To ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland is aware that the breakwater at Port of Ness, Island of Lewis, has been damaged by the storm of the 28th February last; and will he state what action it is proposed to take in the matter. (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) Yes, Sir. A letter has been received to the effect that the breakwater was damaged about the time named, but the information given is very vague and is not sufficient to enable any decision to be come to. The Secretary for Scotland has taken steps to get further information.

To ask the Lord Advocate whether he is now prepared to make public the report of Mr. William Shield in regard to the condition of the harbour at Port Ness, Island of Lewis. (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) If the hon. Member will move for the Correspondence, it will be presented in the usual form.

To ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland has received a petition from the inhabitants of the western mainland of Ross and Cromarty and Sutherland, urging the establishment of a steamer service between Mallaig, Lochinver, and intermediate ports; and whether, in view of the advantage of the proposed steamer to postal service and fishing industry in the congested area, he will consider the expediency of arranging for the Congested Districts Board to grant an annual subsidy in aid of the service. (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) The petition in question has been received by the Secretary for Scotland and answered by him. No subsidies are now granted to steamship companies trading with the Western Highlands; the only payment made from public funds to such companies is as mail carriers in return for services rendered to the Postmaster-General.

To ask the Lord Advocate, in view of the insufficient supply of animal lymph for vaccination purposes in Scotland, will he consider the advisability of establishing in Scotland an animal vaccine station and laboratory for the preparation of glycerinated calf lymph similar to the establishment under the control of the Local Government Board, London. (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) I cannot assent to the view that the supply of animal lymph for vaccination purposes in Scotland has been found to be insufficient. But a proposal to establish in Scotland a station for the preparation of glycerinated calf lymph has been made to the Secretary for Scotland, and will be considered.

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if his attention has been directed to the order stating that one-fourth of the Customs watchers shall proceed by annual increments of 1s. to 24s. a week; and will he explain why all the Customs watchers are not to be allowed to have the benefit of this increment. (Answered by Mr. Hayes Fisher.) The value of the services of a watcher on first employment was estimated at 21s. per week, but as the value might be expected in many cases to increase with his experience, the Treasury accordingly, in 1900, authorised the grant to a limited number of watchers of an increase of pay, but to grant this increase to all the officers indiscriminately would be inconsistent with the principle on which the concession was granted.

To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, with a view to facilitate the liberation of the remaining slaves in Zanzibar and Pemba it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to recommend the Sultan's Government to abolish at an early date the regulations, which have now been some years in operation, as to the payment of compensation for slaves in future liberated within the Sultan's territories. (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) His Majesty's Government are unaware that there exists any difficulty whatever in the liberation of the remaining slaves in Zanzibar and Pemba. Emancipation lies in their own hands, and no action seems required to achieve the object suggested by the hon. Member.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider the advisability of issuing directions to the clerks to licensing justices to advise the justices not to appear as respondents at quarter sessions in appeals against the refusals of licences where renewals have been withheld on grounds other than those connected with the conduct of the licenceholders, in order that the costs of the respondents in such cases should not fall upon the rates. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) I have no authority whatever to issue any such directions.

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will arrange that one of the new battleships provided for in the Navy Estimates shall be built at Devonport. (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) It is not proposed to lay down one of the new battleships at Devonport, as both Devonport and Keyham will be fully occupied during the coming year with the work of construction and repair already allotted to them.

To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the advisability of making the Income Tax payable in quarterly instalments instead of annually. (Answered by Mr. Ritchie.) The system which the hon. Member suggests was established by law, and to some extent carried out in practice in this country, previous to the year 1869, when it was abandoned for the present arrangement. The practical difficulties in working the system which led to its abandonment are, there is reason to believe, greater now than they were then, and make any recurrence to it inadvisable.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Commissioners of Public Works have as yet ascertained if the proprietor of Greenan, near Londonderry, is prepared to execute a deed vesting this ancient monument in them as promised by him on the 17th November last.† (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) Correspondence on the subject is still proceeding between the proprietor and the Commissioners.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that injury is occasioned to the fishing industry in county Down by Scotch and English fishing fleets during the close season of their own coasts, resulting in the destruction of fish shoals on the Down coast and the depreciation of the quality of the herrings; and whether, seeing that the fishermen are unable on this account to compete in the English markets with the fully-developed herring caught elsewhere, he will consider the desirability of making the period from January to June a close season between Clougher Head and Belfast Lough.

†See (4) Debates, cxiv., 1113.

(Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) No representations appear to have been made to the Department of Agriculture in this matter. If made they will receive every consideration.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to a resolution recently passed by the Wexford District Council calling attention to the fact that £59,000 was granted in 1891 to encourage the building of labourers' cottages, and pointing out that a large residue remains, as twelve counties did not avail themselves of the grant; and whether he will consider the advisability of dividing the residue between the counties that have built cottages, giving special consideration to counties that had worked the Labourers Act previous to 1891. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The unexpended balance of the grant in aid of labourers' cottages provided by section D of the 54 and 55 Viet., cap. 48, amounted to £58,942 on the 31st March, 1902. The share of each county in this fund is prescribed by statutory regulations made by the Lord Lieutenant, and could not be diverted in the manner suggested except by an amendment of the law.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant what is the amount of the unexpended balance under the Labourers Acts for the county of Galway. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The share of the county Galway in the unexpended balance of the grant in aid of labourers' cottages amounted to £5,319 1s. 1d. on the 31st March, 1902.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can say what proportion of the cost of erecting the drill hall situated in the city of Durham was contributed from Government funds; and whether it is in: harmony with the conditions of such grant for the building to be rented for concerts and kinds of amusements. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) No proportion of the cot was contributed from Government funds: the corps has, however, been granted a loan under the Military Lands Acts. There is no objection whatever to the use of a drill hall in the manner alluded to when it is not required for military purposes; moreover, the profits derived from such uses are often utilised to meet the sinking fund charges.

To ask the Secretary of State for War, in view of a statement contained in the recently issued Report of the Inspector-General of Recruiting to the effect that in the reports from manufacturing districts stress is laid upon the number of men rejected forbad teeth, will he state the percentage of men who were rejected for this cause during the year under review. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The number of men rejected for bad teeth in 1902 was 4,558, and the ratio per 1,000 inspected was 52·03. This number is nearly double the figures for 1901.

TO ask the Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the importance of Lough Swilly as a fortified harbour of refuge, the Government propose to improve the piers or boat slips along the lough in order to give facilities for communication between the various forts lately erected thereon. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) Certain facilities already exist for landing at the various forts on Lough Swilly, and it is proposed to improve these as funds become available. Further, the question of the improvement of the pier at Buncrana is under consideration.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will give the number of recruit- obtained for the Volunteers from 1st November last year to the end of February. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The number of recruits obtained between the 1st October, 1902 and 1st January, 1903 was 9,153. The figures asked for cannot be given as the returns are only rendered quarterly.

To ask the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been drawn to cases in which frozen and chilled meat, or meat from animals killed at Deptford, the wharves, or other places within ten days after arrival from abroad, has been substituted for British and Irish grown meat stipulated for in the contracts; and, if so, will he say what action he proposes taking, and give the wording of that portion of the contract that pertains thereto. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) No actual proved cases of this nature have been brought to the notice of the War Office. The wording of the contract is as follows:—"The beef shall be home-bred ox, not under two nor more than eight years old, or home-bred heifer and cow, not under two nor more than four years old; the mutton wether or ewe. Carcases of sheep weighing less than 50 lbs will not be received. Frozen mutton when supplied shall be from British Colonies exclusively."

To ask the Secretary of State for War, with reference to the Parliamentary Return of twenty-one officers of the Regular Army compulsorily retired or dismissed the Service during 1900 to 1902, can he state the number dismissed by sentence of Court-martial, and also the number who have been brought to resign under the pressure that if they did not voluntarily send in their papers their services would be dispensed with; and the number of those who have asked for inquiry or Court-martial and have been refused; what are the numbers of officers placed on half-pay; and can he also give, where applicable, same details for Militia and Volunteers. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The statistics are as follows:—Regular forces—Officers dismissed by sentence of Court-martial, 9; officers who resigned under pressure, 81; officers who asked for inquiry or Court martial and were refused, 2; officers placed on half-pay, 9. Militia and Volunteers—Officers removed, or whose services have been dispensed with, Militia, 26, Volunteers, 15; officers dismissed by sentence of Court-martial, Militia, 6, Volunteers, 2; officers who resigned under pressure, Militia, 38, Volunteers, 33; officers who applied for Court-martial and were refused, Militia, 0, Volunteers 1; Reserve of officers—Dismissed by sentence of Court-martial, Militia, 0, Volunteers, 2.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if lie can state how many of each rank of the officers on half-pay, eligible for employment, have been compulsorily placed on half-pay; for how long each of these officers has been on that list; and how many it is the intention of the Government not to employ again.

