase of £28,000, he was led at first to believe, indeed, to hope, that it was due to an increase in the Intelligence Department, but when he looked at the Army Estimates he found that the estimated cost of the Intelligence Department, after all the agitation, and in response to the demand that the brain of the Army should not be starved, was £27,428 as against £27,721 in the last year. This great and desirable economy had been effected, he observed from a close examination of the Estimates, fry abolishing one lithographic draughtsman and one superintending clerk, and by substituting two ordinary military clerks.

And also doing away with the Permit Office, which is no longer required.

I will answer the hon. Gentleman later on.

What year?

I wish to explain to the Committee that when numbers are voted by the House they are included in the Estimates, but everybody knows that an addition, a very large addition, was made in the year 1898. I think the number was 17,000 men, and it was mentioned at the time that we could not expect to raise all these Regulars in the same year. The amount voted was the money necessary for the men that we expected to raise, and that was included in the Estimates.

Then the increase was on the Militia Reserve, which would cost £G per man. He was anxious to bring home to the Committee and the country what the ultimate cost of this Army Scheme would be, to which they were committing themselves by associating themselves with this policy. They had had lately a promise of economy in the future, when the Reserve was filed up, which, he thought, was very encouraging, but of which they would never have heard but for the desirable or undesirable signs of revolt which had made themselves felt below the Gangway. How did the Committee imagine the Reserve was to be filled up? The Line battalions were to be kept in a state of efficiency. They were inefficient cadres at 750 but efficient at 800 ! There was very little margin there. But the whole strength of the case, as presented by the right hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister, was that this was the irreducible minimum of men necessary for the defence of the Empire. Let them not delude themselves in this matter. The Reserve was only a shadow of the men with the Colours. The proportion of the men with the Colours was the proportion of the men who would be in the Reserve. The moment the men with the Colours were reduced in order to effect the promised economy, the Reserve which was being piled up would begin to be reduced. It would be doing what the right hon. Gentleman the previous night accused the Liberal Government of doing—living on accumulated stores.

said they could not tell exactly the strength to which the Reserve would grow, because they did not know how many men would join for three years service with the Colours and nine in the Reserve, or for four years with the Colours and eight in the Reserve. Every man who joined for three years' service with the Colours would strengthen the Reserve. If there was a reduction of strength with the Colours, as hinted at the other day, the reduction of the Reserve would, of course, be of some magnitude.

said that the process of the reduction of the Reserve might be slow, but it must come. Another point was, what was the quality of the new Reserve as compared with; the old? Three years was not a very long time in which to train a soldier, and in a few years after passing into the Reserve he would lose much of his acquired habits of discipline and training. He would point out that this Reserve would be on the same level as the conscripts in France and: Germany, with this difference, that whereas the conscripts were taken from the whole of the population, including a considerable proportion drawn from the superior classes, unfortunately our Regular soldiers were drawn from the poorest and least favourably circumstanced of all His Majesty's subjects. He would ask the Committee to look back on the inconsistent and contradictory proposals which had characterised the military policy of the Government for two or three years past. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War came down to the House and proposed the system of five years with the Colours and seven in the Reserve: he would have nothing to say to the three and nine years' system. Last year he adopted the latter system. Then, three years ago, the right hon. Gentleman was convinced that no increase of pay which the House of Commons was likely to grant would result in any very satisfactory increase in the number of recruits for the Army; but last year his right hon. friend, in a most eloquent and convincing speech, insisted that an increase of pay would be of great advantage to the recruiting for the Army. Last autumn a Bill was passed, one part of which proposed to create an Auxiliary force out of the men who had served with the Colours, and another part proposed to create a Reserve from men who had served in the Yeomanry. It might be quite, right to strengthen the Auxiliary forces at the expense of the Regular Army; and it might also be perfectly right to strengthen the Regular Army at the expense of the Auxiliary forces—he did not think so but they should have the two systems at one and the same time. They were told by the most distinguished military advisers, on the authority of the right hon. Gentleman, that every single man asked for was required—that that was the irreducible minimum, but it might be worth while to consider whether, besides being necessary, it was also possible. That brought him to the question of recruiting for the Army, for which the country was paying so much. What kind of an Army was it going to be? The right hon. Gentleman set great store on the Report of the Inspector-General for Recruiting, which was his main stall in all these debates. In that Report it was stated that in the present year 50,753 recruits had been netted, as against 47,039 in the preceding year. That was the greatest number of recruits netted in one year under the short service system. Now, 50,000 recruits was the minimum number with which the right hon. Gentleman could manage his scheme, which only left a margin of 750. If the recruiting did not come up to the right hon. Gentleman's estimates, hopes, and beliefs, then his scheme, however necessary or desirable, was going to fail, and he would have to come down to the House of Commons to make fresh proposals. And if it was going to fail, all this unnecessary increased expenditure should not be gone into. The right hon. Gentleman had got to prove to the Committee that the increased pay asked for would increase the number of recruits and improve their quality. Increased pay operated in two ways. It operated immediately when the people of the country read these debates and read the advertisements of the recruiting agencies. There was another circumstance from which the right hon. Gentleman might get some advantage in the course of two or three years, and that was when it was known that the soldier had more money in his pocket than before, and that the Army was a better place to live in. But these influences had not had time to work. It was the immediate influence which they had to deal with. What was the result of the increase of pay? In paragraph 55 of the Report of the inspector-General of Recruiting it was stated that "recruiting was unsatisfactory for nine months." That was for six months after the right hon. Gentleman made his statement as to increase of pay. But during the last three months of the year, the Report went on to say, "there was a vast improvement." The increase of pay and the increase of recruiting did not synchronise. Increase of recruiting was due to the pressure of want, the approach of winter, and the reservists who had come home from South Africa having been thrown on the labour market. Everybody was trying to give these reservists every advantage in the way of employment, and consequently the avenues to the employment of young men were blocked. The latter had therefore found their way into the Army. It was no exaggeration to say that last year was an exceptional one for recruiting According to his hon. friend's contention the increase of pay would not stimulate recruiting.

said he merely stated that the prospect of increased pay was not sufficient to attract recruits. They wanted the actual pay.