The number of officers on half-pay, eligible for employment, who have been compulsorily placed on half-pay amounts to eleven lieutenant-colonels and colonels. The periods during which they have been on that list lie between December 1896 and February of this year. I am not prepared to give any answer to the last part of the Question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will say how many Militia, Yeomanry and Volunteer officers, respectively, hold the "Q" Certificate; and how many Militia, Yeomanry, and Volunteer officers respectively hold the "T" Certificate.

The figures are as follows:—"Q or q" Certificate—Militia, 16, Yeomanry 3, Volunteers, 112; "T or t" Certificate—Militia, 133, Yeomanry, 31, Volunteers, 1248.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will cause the horses of Regular troops at home to be classified so that no horse is reckoned effective until five years old, fully trained, and practically sound for active service; and whether he will distinguish in Army Estimates between remount and effective horses, according to the Returns of the previous 1st January.

Under present classification no troop horse is considered fit for active service until it is six years old and fully trained. As regards the figures in the Estimates, I do not think any good purpose would be served by the additional tables involved.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can see his way to classifying the privates of the Regular forces at home, so than no soldier shall be reckoned effective until he has been dismissed all recruit drills and courses, and is by age and physique qualified for active or foreign service; whether he will distinguish in Army Estimates between; recruits and effectives, as shown by the Returns of the previous 1st January; and, if he cannot see his way to this classification, whether he will inquire the opinions of officers commanding units of Regulars at home, and er final decision till those opinions have been considered.

I must point out to my hon. and gallant friend that in the first place the qualifications for active or Foreign Service vary according to the nature of the service or the climate; and in the second place the returns already furnished to the War Office give all particulars necessary for the detailing of drafts or forming of a true estimate of the state of units. When the increased rates of Service pay come into operation soldiers will be classified accordingly, but I do not think any distinctions can be drawn on the lines suggested.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state what the proposed improvements in the pay and prospects of the Army veterinary officers will be, and upon what date they will come into force, seeing that the Army Veterinary Department is below its authorised peace establishment.

The Committee which is considering these matters has not yet reported.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the advisability of employing retired officers of the Army Veterinary Department as purchasing officers under the proposed rules for the reorganisation of the Army Remount Department, in view of the saving to the State that would be effected thereby.

A veterinary officer's responsibility is purely professional, and is limited to the soundness and age of the animals purchased. It is not considered advisable to employ him as a purchasing officer, who has to determine the fitness of horses in point of breeding, appearance, strength and action.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state the extent and rental of the land proposed to be acquired for the new naval station at St. Margaret's Hope.

The extent and rental cannot be stated as negotiations are still in progress.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Commissioners on the Alaska Boundary Tribunal have been officially nominated by his Majesty's Government and the government of the United States; and, if so, whether he is in a position to submit their names.

The President of the United States has appointed Mr. Elihu Raat, Secretary for War in the present administration, and Senators Lodge and Turner to be the American Members of the Commission. His Majesty's Government have, at the suggestion of the Dominion Government, decided to appoint as the British members the Lord Chief Justice of England, Sir Louis Aimable Jetté, retired Judge of the Superior Court of Province of Quebec, and Judge J. Douglas Armour, of the Supreme Court of Canada.

I beg to ask the secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been directed to an ordinance on education matters promulgated some days ago at Pretoria, in which a maximum of three hours weekly for instruction in the Dutch language, with a maximum of two hours' Biblical instruction given in Dutch, has been established; and whether he will take steps to secure that the number of hours allowed per week for instruction in the Dutch language may be increased.

My attention has been directed to the ordinance to which the hon. Member refers. It provides for five hours instruction per week in Dutch when the parents desire it. The time allotted is the same as in the schools of Cape Colony, and I have received no complaints respecting it, and see no reason for any alteration.

Was not heavy pressure brought to bear on you in the matter by the Rev. Mr. Bosnian in Pretoria?

The hon. Gentleman has been entirely misinformed. The only communication I have had from or with Mr. Bosnian was a private interview. As the hon. Member refers to it, I may say that Mr. Bosnian expressed himself perfectly satisfied with the arrangement.

But the ordinance was promulgated after the interview.

That is irrelevant to the point. The Rev. Mr. Bosnian understood that five hours per week would be given for Dutch and religious instruction, and ho expressed himself, personally, entirely satisfied with that part of the arrangement.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state whether the Government propose to increase the rates of taxation paid by natives in the Transvaal and other Crown Colonies in South Africa.

No proposal for any increase of taxation on natives is before me; but I consider that the present rate is too low in some cases and does not fairly represent the amount which the natives ought to contribute to the Administration which secures them protection for life and property. The subject will probably be discussed at the Intercolonial Conference at Bloemfontein.

Is the tax lower or higher than it was under the Transvaal Government?

That is a very difficult thing to answer, but I believe it is lower. The fact is a fixed rate has been substituted for a number of separate items. I believe the net average result is lower than it was in the time of the Transvaal, but I certainly do not think it was too high.

Before any tax is agreed to by the Colonial Office, will the House have an opportunity to discuss it?

I cannot promise that. Of course, the House will always have an opportunity of discussing any decision of the Colonial Office.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the agreement by the Transvaal to contribute £30,000,000 towards the cost of the war formed the subject of a despatch from Lord Milner before the Colonial Secretary's journey to South Africa; and whether he will now lay upon the Table of the House all the Correspondence had by the Colonial Office with responsible persons in South Africa on this subject.

The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's Question is in the negative. The question of laying Papers relating to the war contribution is under consideration.

Will any of the Papers be available to-morrow?

No, Sir.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state how much of the £3,000,000 voted as free grants to the Boers, and of the £2,000,000 voted as free grants to others in South Africa who have suffered war losses has been expended; and, further, will he say in what way these amounts have been expended.

I am not in a position to give the information required, but I may inform the hon. Member that the payments made, and the whole of the accounts, will be submitted to the Controller and Auditor-General, who will make a report to the House.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will favourably consider the petition addressed to him by members of the Legislative Council of Cyprus, praying for some relief from the taxation in that island which has! been imposed to meet the tribute assigned to the creditors of the Sublime Porte.

I have not yet received the Petition to which the hon. Member refers from the High Commissioner, with his comments upon it. I must point out, however, that no taxation has been imposed for the purpose of meeting the tribute. On the contrary, since the British occupation there has been a substantial remission of taxation in the island, and the British tax-payer has every year had to contribute a considerable sum towards the revenue of the island.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the case of a Frenchman, who at the Old Bailey, on the 10th February, 1903, was sentenced to seven years penal servitude for robbery with violence, and who was shown to have been banished from France for ten years after being convicted eight times in that country, and to have been living on the immoral earnings of women in London; and whether representations will be made to the French Government with the object of stopping the deportation to this country of French persons who have been banished from France on account of their criminality.

My attention has been drawn to the case of the Frenchman referred to. My hon. friend appears to have been misinformed. No sentence of banishment was passed, but the person referred to when convicted in France in December, 1893, and was sentenced to five years imprisonment with ten years interdiction de séjour. This is equivalent to police supervision with a prohibition against residence in a specified area.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he will say what steps have been taken to secure the payment of the claims of British Indian subjects who have been robbed by brigands when journeying between Jeddah and the Mohammedan shrines of Mecca and Medina; and whether His Majesty s Government will consider the advisability of co-operating with the Netherlands Government in proposing to the Ottoman authorities the necessity for establishing an international police force for the protection of British and Dutch subjects travelling in the Hedjaz.

As my right hon. friend and predecessor stated in this House in reply to a Question on the 16th of March, 1900, the claims of British Indian pilgrims for losses by robbery in the Hedjaz between 1892 and 1898 have been settled.† No further information in regard to such claims has been received since that date. His Majesty's Government are not prepared to make the proposal suggested in the last paragraph of the Question.

To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government will be prepared to increase the number of British Consular Officers serving in the European provinces of Turkey; and, if so, to what towns they will be appointed.

An addition to the number of Consular Officers employed in the Turkish Empire has been recently made by the appointment of a Vice-Consul at Monastir in consequence of the disturbed state of that district.

I beg to ask the President of

†See (4) Debates, lxxx., 1067.

the Local Government Board if he will consider the advisability of affording pedestrians and owners of horses and carriages, injured by motor cars, the moans furnished by European countries of identifying their owners by a conspicuous number on the motor car.

My right hon, friend is in sympathy with the object which my hon. and gallant friend has in view, but legislation would be necessary to give effect to it. The subject, however, is under his consideration.

Is there any hope of legislation? We have had that answer for three years.

Questions as to the possibility of legislation should, I think, be addressed to the Prime Minister.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can now say what numbers of aliens are now in prison; what proportion they bear to the total prison population; and what is the cost of their detention.

The number of aliens who were in prison on the 2nd instant, when a census was taken, is, so far as can be ascertained, 625; they form about 3 per cent, of the prison population; and the total cost of carrying out their sentences is roughly estimated at £30,000.

Is there any power to restore these persons to their native country on the expiration of their sentences?

No, Sir; I have no statutory powers.

What percentage does the foreign prison population represent of the whole foreign population in this country?

Order, order! Notice of such a Question is obviously necessary.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General to what portions of the British Empire money may be sent from the United Kingdom by means of postal orders; from what portions of the Empire money may be similarly sent to the United Kingdom; and whether he will take steps to secure an extension of the postal order system so that it shall be available between the United Kingdom and all the Colonies and Dependencies.

Malta and Gibraltar are the only; parts of the British Empire to which money can at present be remitted from the United Kingdom by means of postal orders; but postal orders are procurable for remittances to this country in Malta, Gibraltar, India, the Straits Settlements, Hong Kong, Newfoundland and British Guiana. I have now under consideration the question of extending the postal order system, so that it shall be available between the United Kingdom and other parts of the Empire.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the recommendations of the Departmental Committee of the Board of Agriculture on British Forestry have received the consideration of the Board of Agriculture (Ireland); and whether action will be taken with the object of re-afforesting the country.

I would refer to my reply to the similar Question put to me on the 24th February by the hon. Member for South Kerry.†

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his

†See (4) Debates, cxviii., 678.

attention has been drawn to the fact that a labourer, named Denis Healy, was the original applicant for a cottage in Scheme No. 6, the site selected being the farm of Mr. R. Barter, in the Mate by division, townland of Cool-flugh, of the Cork Rural District, and that the name of Timothy McCarthy, now deceased, was substituted for that of the original applicant; and will he state who is at present the accepted tenant for this cottage.

Healy's application was rejected because he was not an agricultural labourer. McCarthy's application for another cottage was not recommended by the Inspector.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state what steps, if any, are being taken by the Irish Government to support a project for largely utilising peat as a fuel when treated by certain scientific processes.

This question is of undoubted interest. It demands, and will receive, the attention of the Government. But it is essential that the name of the Government should not be used to exploit this or that invention. I must therefore decline to make any pronouncement which might be quoted illegitimately to secure financial support from the the public for projects the practicability of which has still to be demonstrated.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state what proportion of the £35,000 received annually as quit rents, etc., from Ireland by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests is spent in Ireland.

The surplus income received annually by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests from quit, etc., rents in Ireland is paid into the Imperial Exchequer, from which of course Ireland receives grants. As this particular revenue is not earmarked, but merged in the general funds of the Exchequer, it is of course impossible to say how or where it is spent.

Can the Government explain to the House the contradiction between the various statements made yesterday as to the order of business to-day? I understood that the Army Estimates would be taken first.

was understood to reply that the original statement made by the Leader of the House was that he hoped to get Vote 1 of the Navy and the non-effective Votes, and that to-day would be devoted to the reports of those Votes. The Army and Navy Votes were to be taken at the afternoon sitting. But in consequence of the length of the debate on Vote 1 of the Navy, it was agreed to postpone the report of that Vote till Monday next. In those circumstances it was hoped that the Non-effective Votes, 13, 14 and 15, of the Navy might be taken at an early period that afternoon, and that the rest of the time might be given for the report of the Army Votes A and 1. The first order on the Paper was the report of the Excess Vote taken yesterday.

said that nothing was said in the statement of the First Lord on Monday about getting the Non-effective Votes to-day. It. was not part of the understanding.

said it would be very inconvenient to take the non-effective Votes before the general discussion of the Navy Estimates was finished. He would certainly oppose with all his might the report of the Excess Vote, since the House had not yet had the report of the Accounts Committee.

There could not be a general discussion on the Report Stage of Vote 1.

asked whether there was any necessity for obtaining these Non-effective Votes before the close of the financial year.

But am I not right in saying that the arrangement made by the First Lord of the Treasury did not include the taking of the Non-effective Votes?

I certainly understood: the Secretary to the Navy to promise on the previous day that if the Vote were allowed to be taken a full discussion might again take place on report. Many Members accordingly reserved their remarks for the later stage.

It is impossible I should have given such an undertaking. I had no power to do so. What I did say was, that there could be a discussion on Vote 1 in continuation of that on Vote A, and that there would be a further opportunity of discussing Vote I when the Report stage came on.

Speaking as one of the Members interested, I must say I was misled.

I have nothing to do with these understandings or misunderstandings. The Rules of the House on the matter are perfectly clear.

said he understood that the first business to be taken on the Vote on Account on Thursday would, at the desire of the Government, be that of the Colonial Office, in order to enable the Colonial Secretary to make a statement. What other business, he asked, would be taken?

I can answer the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman has entirely misunderstood the situation. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister stated that the Vote on Account would be put down for Thursday, and that the arrangement of the items in that Vote would depend entirely upon any expression of opinion conveyed to him from any quarter of the House. It being understood that there was a general desire that the Colonial Vote should be put down, that has accordingly been put in the first place; but it is not at the suggestion, request, or desire of the Government, who are in this matter absolutely impartial and perfectly ready to take the discussion of any other item of the Vote on Account if the House so desires. The hon. Gentleman introduced another point. He assumes that this Vote has been put down in order that I, as Colonial Secretary, may make a statement. I wish to say at once that I have no intention of making any statement whatever. My recent proceedings have been fully before the public and the House. I am, of course, ready to give any further explanation which may be desired, or to extend in any way the information which is already in the possession of the House. But I have of my own motion no statement whatever to make.

I thought it was the desire of the right hon. Gentleman himself to make a statement. Of course, as he says not, I at once accept his contradiction.

I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister on this subject. There is clearly a misunderstanding. I understood that on Monday the Prime Minister stated that he wanted on Tuesday afternoon Votes A and 1 for the Navy. These were obtained. Then he said that Wednesday would be devoted to the discussion on the Reports of the Army and Navy Votes. Does not the arrangement to take Non-effective Votes in Committee of Supply go outside that understanding?

I think the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. I mentioned the non-effective Votes. We must have the Non-effective Votes. What I was chiefly interested in on Monday was to explain to the House the general method of allocating business before the end of the financial year; and, though I mentioned the Non-effective Votes, they were the least important part of the programme laid before the House.

Is there any necessity for these Non-effective Votes being taken before the close of the financial year?

We must have the money. I ought perhaps to give notice now that it will be necessary tomorrow, after the Vote on Account, to take the purely formal stage, which is necessary before we bring in the Appropriation Bill. There are two stages—the Committee stage and the Report stage of Ways and Means—before we introduce the Appropriation Bill. The first must be taken to-morrow. Therefore, when the House meets, I shall move a Resolution enabling us to take that purely formal stage.

What is the legislative necessity for obtaining the Non-effective Votes.

There is no statutory obligation to get these particular Votes, but there is a statutory obligation to finish the financial business before March 25th. It is necessary, however, that we should have this money, and I would point out that if we do not we shall have to bring in another Ways and Means Bill at a time when we are pressed with the legislative work of the session.

Then the only necessity is that you want to get a larger amount of money?

Order order'.

said he proposed to move that the amount be reduced by £50, in order that he might call attention to the situation in which tin's matter now stood. They had the matter under consideration on the previous day, when he called attention to the fact that hon. Members had not had an opportunity of seeing the report of the Public Accounts Committee on the point. He had since obtained a copy of the report. This was one of the most extraordinary eases of financial irregularity that had ever come before the House of Commons. Sir Walter Armstrong might be a good judge of pictures and of works of art, but evidently he could not keep simple accounts—simple on the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury. Simple as they were he had failed to keep them properly. He had not paid over the money when he should have done, he had not delivered the accounts at the proper time, and, in fact, he had committed every kind of irregularity. In acknowledgment, presumably, of his great financial ability the Treasury recently agreed to raise his salary. The remedy proposed to cope with the present difficulty was altogether inadequate. He would not trouble the House by again reading the catalogue of financial enormities committed by this gentleman; they were all duly set forth in the report of the Controller and Auditor-General, but he would call attention to the report of the Public Accounts Committee which expressed regret that, notwithstanding a previous warning, this accounting officer had again neglected to present his accounts in correct form and at the proper time. The Secretary to the Treasury had admitted the whole case, but instead of doing as would ordinarily have been done, insisting on this official performing his duty or giving place to some one else, he said the only remedy that commended itself to the Treasury was to try and make Sir Walter do the work, and if he failed, to keep the accounts themselves. Surely that was a most inadequate method of dealing with an officer who committed financial irregularities of that kind. The amount involved might be small, but the principle at stake was tremendous. In too many cases the Controller and Auditor-General was unable to adequately perform his duty and secure a complete audit, but when he was able to draw attention to financial irregularities, the Treasury ought to apply more effective remedies. He hoped even now that the Secretary to the Treasury would render it unnecessary to press the Motion for a reduction by giving a more satisfactory account of the intentions of the Department.