said that that was entirely his point, which was that there was an accretion of men, not in consequence of the increased pay, but because of the pressure of want and winter. He admitted that the right hon. Gentleman had got his recruits; but let the Committee look at the altered condition under which he had got them. In 1901 34,000 recruits enlisted for seven years with the Colours. In 1902 only 9,000 enlisted for seven years. In 1901 8,000 recruits enlisted for three years, and in 1902 38,000 enlisted. That was an exact transposition of the men who enlisted for seven years and for three years. That, of course, was contemplated by the right hon. Gentleman, and was part of his scheme. But let the Committee observe what it meant. In order to compare the recruiting volumes which had been secured during the years 1901 and 1902, he had made a calculation multiplying the number of men who joined by the period for which they enlisted each year. He multiplied one set of men by three years and another set of men by seven years, and the result was that in such a phenomenal and exceptional year of recruiting as 1902 was, they only obtained 208,000 years of service, as against 290,000 years of service in 1901, or a difference of 80,000 years of service. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman expected to be able to induce the men who had enlisted to extend their service. That was a vital question which they had to consider with reference to the sums they were asked to sanction. What would be the alternative before a recruit when he was asked to extend his service. On the one hand, he saw the prospect of going into the Reserve for nine years, during which period he would get 3d. per day for doing nothing, a great advantage in the labour market. On the other hand, he would get 6d. a day extra if he stayed in the Army and went to India. That was a proposition which a young man would think it worth his time to consider very carefully. He would, however, have to decide at the very period when discipline had become a burden, and had not yet become a habit. Many of his friends were returning to civil life; he himself, perhaps, wanted to marry, and was looking forward to life in an English manufacturing town with 3d. a day on which he could count. He would have to decide when to remain in the regiment would involve a change of scene and association, and of everything that would make it desirable for a man to remain in the Army. Would the right hon. Gentleman get a sufficient number of re engagements to make up the deficiency of 80.000 years of service. The figures up to the present were not very encouraging; only 13 per cent. had re-engaged, and he understood that the right hon. Gentleman required 50 per cent. If the right hon. Gentleman failed to make up the deficiency, he would be forced to increase the £27,500,000 sterling, of which he had spoken, by a very large additional bounty to induce the men to make it worth their while to extend their service. There was another point that he wished to submit to the Committee. Short service in the Army, however excellent, affected the Militia. The more the conditions of the Army approximated to the conditions of the Militia, the more recruits would be taken from the Militia for the Army. That was borne out by the figures, which showed that the number of men who joined the Regular Army from the Militia had increased. The right hon. Gentleman, he believed, was less prejudiced against recruits joining the Regular Army through the Militia than recruits joining the Regular Army direct, because, under certain circumstances, it did not impair the appearance of the recruiting returns, as such men, although there was no desire to falsify the returns, must necessarily be counted twice over. If the quantity of the recruits was doubtful, he would ask the Committee to examine, for a moment, their quality. The right hon. Gentleman stated that only 16· 2 per cent. of "specials" had been enlisted, as against 33 per cent. in 1898, and 34 per cent. in 1899. That was one of the figures which, more than anything else, influenced the House during the debate on the Address; and since the debate it appeared that? no more "specials" were to be enlisted. They were absolutely abolished, ruled out of existence by a stroke of the pen; there were no more "specials" in England; they belonged to the dark ages. That was very encouraging. But what was the cause of the abolition of "specials?" The Inspector-General of Recruiting was evidently a man of great ability, with, a certain pleasing ingenuousness of character which made itself felt between the lines of his Report. He stated—

"Owing to the introduction of the new system of medical examination, the number of men specially enlisted has considerably decreased."

Nothing could be plainer. They were not in a position to judge the medical test. He believed the new test was a very elastic one; it meant the inflation of the recruit's chest, and the difference in measurement when his lungs were full of air and when they were not. No doubt that was a very up to-date and a very suitable test. There was only one point in connection with it that was vital. Was the new test as severe as the old test? If it was not, then, of course, all comparison, all statistics, all the rosy accounts in the Report were absolutely valueless. Was it likely that the test was more severe, or even as severe, as it was before? He would ask the Committee to consider one or two things in this connection. First of all, supposing the test was not so severe. His hon. friend made a very excellent speech yesterday, but he regretted that he did not carry it to its logical conclusion in the Division Lobby. His hon. friend told the Committee that 106 "specials" out of 180 men were enlisted in one depot, although they were not specified as "specials" in their attestation papers. That would show that the new test was not as severe as the old test. Let the Committee remember the position in which the right hon. Gentleman was. No one was more concerned in the supply of recruits than the right hon. Gentleman was. The whole of the scheme which he had put forward with so much courage and enthusiasm depended on the supply of recruits. He had an urgent need for men, and was making a larger demand on the same class of the population. They were informed by the Inspector-General of Recruiting that an unpleasant feature of his Report was the gradual deterioration among the working classes, particularly in the towns. That was the class on which the right hon. Gentleman was making a larger demand; yet the percentage of rejections in that class, which was deteriorating, was less than in the previous year. The percentage was 32"22 as against 35. The Inspector-General added that well-educated recruits showed a marked falling off. It was perfectly evident that one of two things must have happened. Either by a stroke of the pen, or by some marvellous feat of legerdemain, the physique of the nation had been universally improved; or, on the other hand, the test by which the nation was being judged at the recruiting offices was easier. He would leave hon. Gentlemen to form their own opinion. He was not in the least convinced by the returns which had been presented, either that the number of men would be attained, or that their quality would be maintained. Nothing in the facts or figures proved that; and unless the right hon. Gentleman was able to prove it, he had better make up his mind, while there was yet time, to' reconsider his Army policy de novo, and rely, as he believed he could rely, on the generosity of the House of Commons, in retracing his steps. If he would abandon, the policy to which he was committed, he would encounter no further opposition, but only silent support, even in the very quarters where he must, otherwise, expect the most relentless, uncompromising opposition and criticism. They had advanced a long way in the consideration of the question, during the debates they had had on the subject. He would like to refresh the minds of hon. Gentlemen as to the various positions which had been successively abandoned. He would not refer to the minor positions. First of all, there was the question of a great Regular Army for home defence. They did not hear much about that now. Then there was the historic phrase which the right hon. Gentleman used at the Colonial Conference against "pitting" the British Army against European troops. "Pitting" was a curious word; and he looked it up, and found that it meant to pit one against the other, as cocks were matched. The idea of "pitting" a small British Army against European troops had now apparently been abandoned. The right hon. Gentleman was so pleased with it, that he used that particular phrase no less than four times in eleven lines. Then they were told of commitments in three continents, two of which had now been disposed of, because after the visit of the Colonial Secretary to South Africa and his effort at conciliation, it would be disrespectful to suggest we should ever again need three Army Corps for South Africa. There remained, therefore, but the Indian continent, but during the course of the debate on the previous night the Prime Minister had considerably whittled down the facts that 120,000 men were needed for the defence of India. Some, no doubt, would be sent to India, and others would be sent to skirmish in other places not specifically defined. He had noticed lately that whenever a division took place on this Army question it was always in its result hailed with loud. Ministerial cheers; but they did not rely on mere numbers, they relied on arguments. It was unfortunately one of the conditions of debate that the divisions were taken by a large number of hon. Gentlemen who had not listened to the debate but, who came in at the last moment and who very often, if the Army policy was ten times as costly and ten times as foolish as the present, would vote for it with equal equanimity, and would most mistakenly encourage the Government to get deeper into the mire. He believed in the arguments used both in the House and through the country, which would build up an enlightened public opinion on the question of Imperial defence, and he believed most of all in the force of circumstances which would make themselves known to the right hon. Gentle- man through the agency of the recruiting officers; circumstances which in the course of a year or two would make the British public regard this scheme with the greatest distrust and disfavour, and place the Government in a position from which they would not be able to extricate themselves without a considerable loss of credit.