said he thought on the previous day he had satisfied the Committee with his explanation. He fully admitted that there had been financial irregularity on the part of Sir Walter Armstrong. The Treasury had complained, the Controller and Auditor-General had complained, and the Public Accounts Committee had fully investigated the matter and had administered a reprimand. He had been asked what the Treasury were going to do in the matter. His reply was that they would; try and get Sir Walter Armstrong to keep the accounts properly, and if they could not succeed in that, then the Treasury Remembrance would see that it was done for him. It was only fair and just to Sir Walter Armstrong to say who he was. He was a man very eminent in the Art world; he had done valuable service for the National Galley in Ireland, and for his services he only received £500 a year. If he were to be pilloried by the House of Commons and if their censure were overdone, he would probably throw up his appointment. He would not be the loser, but the nation would. It was sometimes the case that a man of artistic temperament was not very accurate in keeping accounts, but after what had been said he would, no doubt, be anxious in the future to keep his accounts in proper form. If he did not do so, then he would be afforded the necessary help, for they were most anxious not to lose his services to the nation. He hoped, therefore, his hon. friend would not press his vote of censure.

said the Secretary to the Treasury misapprehended the point of the debate. There was no desire to attack Sir Walter Armstrong, the object was to learn why the Treasury, realising the difficulty, did not make other arrangements for dealing with these accounts. Why not appoint another accounting officer?

said he thought it very extraordinary that that Vote should be put in the forefront of the business that day, and he hoped the Prime Minister would not press it. Of course the House ought to meet all the reasonable requests of the Government for Votes to enable them to carry on their work, and to supply the money required for their immediate wants, but certainly he could not agree with the suggestion that more than Vote A and Vote 1 were absolutely required. It was all very well to say that the Non-effective Votes were non-contentious, but there was no certainty that they did not require discussion. He wanted to raise a constitutional question and to show that there was no necessity to take these Votes at once.

The hon. Member is wandering away from the Vote.

said the hon. Member, he was sure, would feel that this was a motion which ought not to be pressed. It was a question not of the convenience of the Government, but the convenience of the House. These Votes were required in order to fulfil the statutory obligations of the House in regard to financial business, and in order to avoid the necessity of bringing in a Ways and Means Bill a few weeks before the Appropriation Bill, at a period of the session when the House was very pressed in finishing the necessary work of the year. The only remaining question was whether this was a convenient way of getting this money; he ventured to think it was. These Votes involved no question of principle; they were automatic and had no connection with the naval policy involved. He thought under these circumstances the House might well follow the precedents set in previous years and pass these Votes without discussion.

protested against what was practically a Vote on Account for the Navy being taken in this way. The only reason for a Vote on Account was to find money to go on with at the commencement of the financial year. That was not necessary with regard to the Navy, because the Votes which the Government had already obtained gave them one-sixth of the whole of the money required for the Navy, and the whole necessity for taking a Vote on Account disappeared. With eight weeks supply the Government were abundantly supplied. The Committee would remember that there had only been a day and a half given to the general discussion of the Army Estimates, and he reminded the Committee that the main increase fell on Vote 8, and, that being so, he appealed to the Government not to take these Votes now, but postpone them and allow the Committee to discuss Vote 8 at an early date.

thought that if the Committee allowed those Votes to go through without a protest now they would be told in future years that a precedent had been created; that they had accepted the principle and recognised the reasonableness of the practice that the Government must obtain these Votes before the 31st of March in order to keep them going two or three months.

said there was some inconvenience in taking these automatic Votes before Votes "A" and "1" had been disposed of, but the argument of the First Lord of the Treasury was a very weighty one. Before the 31st of March the Government must have some money to go on with, and that money must be covered by a Vote of this House. As a matter of fact, these Non-effective Votes were not usually discussed, and it was necessary that the Government should get the money, and if this Motion to report Progress was withdrawn, the question of the Army could be discussed. He would point out that the real question to be discussed on the Army Vote was the Navy; the two questions had to be taken together and when they attacked the Army they were defending the Navy, and he would much rather have the debate on the Army than take a long discussion on these Non-effective Votes.

thought that the hon. Member for King's Lynn had overlooked the fact that there were matters of great substance to be discussed on the Non-effective Votes, and matters which ought to be discussed. What he complained of was that the understanding arrive I at with the Prime Minister had not been kept. That arrangement was that Votes "1" and "A" should be put down, and those Votes alone. But last night, when the hon. Member for Wellington found he could not get these Votes through, he had placed them first in the orders of the day, and the result was the hon. Gentlemen opposite would be despoiled of their opportunity of discussing the Army Vote, because he himself had a very important matter to bring forward on Vote 14 of these Non-effective Votes.

did not know whether anything in the nature of an absolute agreement was entered into, but when his right hon. friend was stating what it would be necessary for the Government to have, he distinctly heard him include these Votes.

said the real objection was that the House were asked to vote, practically without discussion, a sum of £2,400,000. In the present condition of the finances of the country the Government ought not to ask for such a sum without affording the House a fair opportunity for criticism.

asked how the matter was relevant to the Vote, which dealt only with men who had left the Service.

supported the hon. Member for Devonport, and said that the only way in which the discrepancy could be remedied was by increasing the number of established men.

said this arrangement was all right when they had simply a boom, and they were going to get rid of a large number of men, but now the hired men were required as much as the establishment men, and it would be better to have the establishment increased so that all the men should be placed on the same footing.

said this matter had been most carefully considered by the Admiralty. It was quite true that the numbers in the dockyards had largely increased, and that the number of hired men and establishment men had not been increased in proportion. It should be remembered that a portion of this pension was in the nature of deferred pay, and it should also be borne in mind that the hired men got 21s. and the establishment men 20s.

That may be so at Devonport.

said he had taken no part in the discussion for reforming the Army, for the reason that he had no special knowledge of Arm}' matters. He had, however, been very much impressed by speeches from his hon. friends the Members for Fareham and Plymouth the other day, and great uneasiness was produced in his mind as to the character and quality of the recruits which were being taken into the Army. He desired on this occasion merely to take the ordinary business view of the matter, and to examine how far the country got good value for its money. He had nothing whatever to say on any question of the Indian frontier, or the proper unit of the British Army, or any question as to the size of the Army. He was merely desirous of giving his right hon. friend an opportunity of allaying the uneasiness which was largely felt by civilians both inside and outside the House of Commons as to the quality of their recruits. The simple proposition he made was that there were accepted and expelled within a short time of their acceptance an unduly large proportion of men. This point he would try to establish very shortly from the Inspector-General's Report. That Report showed that the average expulsion of men with under two years service was about 1,000 for the five years between 1896 and 1900 inclusive; and for the years 1901 and 1902 the average of men so expelled or rejected was over 3,000. The Inspector-General also showed and stated that of 5,000 men enlisted for 1899 over 1,500 were discharged as ineffective within three years, making a proportion of 30 per cent. It might almost be said that his case was proved already by the figures he had quoted from official reports. They all admitted, just as much as the right hon. Gentleman, the difficulty of enlisting satisfactory men. It was quite true that they had increased the pay and advantages of the Army, but it was equally true that they had not increased the pay and advantages in the same ratio as the pay and advantages of civilians in the same class of life had increased—he referred to the class from which the men in the Army were mainly drawn. The right hon. Gentleman told them that they must have a greatly increased Army, and if it were true that the average standard of comfort had increased throughout the country, and if it were true that the physique of men in the country had not improved, it obviously stood to reason that the difficulties of his right hon. friend's position must be immense. In these circumstances, how did the War Office proceed? Having learned from their experts the number of men considered to be essential to secure the interests of the country, and having secured permission to give those men certain advantages in order to get that number of recruits, he thought the War Office would have adhered rigidly to their standard of efficiency in every respect, and should have struggled in every way they could to raise as many men up to that standard until the 120,000 required had been obtained. If they had failed to reach the number required by maintaining that standard, then the right hon. Gentleman could have come down to the House and told them that instead of getting, say, 120,000, he had only been able to secure say, 90,000; and then he could have left it to the House and the country to choose whether they would keep up a smaller Army, or whether they would vote more pay in order to increase the numbers. As far as he could gather from reading the reports which had been issued, the right hon. Gentleman appeared to have proceeded on completely different lines. Even if the motto of the War Office be "good men preferred," under all the circumstances the tally must be made up, and men must be had of one sort or another, so that the Secretary of State for War might be able to come down to the House, and say with pardonable pride, or, at any rate with obvious complacency, that he had achieved his object, and that he had got his men. But he had got them at the expense of introducing a lot of wastrels into the Army, and it was not as if it could be alleged that these wastrels were cheap. Some might think that for a soldier to be a bit bad was a kind of half praise. It was not as if they cost the same as the other men, they were paid the same, but what with their diseases and their Court-martials, before they were finished with they cost the country a great deal more. They were not merely worthless in the Army, but they were worth less than nothing. There was no analogy whatever between the advantage of getting inferior recruits into the Army and having a large number of weakly men pulling at a rope. Ten weak men might make up for five stronger men in that case, but ten inferior recruits would not make up for five good recruits in the Army. No greater mistake could be made by anybody than to say: "Well, they may not be so good as we should like to see them, but we have got them, and, pro tanto, they are so much to the good." What were the requisites of a modern soldier? Character first, then intelligence, and then physical health and vigour. These were essentials without which men were worse than useless. It was perfectly clear to anyone that modern war made a great many more demands than war used to do on the strength and the morale of our troops. Unseen enemies, forced inarches, and things of that nature, were factors, and everyone of them pointed the same way. Once it used to be said that it was rapidity of movement that was required, now it was rigidity of purpose. What other demands did war make upon the men? No trifling ones. Self-denial, self-control, discipline, and the very highest and rarest form of discipline, self-discipline, and nobly for the most part had these demands been responded to by the British soldier. There was no room for self-indulgence now-a-days, when a man had to lie for hours and hours on the ground by himself, far away from his fellow-men, with just the little pittance he was able to bring with him, and unable to touch his emergency rations without risk of a few years imprisonment. An hon. Member on the other side of the House appeared to him the other day to imply that really it was not a bad thing, after all—he would not say that these were his words, but this was the Implication of his speech—if a soldier was a bit of a blackguard. These ideas were out of date, and old-fashioned In modern wars private soldiers did not rub shoulders with one another in battle. They did not get even the encouragement and the stimulus which the hon. Member would desire from hearing one another swear. They lay on the ground forty yards from one another, and perhaps 500 yards from the nearest officer. They had to think and to act for themselves. In such conditions as these would the rascal—would the booby—be the likelier man to serve his country well? No, Sir. He asked confidently, was it businesslike and economical of the House to feed and clothe men who (snapping his fingers) would not be worth that? He hoped he was not misunderstood. He knew that there were many of our soldiers who had fulfilled all the requirements that any man could demand. But the worthless minority was too large. They were no value to the country. They were only valuable so far as they administered to the complacency of the Minister for War. Whom did he mean? He meant the boys who imposed upon a singularly credulous medical officer as to their age. He meant the illiterates who could neither read nor write. He meant the weaklings who suffered from hernia and varicose veins, and last and worst he meant the "bad 'uns"—those sickly sheep who might infect a flock. Why should we have them? Oh, how ho wished that he could put one commanding officer into the box here and cross-examine him. He would ask him only a few questions—"How many worthless vagabonds have you had thrust upon you whom, if you had the chance, and if you had a voice in the matter, you would not have looked at?" "How many 'bad 'uns' have you had?" Then he should like to ask what injury these men had done to the Army, setting aside altogether all the waste of the country's time, and of the credit and efficiency of the Army. Next and last he should ask, "How many have you got still, whom you would like to dismiss if you were encouraged instead of thwarted at headquarters?"

Oh!

The right hon. Gentleman said "Oh!" He was sure that "Oh" would be received with satisfaction by commanding officers. They would now know what was to be done by commanding officers when they got men whom they wished to get rid of. He wished the right hon. Gentlemen were determined that all the men of the Army should be drawn from the cream of the population, and none from the scum. [An HON. MEMBER: "You can't get that."] They could come very much nearer to it than they were now. Let them examine how far the demands on a soldier, which he had mentioned, had been fulfilled, and how far considered. Take first and foremost the matter of character. If it was priggish to desire that the character of those men should be high from regard to their moral welfare, at any rate it was the coldest business instinct which should make the authorities wish for high character on account of the efficiency and the credit of the Army. What they ought to do was to make that profession one which any respectable family would stimulate and press their sturdy and capable sons to take up, not one which they would, as he feared was the case now, do what they could to discourage. It might be said that it was all sentiment to talk about character. Well, were the Marines sentimental? Were they not very shrewd? Did not hon. Members think that if the mere admission into that force was at once an honour and a certificate of character, this very circumstance created a demand for that force. That was not mere declaration. It was proved up to the hilt by the hon. Member for Fareham in a statement which he had made and which had not been contradicted. He supposed if they were going to be us careful about character in soldiers as they were in the case of Marines, it might be said that they were going to turn them into psalm singers. He was not uneasy about that. But supposing they were going to do so, England had had one or two historical lessons. Two hundred and fifty years ago in this country she had a lesson that psalmsinging and fighting went very well together. Fifty years ago she had the same lesson in India at the Mutiny, and not so very long ago she had a lesson from our enemies in South Africa. He was basing this argument on the facts given by the hon. Member for Fareham, but his right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War, to use his own words, gave these facts and arguments the go by. That was his language, because he regarded them as not germane to the issue then before the House. He had not the military education of the hon. Member for Fareham, but at any rate it could not be pleaded that his remarks were not germane to the issue, and the right hon. Gentleman would not wish to do otherwise than to meet him fairly and to show him where and why he was wrong. They all admitted that they wanted intelligence in the soldier. What were they doing for that? They had 1,000 illiterates last year, and these were the words of the Inspector-General—

"There is a material falling off in well educated recruits, although," he proudly added, "the number of those able to read and write is increasing."

He had no hesitation in saying the fact that such a statement was possible was a scandal and disgrace to them all. It was a scandal and a disgrace that the conditions of modern warfare were so little recognised that it should be thought desirable to capture such men with the present chances of education existing in the country. To-day the illiterate was not the least like the illiterate of a hundred years ago. The illiterate was now a booby, and one of the triumphs was that we secured 1,000; boobies last year. He would now deal with the question of age. Two thousand men under the age of seventeen were taken last year. Were they all drummers and pipers? If they were, there might be a plan to remodel the British Army on the lines of that of the Highland chieftain who invaded his neighbour's territory—

"Since he did resolve

To extirpate the vipers,

With three and twenty men,

And five and thirty pipers.

Of course that was not so. Let him give as an illustration of this age matter a case that came before him personally. It was not a singular case, and many hon. Members could produce the like. But one concrete case produced more, impression than fifty hypothetical ones or instances reported at second hand. A keeper on his father's estate came to him in great distress two years ago because one of his boys had run away. How old did hon. Members think the boy was? He was between fourteen and fifteen years of age! The next thing they heard of that boy was that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War had clasped him to his arms! A very few months after that the boy was in Malta on foreign service. No investigation had been made, not a word had been said to the lad. Nothing could have been easier than to-say to that young rascal, "Where do you come from Let us know and we will write." And in twenty-four hours if they had written to the clergyman, or the squire of Aldenham, they could have got the facts about the boy, who his father was, whether he was worth anything, and how old he was. "Oh! it is not worth while," the War Office might reply, "that is too expensive." He would come to the question of expense shortly. Surely the limit of eighteen was young enough. Let them think for a moment that under modern conditions, under the modern system, these boys only served three years with the Colours. According to the right hon. Gentleman, they were not to go to India until they were twenty, and therefore for two-thirds of their time these boys were unfit to go abroad or form part of an expeditionary force. When the limit was put down so low as that they should, for goodness sake, keep to it. His hon, and gallant friend, the Member for Taunton, was quite right in the question he had put that afternoon when he wanted a minute and clear distinction between the men who were available for military service abroad and those who were not; and that all the men should not be bunched together so that they did not know what they had got, what they could use and what they could not use. Each of these boys cost the country £65 a year. That was the official Estimate, but if the matter were approached on business lines it was found that he cost a great deal more. What did the right hon. Gentleman get his salary for? And what were the Staff at the War Office paid for? It was all for the Army; and if they had no Army he assumed that the right hon. Gentleman would receive no salary in his particular capacity as Secretary of State for War, while they would lose the inestimable benefit of the services of the War Office. As it was, they had got to be paid because there was an Army; and every member of the Army should be debited with a share of these salaries if the Army was going to be conducted on business lines. If so, up went in a minute the cost of each soldier from £65 to something like £100. The next requisite he asked for in a soldier was physical vigour and health. It was not that these recruits were boys that made him so much disturbed in mind. Boys not fit for the Army now might be come so. It was the presence in the Army of those fellows who never would be worth the value of their boots to the nation, that he resented. They were called specials, whether they were so or not in every sense. He would tell the House of a story of what passed between a very distinguished friend of his and a sailor in a train, and what the sailor said. He knew very well that what the soldier said was not evidence: and he dared say that that applied also to the sailor. But he thought the story might afford a very valuable lesson to the House as to the way those things were looked upon. He did not set up to be a military or a naval expert, and he did not know the proper title of the sailor, but he understood that the sailor held a post equivalent in the Navy to that of a recruiting sergeant in the Army. The sailor complained to his friend very bitterly that so many men who came forward as candidates for the Navy had to be rejected owing to physical unfitness. His friend indulged in the usual platitude that that was very sad. "Oh, no," said the sailor, "not sad for us at all, because in the end we get the men we want, and of the right quality." His friend replied, "I did not mean that; I meant sad for them." The sailor retorted "not that either, for they are all right; they all go into the Army, and the Army is glad to get them." Well, that might be the sailor's jealousy of the Army service.

Hear, hear.