said the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had dealt with the financial and economical conditions of the Army Corps. That was a matter in which he did not now propose to follow, but as be might have to go into technical questions he hoped he would not weary the House. He had entered his reduction on the Notice Paper at this particular time, because it was the first place in the Army Estimates in which the words Army Corps were mentioned. It was not to be found anywhere in tin; previous Vote, nor in the index, and only once in the body of this Vote, all other references being in the appendices. He urged upon the House that if these Army Corps were really to be genuine Army Corps, all the Estimates relating to numbers, pay, trains, and services should be reframed, and the amounts divided up among the different Army Corps, so that hon. Members might be able 10 know what the expenditure of these Army Corps really was, and judge for themselves. In the Vote under discussion there was a vote for general staff's, but those staffs were not split up into the divisions in which they were to be placed in the Army Corps; they were ail lumped together in such a way as to make it impossible to separate the items. After a very careful consideration of this system, extending over two years, he believed, from a military point of view, it was unworkable, and utterly unsuited to the needs of this country, and, from a Parliamentary point of view, it was a scheme possibly fraught with grave danger to the Constitution. These were no doubt strong opinions to put forward at this time, and hon. Members might well ask why they were not put forward two years ago, when this scheme was introduced, but it would be remembered that on that occasion the Resolution was, after considerable discussion. closured, and the main question put; had it only been closured far enough to admit of Amendments he would have moved to change these six Army Corps into three or four military commands, and have taken the sense of the House upon it. The history of this scheme showed that it was the child of panic, and when the returns and the Army List were examined it would be found that these Army Corps were nothing more nor less than the grouping together of district commands. As a matter of fact, the right hon. Gentleman had commenced his Army reform from the top instead of the bottom: he had started at the roof instead of the foundations. What he ought to have done was to group the units together in brigades, arid to have grouped the brigades in divisions, and in this way have arrived at divisions properly organised, and that having boon done, it probably would have been found advisable not to proceed further with the scheme of organisation. He did not deny that with careful organisation it would be possible to have real Army Corps in these districts, but it would be a task of extraordinary difficulty, rendered greater by the re-organisation having begun at the top instead of the bottom. But suppose these Army Corps had been successfully organised; upon that subject he would like to ask two questions. Assuming the Army Corps to be organised, were the district commands to remain much the same as the old district commands, or were they to be thoroughly le-orgauised both as to area and as to the troops, so as to form true divisions of an Army Corps system? Then, according to the White Paper, there were a certain number of battalions belonging to the Army Corps still abroad. Suppose one of these battalions returned home, and with ten or twelve years to serve in the United Kingdom before going abroad again, would that battalion spend the whole of that period in the particular Army Corps command in which it was located on its return, or would it be shifted, according to the requirements of the home Army, from one command to another? If the latter, it would be totally destructive of an) 'reality in the Army Corps system. That this matter had possibly not been thought out was shown by the Return of the Army Corps, in which the units were scattered about, some belonging to one command being stationed in another, many units not yet returned, and there being absolutely no mention whatever of trains, services, or any of the accessories which made up the reality and mobility of an Army Corps. If the Secretary of State had really understood what an Army Corps was, he could not possibly have furnished such a Return to Parliament. The House of Commons ought to insist, in future, whenever there was a Return of an Army Corps command, that it should 'be a real, and not merely a paper Return. If a board of directors advertised a universal railway in the United Kingdom, and it was then found that they had scattered groups of rolling stock dotted about the kingdom, but no locomotives or permanent way, would it not be thought that those directors were absolutely ignorant of the duties they had to perform? These Army Corps were very much in that position. The units were dotted about the country in groups, but there was no permanent way—which, in the case of an Army Corps, was the trains and services—or locomotives, there being no commissariat in the Return, and an Army, as all knew, marched on its. stomach. What did the right hon. Gentleman look forward to in case of war when these Army Corps had been mobilised and sent away? The problem was much simpler in Germany. There no man was called up for military service until he was twenty years of age. He then served three years with the Colours and four years with the Reserve, followed by thirteen years in the landwehr, from which he was drafted into the landsturm. Hence in peace time there were men of three different years with the Colours, so that on mobilisation two-thirds were available for war, and only one-third had to be replaced. In the Reserve there were soldiers of four different years, or one-third more than the peace establishment with the Colours, so that the Reserve filled up the fighting units to overflowing. Behind that was the land,-wehr, which was more than double the fighting force of the field army. The German system was built on that one foundation. Every man went through the same drill, and therefore took his place with the fighting unit with the same experience behind him. How could that system be compared with our mixed system of Regulars. Militia, Yeomanry, and Volunteers. It was absolutely impossible for it to be so adapted as in any way to approach the perfection of the German system. When the three Army Corps of Regulars, filled up with Reservists, were mobilised, the men would be taken from the parts most exposed to invasion, and the Committee ought to know how they were to be replaced. Supposing the Army Corps had been in existence, in what way should we have been more ready for the wars of the past? How should we have been in a better position on the outbreak of the South African War? The ranks could only be filled up by mobilisation, for under this scheme he did not see how there was to be an efficient fighting force which could be instantly sent abroad. An Army Corps was a complete little army in itself, and to have mobilised one when affairs were so strained in the Transvaal would have been tantamount to a declaration of war. The only force of any use would have been some brigades, which could have been quietly shifted into the garrisons on the frontier without attracting more than ordinary attention. Before the Committee permanently undertook this great responsibility, the practical advantage that was to accrue ought to be proved. It was assumed that the number of the auxiliary Army Corps would remain at three. If there was to be a real and complete organisation of our Auxiliary forces, there would have to be, not three, but twelve or thirteen Army Corps, for a mixed system, composed partly of Army Corps, could not be efficient. Such an organisation, he believed, would be a dangerous military machine in this country. It was sometimes said that those who opposed the scheme were disappointed military critics, or men with fads of their own, but he ventured to say that they had behind them a constantly growing body of public opinion, founded not upon professional criticism, but upon a distrust of a standing Army and militarism. The people of the country, looking forward to the time when there would be these highly-organised military units, saw in them a possible danger to their constitutional liberties. Let one too powerful subject arise, and he might use this great organisation to seize supreme power. Two years ago the House adopted the Army Corps system without understanding it, but it was not yet too late to turn back. The House was a strong one; strong men ac knowledged their errors; only the weak and effeminate were afraid to do so. Before it was too late, and before they burdened the nation with this ever-increasing expenditure, he earnestly urged upon the Committee to turn back now, and declare that instead of having these Army Corps they would have an extension of the old constitutional system. In Ireland there was a Commander-in-Chief responsible for the troops there; let this be extended to the United Kingdom and two other such military commands created, and let there be within them Brigades and Divisions organised as highly as possible, but have nothing greater than a Division, and in such a system he was sure they would find constitutional safety, and an organisation which would be best fitted for the needs of the whole Army.

said he wished to move a reduction upon this item. There was an enormous increase in the expenditure under this new system, and it would go on year after year, becauseas these Army Corps developed the efficiency of the Army would have to be developed as well, and consequently the whole of the expenses would increase. The Reserves would increase, and so would the staffs and stores which would be necessary to make up these real Army Corps. The reaction against this expenditure had already begun, and if the Government went on increasing their expenditure, in spite of the feeling in the country, there was not the slightest doubt that the day would come when this reaction would be so strong that not only would these large items for Army Corps be put down, but the expenses of the Army would be largely reduced to a dangerous extent, and possibly the same thing would apply to the Navy. He was sure that all who had the welfare of the Empire at heart would like to avoid such a result. The hon. Member for Oldham had pointed out a good many things that were not included in the Estimates, and he wished to point out that the ranges had not been provided for. If they continued increasing this expenditure reaction was sure to come, unless they could show that they were making economies in other directions. A reduction could be made on the staff as it existed, but instead of this they were proceeding to greatly increase the staff. He noticed on page 7 of the Estimates a permanent increase of £5,000 a year. But what ought to have been done in this case was to decrease the expenditure by at least four times that amount. It might be said that all these large staffs were not required except for the purpose of giving instruction to the men. A man did not get instruction in commanding troops, and he did not learn the art of war by being the general in command at Gibraltar or Malta. Therefore, these were not the men they wanted to teach the work of generals. They wanted to teach the young men these duties, and not the young men who had earned their laurels. The men of the future were those they wanted to teach. One of the great advantages put forward for this new system of having an extra staff for' this division was that the men should get accustomed to the officers in command. He thought the men would see very little of the general in charge of their Army Corps, but the people they wanted to get accustomed to were the brigadiers. Under this new system, however, they could never make a brigadier a permanent brigadier, for they would be continually changed. If they had all the brigadiers appointed to the different brigades they would not get the men permanently accustomed to them. The really important point which ought to have been observed in the formation of these Army Corps was to form permanent brigades of troops, and send out the drafts in brigades instead of battalions. Then they could train their brigadiers and men regularly together. The new system of Army Corps had also another defect. Under the old system they had before them a much better scheme, because this country had very often to send from one to six battalions abroad at once. An Army Corps would not help them to do this. Under the old system at Aldershot the regiments were ready to go to India, and they always had a certain number of troops up to war strength. Under this new Army Corps system the Regulars would be distributed in the various Army Corps, and they would not be under the same brigadiers as would be sent abroad. The men would be selected from the different commands and they would not be together as under the old system at Aldershot. He believed this item was the one upon which a reduction could most easily be carried out in the least time, and with the least injury to the Army. By this reduction they would not take away one efficient man. With regard to the officers and the staff he thought it had been shown in South Africa that the men who had had the most training had continually failed, and the men who had had little training had been successful over and over again. If it had been shown that this new scheme would improve the staff and teach them the actual art of war, he thought there would have been a great claim for not reducing this Vote. He thought a reduction was absolutely necessary, and he begged leave to move the Motion standing in his name. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A, Pay, etc., of General Staff, be reduced by £60,000."—(Mr. Courtenay Warner.)

said that in his opinion it was unfortunate that the words "Army Corps" had been used in connection with the schemeinstead of the word "Commands" He thought it would have been better to have included in the Divisions, Cavalry Brigades, Artillery and Engineer commands all troops, whether Regular, Militia, or Volunteers, and to merely indicate those of the Army Corps associated with the command by an asterisk or in some other way. He had no doubt, however, that the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman, would come all right. He only hoped that the staff would be cut down to whatever was necessary for the duties they had to perform.

thought those who were opposed to the system of Army Corps ought to support the Amendment for the reduction of this Vote. He wished to call attention to three increases which were of the same character, and amounting in all to about £20,000. It was essential that the Committee should be aware how the increase in the expenditure arose, because, as the hon. Member for Oldham had pointed out, by the adoption of the Army Corps system they were not at the end, but the beginning, of a very large expense. There were now four more major generals, the number being increased from twenty-eight to thirty two, the increase on the Estimates being £4,470; there were thirteen additional colonels on the staff—forty-nine against; thirty-six—increasing the Estimates by nearly £10,000; and there were thirteen additional deputy assistant quartermaster generals—forty-one against twenty-four—increasing the Estimates by £6,658. These additions to the charge for "Pay, etc., of General Staff" were consequent upon the additional officers required under the Army Corps system. Of course, having adopted the Army Corps system, they must look to the fact that a great many more general officers would be employed. One of the reasons why the Secretary of State for War asked Parliament to adopt the system was that it would mean a policy of decentralisation. He was the last person to object to any policy of decentralisation which could possibly be carried out. The light hon. Gentleman referred yesterday to the larger powers which had been given to commanding officers, but such powers, he thought, might have been conferred on the Generals formerly commanding Districts. What was the difficulty in entrusting Generals of Districts with powers to enter into contracts for forage, for repairs, for transport, or matters of that kind? If such powers had been conferred on them it would not have been necessary to have this enormous increase in the pay of the General Staff. There was one point on which he desired an answer with respect to the financial department, and that was whether any arrangement had been made whereby the innumerable returns sent to she War Office to be audited would be dispensed with in future. Ho understood that it was intended to submit pay lists to a financial officer in the district, who would be able to give them a final audit. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to tell the Committee that the audit in the division would be the final audit. On the general question of the Army Corps system, he agreed with those who thought it was not suited for this country. One of the great objects which the right hon. Gentleman had in view, namely, that the men should become accustomed to their commanders, could not be carried out under a system in which they brought out the regiments only by employing lie serve men. Of the wars in which this country engaged, 99 out of 100 were wars in which only a small force was employed. If they sent a brigade to Ashanti, or a division to South Africa, that was as much as they could possibly want. But to do so, is to break up the Army Corps system. Was the Army Corps system suited to times of peace? In times of peace they had to send out continual drafts of troops to the colonies, and for that reason the integral units could not be kept up at all. Again, as to the Militia and Volunteers. Up to the present time our system for the Auxiliary forces had been a county system, and he was very doubtful, indeed, whether the new system of Army Corps was suited to the wants of the Militia Volunteers. He believed it would be a dangerous and expensive one, and he was very glad that the hon. Member for Lichfield had taken this opportunity of pointing out that there would be a very great increase for the cost of the staff, and for the building of barracks.