Yes, he thought that would be the official answer. What was the meaning of the quotation he was going to read from the speech of his valued mentor the hon. Member for Fareham? What did a commanding officer say to his hon. friend?

"Out of 180 men recently received 105 were below the standard, or in other words"

said the commanding officer, name unknown, with a spitefulness he hoped he would not imitate—

"they were specials, though not so described."

Was there then to be one law for the rich and another for the poor; one law for the Minister and another for the poor private? Unless his memory suddenly failed him the right hon. Gentleman did not disclose the names of the experts on whose advice he relied in proposing his Army scheme, although there were cries in the House of "Name, name."

seconded the Motion. His hon. friend, as he had said, had approached this subject from the point of view of a business man with the idea of finding out whether the country got value for its money, and he himself felt bound to admit that in his opinion, on the matter of troops, it certainly did not. These serious charges were a vast burden on the nation. He had heard an hon. Baronet, who represented a Scotch constituency, state that his constituents did not mind how much they were called upon to pay in taxes, which wag strange when we remember that he sits for a Scotch constituency; but he was afraid there were many constituencies who did not share the zeal of Glasgow in this matter. The Government did not seem to appreciate the fact that there was a point beyond which taxation could not go; a point at which the resources of the country could not meet it; a point at which the electors of the country would refuse to sanction it. When income was limited people should spend most on articles of first necessity, and least on matters of secondary importance. Supposing the national income to be limited, was it not a serious matter to be spending as much on an Army, which, was only of secondary importance, as on the Navy which was a matter of prime necessity? The men in the Navy required a much more expensive training, and the materials, guns and ships were much more expensive than anything corresponding to them in the Army, and on that ground alone the Army ought to cost less than the Navy; but when the relative uses of the two forces were compared the disproportion in cost became more glaring and more inexcusable. The Prime Minister had made some priceless admissions. He had admitted that the Navy stood absolutely first, that they did not now hear that a large Army was not required for home defence, that the defence of this country must be trusted to the Volunteers and citizens of the country. All these admissions showed a great change in the attitude of the Government. The Secretary of State for War had accused the House of having changed its attitude on this matter. That accusation did not amount to much in any case, but what would have been said by hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House if, when a responsible Minister came down to the House in a time of storm and stress, during a great war, and asked for a number of troops, they were refused? "Pro-Boer" would have been the most mild adjective. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to accept the Volunteer Army with difficulty, and had not been converted. Like the disciplinarians in Pall Mall, he seemed to consider that unless a man was taught the goose-step he must be a useless particle of a disorganised mob. But one of the most conspicuous lessons of the war had been that half-trained men made one of the best mounted fighting forces that one could have. The lesson we had learned was that we could rely mainly on the Volunteers for the defence of this country. Under the scheme of his hon. friend they would, of course have a stiffening of Regulars.

In the hon. Member for Plymouth's proposal these Regulars did not exist.

Order order! On the Report of this Vote the hon. Member cannot go into the question of the efficiency of the Intelligence Department. He can go into anything relating to the number of men.

said he explained to the House the other day that all the men who were on working furlough had been excluded from the strength of the Army and counted in their proper positions. Those who were about to go to the Reserve had been counted with the Reserve.

The 60,000?

Order, order: This matter will arise on another Vote.

said that although he spoke from below the Gangway he did not speak as a representative of much of the discontent which had lately shown itself in that quarter. Underlying the Amendment which had been moved, and also the more serious Motion of a few days ago, there was the fact that the Government took a certain view of the necessities of the country. We had lately passed through a period of national anxiety and considerable peril. Eighteen months ago we had about 300,000 men locked up in South Africa, and everybody must have felt that if another war had broken out then the country at home was not in that state of security in which such a nation as ours should be. The Government, having looked at the conditions of the day and the events of the last few years, had come to the conclusion, which he heartily supported, that something ought to be dune to strengthen, not only the Navy, but also the Army. He could not say that he regarded altogether with any feeling of tolerance the proposals of those representing the people who, a short time ago, were clamouring against the War Office. He was not referring simply to hon. Members, but also to the Press of this country, for their denunciations of the War Office. They protested loudly against the indefensible position in which the country stood, and now, when a scheme was put forward to remedy that state of things, they made one of the principal features of their criticism the exaggerated strength the Army which was now proposed. The position of this country was extremely serious, and upon a question of this sort they ought not to blow hot and cold at one time. They should take either one side or the other. They ought to remember that the War Office was what this House and the country made it. Surely it was hardly fair that Parliament should refuse to enable the War Office to do what the country had demanded. The Member for St. Albans, in a very amusing speech, said it was a great misfortune that unsuitable and unfit men should be recruited in the Army and counted in the strength of the Army. One would imagine from the speeches that these specials were the men who upheld and maintained the honour of the British Army. He maintained that the men who went out to South Africa were a very fine Army, and no doubt it was the proper thing to leave behind those who were considered unfit. The men who were sent out to South Africa were fine representatives of the vigour, and pluck, and character of the country, and he greatly deprecated the language which had been used this afternoon. He had spoken to the late Colonel Henderson about matters in South Africa, and he had told him that he had no doubt whatever concerning the men this country sent out to South Africa; coming into the Army voluntarily from an active life, in the mere matter of marching there was not a conscript army in Europe which could touch them. The bad recruits-were left behind, and that was the right place for them. The right hon. Gentleman ought to take such measures as were required to prevent the introduction of unfit men into the Army. He would remind the House that the history of this country did not begin with the Boer War, and to learn lessons from the late war did not necessarily mean that they should forget every lesson they had learned from other wars. The great lesson they had learned from the Boer War was that they could not do everything at the last moment, and to be prepared, they must make an enormous effort to got the right number of men. The country thought the state of the Army was unsatisfactory at the commencement of the war, and now proposals were being made to remedy it. Those who were opposing this scheme had not produced any alternative scheme. He really must ask whether some hon. Gentlemen had present to their mind what the British Army was wanted for. The hon. Member for Oldham was positively shocked the other day, and showed considerable emotion at the thought that the Secretary of State for War had some idea of circumstances arising under which British troops would be pitted against Continental troops, and he even went so far as to look at the dictionary in order to see the real meaning of the word "pitted." He personally was convinced that just as they had fought in the past so they would have to fight in the future. Did anybody really suppose that the circumstances of the old days were absolutely past, and that in future all that would happen in the case of war with a Continental Power would be our magnificent fleet pursuing an inferior fleet? Such a state of things was unthinkable, and he could not imagine a war between Great Britain and a Continental Power in which the British Army would not be required.

Not in Europe.

Nobody who has heard my hon. friend can doubt the effect that his speech has created, or the extent to which his voice was representative of a large majority of the Members of this House. If it is any satisfaction to my hon. friend to know that he does not stand alone in these views, 1 can tell him that the number of letters 1 have received in the same sense in the last few days would give him any confirmation ho requires as to the views he has expressed, and as to the action taken by my hon, friends below the Gangway. When I heard the speech of my hon. friend the Member for St. Albans I hoped that no such speech as that which has just been delivered would have been necessary in this debate. His speech gave us the hope of a comfortable and edifying discussion upon the inferiority of certain recruits taken into the Army, and his Amendment, as I understand it, was only devoted to knocking off such men as he believed might be knocked off without decreasing the fighting strength of the Army. But from the moment my hon. friend the Member for Whitby got up we saw at once the old cloven foot of reduction, not for efficiency but for economy, as he puts it, and it was made perfectly clear that this reduction of 3,000 men was only a sort of offshoot of the reduction of 27,000 men which my hon. friend and his supporters ineffecually pressed upon the House of Commons last week. Now, Sir, I think I might be held absolved from answering the hon. Member for Whitby. None of his arguments were new. They have been urged before, and if I may say so without offence his speech was a belated speech. It ran like a speech which was intended to be delivered last week and somehow was not delivered, and the effect of it was that he advanced again arguments which have already been refuted.

Oh!

Well, the hon. Member for Oldham does not agree; but, after all, we must be allowed our opinions—opinions which are based on convictions that I hope are equally shared on those Benches.

Does my right hon. friend mean that we are not acting on our convictions? [Cries of "Order."]

My noble friend should know that the practice of the House of Commons pays no respect to authority of any description, and I really think that until he becomes the custodian of the order of the House by sitting in the Chair he may leave it to Mr. Speaker to correct Members who are out of order. I am only concerned to refute three or four misstatements which my hon. friend the Member for Whitby allowed to crop up in his it is proposed to improve the Naval Medical Department with respect to promotion and pay, so as to place it on a like footing with the Army Medical Service. (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) On 24th March, 1902, an Order in Council was issued raising the pay of Naval medical officers and placing it practically on an equality with that of officers of the Royal Army Medical Corps. Promotion both in the medical branch of the Navy and in the Royal Army Medical Corps is by seniority until the administrative grades are reached, when promotion by selection is practised. Special promotions for conspicuous professional merit or for war service are made in the Naval Medical Service. Owing to the great differences between the Navy and Army it is impossible to conduct the medical services on exactly similar lines.