said he desired at once to disclaim any right to address the Committee on the Army Estimates from the expert point of view. He did not pretend or claim to have behind him any of those authorities to which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had referred. He did wish, however, to ask his right hon. friend a very plain and simple question, and one on which he hoped he would be able to give an equally plain answer. When the hon. Member for Whit by moved an Amendment to the Address, condemning the whole Army system, he voted against him, because, according to immemorial practice, an Amendment to the Address was regarded as involving a question of confidence in the Government. He had no desire to replace the Secretary of State for War and the Financial Secretary to the War Office by any of the Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite. Though hedisagreed with some of the suggestions that had been made by the Secretary of State for War, he was quite certain that he had done the work in a much more complete and efficient manner than the hon. Gentleman sitting on the Front Bench opposite would have done. As to the whole question of the Army Corps system, whether it was to be continued in the future or not, and whether the cost of the system was to be reduced or not, the First Lord of the Treasury pointed out that it would be folly to reduce the numbers of the Army at a time when our Reserves were very low.

said that the hon. Member must confine his remarks to Vote A.

said he was sorry he had transgressed the ruling of the Deputy-Chairman, but he had understood that he could discuss the whole question of the Army Corps system on this Vote. He would reserve his remarks to another occasion.

said that there was a great deal of information, more than had yet been given, which should be supplied to the Committee to enable hon. Members to form a correct judgment on the question before them. For instance, he entirely failed to see the effect on the new Army Corps of our financial system. For instance, on page 125, the details of the general staff for home service were given:—" Commanding Army Corps, six generals." Three of them, the generals commanding the First, Second, and Third Army Corps were full generals, and the other three were lieutenant-generals. The pay of the first three generals was £2,928 each per annum, with, he presumed, house accommodation and allowances, and that of the three lieutenant-generals was £2,013 per annum. He wanted to know if that pay included all the money these generals received from the country?

said that the generals of the first three Army Corps would be paid as generals, with certain allowances as well. The officers who might be appointed to command the other three Army Corps would be paid as lieutenant-generals. In point of fact these were not all new appointments.

said that his next question was a practical one. When he looked at the Army List he found that the staff of the Army Corps at Aldershot had been fully constituted. General French was the Commanding Officer, with twenty-one officers on his staff, and two additional officers detached from the War Office. Now that was a much larger staff than existed at Aldershot under the previous system. Was it intended that, under the new system, there should be this large permanent staff at Aldershot? It looked to him as if they were going to have as large a staff at Aldershot as if the Army Corps there were going on a war expedition on the morrow. Was it absolutely necessary that such a large staff should be maintained in time of peace? He was not for a single moment suggesting that the salaries of the generals were excessive.

said that the discussions on the Estimates were mainly useful, not for the purpose of turning out the Government, but of obtaining information from them, and for that purpose he had risen. Tins Vote for the pay of the General Staff included the Vote for the pay of the Inspector-General of Remounts. Major General Truman, he believed, was that officer's name. Now, that general and his conduct had been very considerably canvassed in this House some time last year; and a strong disposition had been manifested on the part of the House to hold that general responsible for the tremendous mistakes he had made in the conduct of the Remount Department. As a consequence of these remarks in this House, the Commander-in-Chief sent for the Inspector-General of Remounts and told him, as was known officially, that he was an incompetent officer, and dismissed him. After that, General Truman was granted a court of inquiry. As to what that court of inquiry had done, or the conclusion it arrived at, the Committee had no information whatever. He believed he was right in saying that the inspector-General of Remounts who figured in this Vote was General, or a sort of General, Truman, and he wished the Secretary of State for War to tell the Committee, if he could, under what circumstances General Truman was dismissed by the Commander-in-Chief, and had been allowed to remain in this employment, and whether it was proposed to maintain him in this employment? Then he wanted to ask a question in regard to the Military Attaches. There were ten of them, at £800 a year each. Could the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee where each of these Military Attaches was now placed, and specially, he would like to know whether the Military Attache at Vienna was the same as was at that post for the last year or two; because he was the man who had suffered a stigma at the hands of General Truman when he offered to advise him in regard to Austrian and Hungarian horses, and whom General Truman refused to consult? Then there were six aides-de-camp to the King, at 10s. 6d. a day each. On what grounds were these aides-de-camp selected? Of course, if they were His Majesty's selection, he had nothing to say; but if not, on what sort of principle were they selected—on the ground of merit, or what other ground?

said it was inconvenient to have to answer questions on one portion of a statement, which had been made so absolutely bound up with the whole general question of the Army, and therefore the Committee would excuse him if he were short in dealing with particular questions of detail. The question of the staff of the Army had been one of those most prominently brought forward, not only at the beginning, but throughout the whole of the South African War. There was a feeling that it was not only a staff ready to go abroad that was necessary, but that we had not left behind a staff which would be able to organise the further troops required to be sent abroad. Surely their object ought to be to lay themselves out to improve the system. Under the Vote granted the previous day, they were allowed to consider that they had three Army Corps which they might send abroad, and surely they should take in the Estimates a Vote for a further staff, when the head staffs of the three Army Corps went abroad, which they would be able to call into existence and use and amplify for any future emergency that might arise ! That was the object for which this money had been taken in the Estimates. The only real criticism that had been made was as to whether this staff should be allocated in such divisions as was most likely to control efficiency, and incidentally to effect such economies as they looked and hoped for from the distribution of the various commands. The right hon. Member for Walsall asked why decentralisation only applied to the commanders of Army Corps—why not to commanders of divisions or brigades?

said the words he used were "District Commanders." What he had in his mind was the generals in command at Aldershot and York under the old system.

said he thought he was right when he said the right hon. Gentleman referred to generals of Division. He was against decentralising to generals of Division. He was certain that the more they decentralised from the War Office the better would it be; but the fewer hands that decentralisation was in, the better would be the result. To decentralise to the six generals in command of the six Army Corps would, to his mind, result in efficiency. It would not be cheaper, perhaps, than the present system, but it would put into the hands of commanders of Districts the power of making contracts, of buying forage, and in regard to buildings—which latter would result, he was certain, in an expenditure largely in excess of that which now existed. With regard to decentralisation, the best example he could possibly give was that of Salisbury Plain. He did not think that anyone who had not seen the work done by Sir Evelyn Wood could realise the enormous advantages, not only of the decentralisation which had been given to him in the way of money and other matters, but also the benefit they had derived by the suggestions he had made. That showed them most clearly how very much further they might proceed, by degrees, with decentralisation. At the present moment, naturally, the staffs were large, both at the War Office and at the various Army Corps centres; but he had not the slightest doubt that, as the machine began to work easier—and it was working easier every day—and when the arrears of the war had been cleared off, there would be a substantial reduction, not in the expenses of the Army Corps districts, but in the staffs of the War Office, from which they proposed, as far as possible, to decentralise all matters of finance. The whole argument of his hon. and gallant friend was that it was not necessary to have this General Staff. When he thought of what his hon. and gallant friend had said, he could hardly see how his hon. and gallant friend could make his arguments square with his speech on the 13th of March, 1900. His hon. and gallant friend then said that in all questions connected with making this large force efficient, the necessity for combining all the smaller units by means of constant inspection throughout the country should be borne in mind; and that if that could not be done by the Headquarters Staff it should be done by the commander of the District. At the present time, he continued, the General Staff was divided into the number of different Districts; that was an old-fashioned arrangement; and if the Government wanted to make the Army really efficient, they should go to the very root of the matter and look into the reorganisation of the General Staff.

said his argument was that they should abolish the Army Corps, but keep the Divisions. He thought a Division was entirely compatible with what the noble Lord had just read.

said that surely when his hon. and gallant friend talked of combining the smaller units, he meant combining regiment with regiment, and brigade with brigade, that they should have a staff prepared to deal with the whole of the force they might have to send abroad, and that they should not have a staff made up, so to speak, piecemeal when the time came; that they should not have a staff for 10,0) 0 men, another for 10,000 men, and a third for 10,000 men, so that when it was necessary to send 30,000 men abroad there would be a mixed-up staff which would be called a general staff.

said he thought the noble Lord had entirely misunderstood his argument. The noble Lord must be well aware that a Division consisted of brigades and regiments. The only difference was that in an Army Corps they grouped, two or three, or four Divisions. It was the Army Corps organisation he wanted to get rid of, not the Divisions. The noble Lord did not appear to know the difference between a Division and a District.

said his contention was that they wanted to have an Army Corps ready as a unit to send abroad, and that when it was sent abroad they should not have what the right hon. Baronet called in 1900 a scratch staff drawn from all parts of the Kingdom, with the result, as the right hon. Baronet said, that when a number of individuals were suddenly thrown together there was certain to be friction on all hands. That was the very thing they were trying to avoid. They were endeavouring to get a staff which would be able to work, in time of war as well as in time of peace, without the inevitable friction of which the right hon. Baronet spoke. The whole secret of Army organisation was that they should have a force which could be increased in time of war by the Reserves. But there was one thing they could not have too large, and that was the staff, on whose organisation the whole success of an expedition would depend. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Lichfield Division said they could not send away a trained staff because they had not got one. That was perfectly true; and it was precisely because they had not got a trained staff that they were asking for that Vote, not one penny of which he felt sure would be wasted, either in time of peace by the officers being instructed in staff duties, or in time of war by the extra efficiency that would be given to any force that would be sent abroad.

said the noble Lord had not answered one of his Questions.

said he would be glad to answer his hon. friend. His hon, friend asked a Question with regard to General Truman. The account which his hon. friend gave of the proceedings when General Truman was attacked in that House was not quite accurate. What happened was that Lord Roberts impressed on General Truman the necessity for him to clear himself of the errors committed, and gave him an opportunity of having his action considered by a Court of Inquiry. His hon. friend was quite in error in saying that the House knew nothing about the Report of that Court of Inquiry, because it was laid before Parliament and excited considerable comment.

said that what he stated, and he believed he was right, was that there was a Court of Inquiry on which a debate took place in this House, and on the morrow of that debate Lord Roberts sent for General Truman, informed him he was an incompetent officer, and dismissed him. Subsequently General Truman claimed a Court of Inquiry. That Court of Inquiry was held, but they had heard nothing of it.