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that the new victualling scheme will cost more than the old scale, it is proposed to increase the present allowance of Is. Id. per day to pensioners. (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) The reply to the hon. Member's Question is in the negative. The amount of the allowance was fixed more than thirty years ago with reference to the value of the ration at that date; and owing to the subsequent falls in the prices of various articles of food, the allowance has for some years exceeded the actual value of the old ration, and will still be higher than the estimated value of the new ration.

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will state what is the approximate amount issued, during the year ending 31st March, 1903, for the purposes of the Naval Works Acts. (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The following advances have been issued by the Treasury: Midsummer, 1902, £900,000; Michaelmas, 1902, £748,000; Christmas, 1902, £610,000; Lady Day, 1903, £890,000; Total, £3,148,000. The unexpended balance of advances on 31st vice. March, 1902, amounted to £221,404.

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education how many applications under Section 11 (1) of the Education Act, 1902, have been received by the Board; in how many cases the application was to modify the trust deed; and in how many cases it was for an order where no trust deed existed whether any orders have been made which have the effect of rendering the religious teaching in a school denominational where it has hitherto been undenominational; and, if no such orders have been yet made, is it the intention of the Board of Education to make such orders in cases where existing schools; are undenominational. (Answered by Sir William Anson.) Up to 21st March, 10,214 applications for orders under Section 11 had been received by the Board. As the classification of the applications has not yet been completed, it is not possible at present to say how many are for orders to modify the trust deed, and how many are for orders to meet cases where no trust deed exists. No orders have been made which will have the effect of rendering the religious teaching in a school denominational where it has hitherto been undenominational. Nor have the Board power under Section 11 to make any such order or to give any directions as to the form of religious instruction to be given in schools.

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education if it has been decided that there shall be no practical examination in science at the training college examinations this year; and, if so, whether the Board will reconsider their decision in view of their circular issued to the training colleges in June, 1901, prescribing that the science teaching should in future be of a practical and experimental character. day—not the servants of one Government but of both Governments; not men selected on any ground except that of their being the best representatives of the Army and the men who have seen most of field service. I say the opinions given by those men should not be set aside for any anonymous opinion which is unvouched for, and of which all we know is that it has been given by a military man. I wait until my hon. friend gets up, or some of his supporters get up, to tell us who there is, who has real field experience and knowledge, and whoso opinion may weigh with the House, who is in favour of decreasing the Army by 27,000 men.

I am in possession of the name of an authority, who will be recognised, I think, by everybody in this House, whose opinion is to the effect that the Army could be very largely reduced indeed. I have that gentleman's authority to use my judgment in this matter, and I should propose to give his name to the Prime Minister. [Cries of "Oh."]

I shall await the result of that action with great complacency. I said when I rose that I thought this Question which is now before the House was one which should not be obscured by the great issue which the House decided last week. I think there was in the speech of my lion, friend the Member for St. Albans, besides a great deal of humour, a genuine ring of anxiety as to the nature of the recruits. That subject is not by any means so interesting or thrilling as one which the hon. Member for Whitby has drawn across the trail. Still, I think the House will perhaps be interested to know what are the steps which have been taken to redeem the Army from the imputation that in-efficients are so largely introduced. In the first place, there is the gravest possible misconception as regards the physique of our Army as compared with that of foreign countries. I cannot discuss this question at any length this afternoon, but I will go as far as this. My hon. friend amused the House by assuming an encounter between our troops and those of foreign countries, and referred to the official apology which the Government of the day would have to make—that the foreigners were of so much finer physique.

I never suggested for an instant that the physique of the foreigners was finer than ours. I said that the right hon. Gentleman was allowing a lot of wastrels to be brought into the Army who were not fit to be put into opposition to any other troops that I know.

What I understood the hon. Member to say, arid I think he will admit that he did say it, was that, as compared with foreign recruits, ours, as at present taken, certainly showed a marked inferiority of physique.

I said that foreign nations had an immense advantage over us in the fact that they could draw from the whole of their population. I recognised that as a difficulty with which the right hon. Gentleman had to contend. I said that would not help him when it came to a war.

That is the point I want to make. My hon. friend thinks that owing to that advantage, foreign nations get better recruits. My hon. friend knows, and the House ought to know, that in every single instance—I do not speak of the United States of America—the standard of recruits in foreign countries is lower than it is in this country. Take the standard of French recruits. Nobody who has ever walked through a French garrison town and looked at the soldiers whom he has met will need any statistics. As regards height, there is no standard for infantry soldiers in France. I hold in my hand a book of the French disqualifications. If I had time to read it to them, hon. Members would be astounded at the things which are not regarded as disqualifications, even in men who are under five feet in height. As to German recruits, the minimum height for infantry, telegraph corps, and rifles is 5·05 feet—that is under five feet one inch; and no rules are laid down regarding chest measurement, the matter being left to the medical officers. In Russia the minimum standard for infantry is five feet one-quarter inch, for rifles five feet one and a quarter inches, and the minimum chest measurement is half the height plus seven-eighths inches. In all those armies I am quite convinced hon. Members will find that in all respects, except that of age, men are taken as physically inferior as any recruits taken in this country. I fully recognise that there is and has been a tendency perhaps in the last fifteen years to go lower in the physical standard of recruits. Why is that? Hon. Members are under the impression, I think, that that is done under civilian pressure in order to produce a larger number on paper. I can assure the House that is not the fact. During my experience at the War Office, which extends back to 1886, with, of course, intervals, I never remember a discussion of this kind in which the military Members did not press for a lower standard or for the introduction of specials, and in which, on the whole, the civilian opinion was not the other way. Why is that? The reason is very obvious. In the Navy they have the great advantage of enlisting boys for boy service. In the Army that is only done to a limited extent. I believe every military man and every naval man prefers taking a recruit as a boy to taking him when he has reached eighteen years of age. Such an one is far better trained, he is far more amenable to discipline, and he learns his business and becomes a soldier or sailor of the best class. To take boys on a very large scale in the Army would be an enormous expense. You would have to spend practically all you are spending now for grown men, and you would also have to spend money on your boy establishment. Therefore, almost every soldier I have come across goes as near as he can and says—Let us take all the grown men we can get and any man who is a little under the standard who is likely to come up to it, because that man will be well trained by the time we want to use him. That may or may not be right, but it has not been concealed from the House of Commons. When I came forward to urge the House to accept, as I have twice done in the last seven years, an increase of pay, on the first occasion I explained to the House that the pay of a recruit on joining was practically 7d a day—that is to say, there was a messing allowance of 3d which he paid and there were various necessaries for which there were stoppages of 2d., making up the shilling. I told the House then that, recognising that many of these boys were not fit immediately to be put into the field, we could not give the increased allowance of 3d. at that time, and we have since not allowed the increased allowance of 5d., making up the shilling, to be given until one of two things has happened—until a boy or recruit is pronounced to be efficiently trained, which may be after six months' training, or until he has reached nineteen years of age; and that is the rule. Therefore my hon. friend is in error when he says that we pay the same for boys who are inefficient, and specials who have not reached the standard, as we pay for the trained soldier. For specials or weedy boys we pay 7d., and not until they become trained soldiers or are over nineteen do they receive a shilling.

But if he is kicked out of the Army in six months, he has surely during that time cost as much as the best men?