said his hon. friend was in error. Lord Roberts unquestionably sent for General Truman, and informed him that he had either to meet the allegations against him, or that it would be impossible for him to continue to hold his office. General Truman elected to face a Court of Inquiry, and a court was accordingly appointed. The mistake into which his hon. friend had fallen was that he thought the Report of that court had never been laid before Parliament, but it had. With regard to military attaches, there were permanent military attaches in Paris, Berlin, Vienna, St. Petersburgh, Constantinople, Rome, and Pekin; and temporary military attaches in Tokio, Brussels, and Washington. His hon. friend asked a Question with regard to A.D.C's., but as those appointments were made by His Majesty be did not propose to offer any remarks with regard to them. With regard to the question of the staff, he would undertake to say that nobody in the past had done as much as he had, to cut down unnecessary appointments. When he first went to the War Office, sixteen or seventeen years ago, there were on the staffs of general officers a number of officers for whom proper employment could not be found. There was nothing more difficult in his experience—and he believed it was the experience of every Department—than to cut down existing appointments. He remembered the first year he was at the War Office they cut down £20,000 worth of unnecessary appointments, such as a general officer having two military secretaries, who could not possibly find work. What they had now done was totally different. As he explained two years ago, and he did not think there was a dissentient voice regarding it then, they had taken £60,000 for a staff; but it was a staff for the organisation of the Army whether at home or ready to take the field. The sum for the staff for the organisation of the Army at home and abroad included a number of services as to which there had been no question before. He quite understood that hon. Members who voted last night to cut down 27,000 men might well say the staff must be cut down to the equivalent of the number of men who were cut down; but he was sure that hon. Members would not say that, having added 54,000 Regular troops to the Army and 11,000 colonials, they would refuse a staff to keep these men efficient. He was quite sure that they would admit that so long as a certain force was maintained a proper staff must be maintained. He would take one case in particular. Nobody had proposed to cut down the sixty six batteries of artillery which had been added to the Army, and if they had sixty-six extra batteries of artillery they must have a colonel who had a certain command of artillery, and could man oeuvre these batteries in sufficient bodies, and the staff of the artillery must be considerable. He urged hon. Members also to consider the question of the better organisation of the Auxiliary forces. Up to a few years ago there was no general officer who was charged in any way with the surveillance of the organisation of the Auxiliary forces; it was a thing of quite modern growth. He would take the case of the Second Army Corps. While, on the one hand, Sir Evelyn Wood had made more savings in the course of one year than would pay for the whole of his salary and that of several of his staff officers in that district, on the other hand his staff officers were dealing during the whole of last drill season with 30,000 or 40,000 men, chiefly Volunteers and Militia, brought temporarily on to the Plain for training. The staff of the Second Army Corps would be cheap if it was only devoted to training that large number of Auxiliary forces who had now a definite peace in the Army scheme, and who, it was said on all sides, should be used to the utmost for home defence. With regard to the actual commanders of Army Corps, he thought they figured in the Estimates for £12,000 a year. No one should run away with the false impression that that was all in addition to the ordinary expenditure. The general officer commanding in Ireland had actually the same pay as he received before. The general officer commanding at Aldershot had an addition to his pay, because nobody at Aldershot was able to make both ends meet. The general officer commanding in Scotland had for a long period been paid as a lieutenant-general, and received the same pay now. The general officer commanding at York had always been paid as a major-general, and when the appointment was made—it was not made yet—he would be paid as a lieutenant-general. Therefore, out of the six appointments in regard to which this £12,000 a year on the Estimates was objected to, four were appointments already existing. The two new appointments were Salisbury Plain, which he hoped, quite apart from the Army Corps scheme, he might claim to be necessary for the largely increased training of the Auxiliary forces which took place there every year, and the London command just about to be formed, which he justified above everything on the same ground, because there were sixty-five battalions of Auxiliary forces which would come under Lord Grenfell. Without such an officer it was absolutely impossible for the War Office to receive reports and to obtain the organisation of the immense number of Auxiliary units that were comprised in that command. These sixty five battalions, reaching about 50,000 men, was work enough for one man alone. For that reason he hoped, if a division was pressed on this question of the staff, it would be understood that it was by no means a development simply for these Army Corps; it was for services which, whether there were Army Corps or not, would have to be carried out; it was to enable them to provide, as they had provided, each of the districts with mobilisation officers who were engaged on work which had not hitherto been performed, but which Lord Roberts found effective in the field in the late war. That was his case, and he hoped hon. Members who desired the efficiency of the, Army would consider these points before recording their votes.

said he only wanted to ask one question. Upon the introduction of his scheme in 1901, the right hon. Gentleman had laid it down as a principle upon which the whole scheme rested, that the officers to whom command of the Army Corps were given should be the officers to command them in time of war. The First Army Corps was commanded by General Sir John French, who would no doubt command it in time of war, but the Second Army Corps was commanded by an officer of whom the British nation was proud, and who had made Alder-shot the seat of military instruction, but who had reached rather an advanced age. Would that officer, and the lately appointed general officer for the Fourth Army Corps, in case of an outbreak of hostilities, proceed abroad in command of their respective Army Corps? He also wished to know whether General Truman was still serving at the War Office.

said, after the report of the Committee of Inquiry to Lord Roberts, Lord Roberts decided that the Report distinctly exonerated General Truman from any neglect in the discharge of his duties. The Committee made some criticisms on the way in which those duties were discharged, but spoke highly of the manner in which General Truman had met the call made upon him, and they more especially pointed out that he was in no way connected with a large proportion of the questions of remounts on which very serious difficulties had occurred. General Truman returned to his work, which he had only given up temporarily during illness, and his five year appointment would expire, he thought, in January next. Until that time he would hold the appointment of Inspector-General of Remounts. The hon. Member asked him whether he had kept his pledge with regard to the appointment of Army Corps commanders. Sir Evelyn Wood was now at the age of sixty-five, and his period of command at Salisbury Plain would continue until, he thought, 1st October of next year. Before he appointed Sir Evelyn Wood to that command, on the recommendation of the Commander-in-Chief, he obtained from the Commander-in-Chief a distinct assurance that, in case of war, he considered Sir Evelyn Wood not only competent, but the most competent man to command that Army Corps in the field. What he said in regard to Sir Evelyn Wood he would say in regard to Lord Grenfell. The reason why neither of them was employed in the South African war was, of course, in the first instance, that Sir Redvers Buller was appointed Commander-in-Chief. Both Sir Redvers Buller and Sir Evelyn Wood could not be appointed, and as Sir Evelyn Wood was senior to Sir Redvers Buller, it would not have been usual for him to go out under Sir Redvers Buller. Later in the war few opportunities occurred of detached commands. Sir Evelyn Wood wished to serve in South Africa. We communicated with Lord Kitchener, who had served under Sir Evelyn Wood in Egypt, and he at once said he was prepared to serve under Sir Evelyn Wood, but could not consent to have so distinguished a soldier serving under him. Lord Kitchener's position was such that it would certainly have seemed like a withdrawal of confidence if he had been in any way superseded. The same argument applies to Lord Grenfell. He also had commanded the Egyptian Army with Lord Kitchener under him. Lord Grenfell at the time was holding the very important appointment he is about to vacate, and it would have been extremely difficult to withdraw him. I can truly say that both these officers were considered admirably fitted to serve in South Africa, and both of them would most unquestionably command their Army Corps in the field, or, if the House refused to continue the title of "Army Corps," and they could only command Districts, they would undoubtedly be put in command in case of emergency.

, who said he quite understood the advantage of the Army Corps system so far as decentralisation was concerned, asked whether, at the present time, the officers in command of Army Corps were receiving any training other than that they had before the introduction of the system in 1901, and whether at Aldershot they had opportunities of acquiring that special knowledge of the handling of troops that they would require in time of war by the Army Corps being used as Army Corps.

contended that as the Amendment to reduce the number of men had been defeated it would be absurd to reduce the General Staff'. A little knowledge was a dangerous thing, and he protested against the endeavour of "budding Wellingtons" and "sucking Napoleons," after three months' service in South Africa, to rule the War Office. The General commanding the Second Army Corps was the best possible man for the post, and if any reduction were carried by which his position would be affected, a gross injustice would be inflicted on the Army and on the country at large. The amount asked for was not a farthing too much. How could the generals be expected to incur the great expenditure involved by their position without adequate pay? He hoped the military Members of the House would rally as one man in support of proper provision being made for the General Staff of the Army.

said that so far as this Amendment was intended to reduce the expenditure on that part of the General Staff necessitated by the Army Corps system, those Members who were challenging the military policy of the Government felt bound to support it. They differed from the Government on certain fundamental principles, and, although they might be altogether wrong, they had arrived at their conclusions after long and careful consideration. These conclusions had been forced on many of them in the field of war, and were sincerely held. One was in regard to the relative expenditure of the Army and Navy. And so far as the Army Corps system involved increased expenditure they felt bound to oppose it. Another ground of objection was that there were only a certain number of recruits available, and a greater number could be obtained only by reducing the standard of physique and morale. A further contention was that greater reliance should be placed on the Volunteer force of the country. No one suggested that complete reliance should be placed on that force without giving them time to be so organised and improved as to be able to take up the burden.

reminded the hon. Member that a reduction had been moved on a particular item, and that until that reduction had been disposed of the general question could not be discussed.

said that on these general grounds they felt bound to oppose the extra expenditure on the Army Corps staff, but so far as the scheme tended towards decentralisation and the bringing in of Auxiliary forces they were simply friendly critics of the Government. As the question of individual commanders had been raised, he might say that in his judgment there was no one more fit to command the second Army Corpsthan Sir Evelyn Wood. But that raised the question of whether the War Office could hope to carry out the principle that the men who commanded the Army Corps in time of peace should also command them in time of war. That proposition sounded very well, but it could not really be sustained in practice. In order to get officers to serve in the Army they must be given a career, possibly a long and distinguished career, and, with few exceptions, and one very brilliant exception, officers over a certain age were unable to stand the hardships of modern war. If that were so, and they laid down the principle that only those officers should command these great home districts in time of peace who would command them in time of war, the War Office would eliminate from their service the very men of experience and ability whose services they would wish to retain. The position with regard to the actual Army Corps was this. As to the First Army Corps, they might say that was reasonable and should stand. In the case of the Second Army Corps, which extended from Milford Haven to Dover, it; was contended that they could not expect any man, even with the wonderful energy of the present Commander, to supervise so widely an extended district.: That was a very real difficulty which he suggested might be altered and remedied by a different allocation of the Army Corps. But there also remained another difficulty. The Army Corps to which he alluded was composed entirely of Regular troops destined to go abroad at once if required. In the district from Milford Haven to Dover there was a large number of Auxiliaries, and they would have to conduct the correspondence through the Army Corps. It was plain that in the event of war the whole of the Regular troops, or what had been called the stiffening of this Army Corps, would disappear and the whole of the General Staff would also join. Consequently in such a case the Army Corps in the South of England would not only be deprived of that organisation which they had been told was so essential to efficiency, but it would also be deprived of that stiffening on which the new system so much relied. It could not be denied that that was really the case. Those difficulties might be avoided by another method of distribution. The Army Corps in Scotland and York could retain their organisation, but surely it was not seriously proposed that in the event of war the Auxiliary troops from the North of England and Scotland would come down to take the place of the troops in the South of England? If not, what became of the principle upon which these new Army Corps were founded? He thought he had shown that in the case of the Second Army Corps there was this great drawback. In the case of the Third Army Corps, with certain modifications, that might be allowed to stand. With regard to the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Army Corps they were not to be sent abroad.

I think the hon. Member is now talking upon the General Vote, and he must confine his remarks to Item A for the general staff.

said this was a definite Motion to reduce the expenses of the General Staff, and he was endeavouring to show that the increased money asked for would not give that amount of increased efficiency to induce the Committee to sanction it. If they were to engage in war, they might be put to very hard straits. According to the new scheme, Sir Archibald Hunter and his Highlanders would be retained in this country to organise the Auxiliary troops in Scotland. He could not imagine that gallant soldier sitting on the top of Edinburgh Castle, watching the enemy's Fleet approaching these shores.

It is perfectly evident that my hon. friend has not mastered even the rudiments of this scheme. When the three Army Corps go abroad the other three will take their place at home, and if there is an invasion, they will not be placed upon the top of Edinburgh Castle, but will take the place of the troops which have been sent away.

asked if he was to understand that Sir Archibald Hunter would go down to the South of England with his Auxiliary troops in order to take the place of those who had gone abroad?

He would not take their place, because their place is in the various defensive positions and the garrisons they have to occupy. There are most important duties which must' be performed by the troops of those garrisons.

said they must take the world as they found it. In point of fact they could not afford to retain such regiments as the Highlanders and such commanders as Sir Archibald Hunter for so unlikely an event as the defence of these Islands from invasion. These highly specialised men and officers must be sent abroad in the event of a war.

pointed out that the troops in excess of the three Army Corps would remain in England, and be under the command of the same commanders as before.

said that from the nature of things, when their three Army Corps had gone they would be bound to fall back upon these specialised men at home. Therefore, upon general principles, they felt bound to differ in regard to the Army Corps Scheme because they felt that they were fundamentally opposed to those principles, although they realised they were principles which had been carried on for many years. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had merely been continuing those principles, and in doing so had not only done this to the best of his ability, but also with the greatest ability.

hoped he might be permitted in two or three minutes to put some reasons before the Committee why hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House would fail in their duty if they did not support the Amendment the hon. Member had moved. These Army Corps, it had been stated, were formed for foreign expeditions and home defence. He contended that in foreign expeditions it was never likely, under any circumstances, that an entire modern Army Corps would be employed in a foreign country, and on the face of it it was absurd, because such an Army Corps. could not be transported to its proper place in ships, and could not be embarked from any of their ports.

The hon. Member must not go into such questions. This is only a debate on the General Staff", and I think the hon. Member appears to misunderstand what is the question before the Committee.

said they objected to the General Staff because they did not think the Army Corps suggested were fit for foreign expeditions in the first place. In the second place they objected because, in regard to home defence, the Army Corps would not provide for the organisation of the Auxiliary forces, and it was absurd, on the face of it, to have a plan to move three Army Corps all the way down from Scotland to take the place of troops in the South of England. He opposed this scheme because the Army Corps system was the corner-stone of the military proposals of the right hon. Gentleman, which they believed involved a financial outlay which this country could not properly afford. [Cries of "Divide, divide!"]

said he rose to ask a question of great importance concerning the whole of these Estimates. They had been drawn up in a new and a very confusing manner. On page 7 hon. Members would see under Item A.

replied that there appeared in the Estimates items which did not occur this year. Although the decrease was practically £348,000 in this case there a normal increase of £5,500. What the House wanted to know was not the difference between war and peace Estimates, but the difference between the amount last year and this year, and that was the sum he had stated.

said the normal increase was not in any single case shown, nor on what principle it was arrived at.