That is another point. I am coming to that. It is true take a certain number under standard, but we treat them as boys and do not count them as fit or eligible to go abroad. This may be wrong or lot, but there has never been any concealment about it. Now what is our position? Of the recruits we have taken certain percentage under standard. During the war, every man who presented himself was naturally taken and drilled, because he might become useful before the end of the war, and it would have been unwise to refuse him; but the moment I learned the condition of recruiting at the beginning of the year, within two days of receiving the Adjutant General's Report, we did raise the standard, and I have gone into the whole subject of recruiting and its conditions. My hon. friend, in his enumeration of qualifications, mentioned character, intelligence, and, in the third place, physical vigour. Well, I think physical vigour comes very high in the qualifications for a soldier, but, at any rate, it is one of the characteristics we cannot do without. When we come to the question of character, I find much in what my lion, friend said with which I can agree; but we must remember there are variations in the term character, and in these variations we must not press the question too far. We shall all agree in saying, let us have a system that shall keep out men who have been in gaol for criminal offences, let us have a system that will keep out the habitual drunkard and the man likely to demoralise his comrades. But what I demur to is the laying down of a number of Sunday School rules as to character. You must not lay down a rule under which a boy who has, say, kicked up his heels, and, perhaps, been impertinent to his master, or something of that kind, would be without a character; or a man may have left two or three situations without any cause except such as would prevent one giving a character to a butler or a servant: I do not want such a man to be debarred from Army service on the ground of character. While on this subject perhaps the House will allow me to give a few extracts taken at random from reports I have received from rive or six districts in reference to recruits taken last year. In the London district, where I think 8,000 men were taken, the recruiting officer reports that the recruits are more satisfactory now that greater care is taken to make inquiries as to age and character. From Dover the report says there is a marked improvement in the average of education, and characters, when applied for, have invariably been got. In the western district—from Devonport—the reports say the forms in reference to character are filled in in a satisfactory manner. From Warring-ton it is stated that no recruit is taken who cannot produce a reference or is not known to the recruiter, with the result that there is an absence of fraudulent enlistment. In Birmingham the physique is fairly good, education very good, and character good, owing to the complete system of inquiry. I only take these as typical instances of what we are doing, and I think the House will see they do not show there is that indifference to character of which something has been said. What I propose to do, with the full consent of the Commander-in-Chief, is to cause reference to character to be asked for in each case, and I propose in fact to put in force the system which has been carried out in four of these five districts. Of course, it must be understood that we, in estimating character, must be guided by the conditions and circumstances, but the hon. Member may rest assured that personally I am heartily in accord with his view. If hon. Members really believe that any occupant of this Bench has any advantage to gain by making a sham statement showing a total of men, a considerable number of whom will fall out before the close of the year, I can assure them they are very greatly mistaken. Where will be the test? What does it matter what happens to-day or to-morrow? The test is the state of the Army two or three years hence. I only wish that those who now so strongly criticise the Government would remember that the present system of Army enlistment is not a year old, and that the results they so vehemently challenge have actually not had the trial of twelve months. It is entirely a delusion to suppose that if, by discarding, waste, you get less than 50,000, therefore you necessarily reduce the number of troops you desire to maintain. If you waste less you want less; you gain, if you get a lesser number on whom you can rely. That is why I say I am heartily in favour of the principle of the proposal put forward. I make no prophecy in this matter. I have never, in any circumstances, ventured to tell the House we could lay down any fixed rule as to the number of men we could get in a year. As everybody knows, recruiting must largely depend on the state of the labour market, and the par and prospects offered by the Army. But I do believe—although we cannot control the state of the labour market—I do believe that a great step forward has been taken, not only in the pay, but in the improvements of the prospects in the Army in the last few years; and I believe that anything that will tend to advance that step, that any system improving the condition of our troops, will induce men who have not hitherto joined the Army to come to it as an honourable profession in which they will be adequately remunerated. I hope, in that my hon. friends and the Government are not far apart in their views, that they will not think it necessary to divide on this Motion for a reduction, which I understand has been put forward to give them the opportunity of expressing the strong feelings they hold, and in which, so far as I can see, we are in almost entire accord.

said he wished to speak on the subject from the point of view of the taxpayer. He was entirely in favour of the Motion of the hon. Gentleman. He voted for the reduction of the Army last week, and he would vote for a still greater reduction if a division were taken on the Motion. He had a firm conviction that the burden which was being imposed on the taxpayers for the defensive forces of the country was becoming intolerable, and that the country was becoming tired of it. They could not view the increase in the forces of the country without considering their future position. Hon. Members opposite appeared to live in an atmosphere which was three years old. Every part of the country that had had an opportunity of expressing an opinion on the present policy of the Government had rejected it. That was seen last week, and again yesterday in one of the strongholds of the Conservative Party; and probably within a week it would be seen in another Conservative stronghold. He understood that hon. Gentlemen opposite introduced these discussions on the Army, firstly, because they thought the Army was unnecessarily large, and therefore necessarily expensive; and, secondly, because they thought the country was not getting value for the money expended. Their contention was that it would be better to have a small, thoroughly-equipped and effective Army, then a larger Army not equipped and not efficient. He understood hon. Members to say that the strength of the Army as shown by the Secretary of State was a paper strength; and that the War Office was drawing recruits to such an extent that they were compelled to take men and boys who otherwise would be rejected. There was a great change in the position imposed on recruits since his time. Forty-five years ago he submitted himself to the consideration of a recruiting officer. He had a little refreshment within him, and was inspired with great hopes and expectations as to his military prospects as he marched through the streets to the barracks. However, lie was not even permitted to reach the medical officer's department. He was immediately stripped of his boots, put under a measure, and declared short, and so ended his connection with the British Army. He could only speak of the Army up to that point, and no further. He was not a wastrel physically, whatever else he might have been. For the last forty-five years he had been in pretty good health, but the standard for the British Army in that time had been so reduced that they now took mere shadows of humanity compared with what he was then. That was the one weak point of this system, and that was the point to which hon. Members opposite had drawn attention. They showed that we were hanging on a broken reed; that we were taking recruits unfit to bear arms, and training them for six or twelve months at a great cost, and at last they had to be rejected as utterly useless as a fighting force. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that in the last two or three years he had come down to the House with Motions for improving the Army by giving an increase of pay. But he would not improve the Army by increasing the pay alone. That no doubt was necessary, but they would also have to improve the condition of life in barracks, and increase the self-respect of the rank and file of the Army; they must also be able to hold out to the private soldier a moderate course of promotion, and do away with much of that hateful and detestable class distinction which now ruled so much in the British Army. If something of that kind were done, a great deal would be done for the recruiting of the British Army, and they would obtain the best persons available. Another difficulty which they had to contend with was the decrease in the physique of the class to which they had to go for the rank and file. That was a very serious matter, and so long as the agricultural labourers of this country, from which the great majority of our recruits were drawn, were decreasing, and the conditions under which they lived were so demoralising to their physique and morality, that difficulty would remain. He had thought it necessary to inform the House of his slight connection with the Army, and, speaking for himself, if he were an officer, he would rather go with 100 strong and true men, who were intelligent and physically fit to meet the most extreme strain that might be put upon them, than he would with 150 half-breeds who were physically and mentally unfit for any undertaking. He trusted that the hon. Member for St. Albans would divide the House upon this point, in which case he would vote with him. They must reduce. They could not go on in this ridiculous way, spending millions and millions on both services, and yet having no guarantee that with this inceased expenditure they had increased safety. If they were to have a real War Office reform they should get rid of the old, useless, ineffective administrators, and place in their positions men who would be capable of giving twenty shillings worth of value for every pound which was spent. They did not grumble so much at the amount as the fast that they felt the money was being wasted and the country was not getting value for it. That was one of the main reasons why they continually opposed this increasing outlay of public money. Real reform must start at the bottom and continue to the top, and anyone who was inefficient, who came between them and the object they had in view, must give place to others. He supported the reduction.

pointed out that the Government must have Vote I and Vote A before half-past seven. He only rose to call the attention of the House to the fact, and hoped hon. Gentlemen would bear it in mind.

said he had no intention of making a speech, but that after the statement made by the Secretary of State for War he thought it was only right that he should express his thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for the announcement he had made with reference to the new system of enlisting recruits. He had taken great interest in this matter, and had brought it to the attention of the House on several occasions in past years, and it was a matter of great satisfaction to him that the right hon. Gentleman should be willing to try this new system, at any rate as an experiment. The right hon. Gentleman had said that he accepted the principle of the hon. Member for St. Albans' Amendment, and further that he was "heart and soul with him." That was a statement the House had heard with great satisfaction, and it showed that the right hon. Gentleman was not impervious to argument. One other word by way of personal explanation. The hon. Member for Durham had vigorously attacked those who had placed on the Paper Motions for reduction, on the ground that their only motive was to reduce the fighting strength of the Army, otherwise, he said, they should have stated in their Motion the motives of their reduction. He would point out to his hon. friend, however, that by the Rules of the House it was not possible to show on the Paper the motives with which a reduction was to be moved. Personally he had handed in a notice to reduce the strength of the Army by a certain number, "being the number of ineffectives now in the ranks," but the clerks had ruled it out. Whatever hon. Members might think, he could assure them that, as far as he was concerned, his motive was to reduce the strength of the Army not by a single fighting man, but only by the number of ineffectives. In conclusion, he wished to express the confident belief that the reforms which the Secretary of State for War had just announced would prove very successful in practice, and would have a most beneficial effect, not only upon recruiting, but upon the Army generally.

in supporting the Amendment, said that while he agreed with almost every word of the mover, he did not confine his opposition to the Vote to the grounds stated by the hon. Member. His main objection was that the total war expenditure of the country, on a peace footing, was monstrously extravagant, and ought to be reduced. His reading of recent elections was that a great revulsion of feeling was taking place in the country on the question of expenditure, and that there would have to be a return to methods of economy. The enormous increase of war expenditure in the last ten years was due to the great change of policy involved in the revival of Imperialism, which had taken place since the retirement of Mr. Gladstone. In the year following that statesman's retirement, there was an increase of several millions in the war services, and that increase had been going on by leaps and bounds ever since. But would anybody suggest that the country had been freer from apprehension of attack? The reverse was the case. The confidence of foreign countries in Mr. Gladstone and his policy of pence, which Liberals of former days, and real Liberals of to-day, advocated, had secured the country from apprehension of attack, That policy had been changed, and with it the attitude of other countries had altered. The alternative policy he would suggest was a return to the old traditions, which had been the policy as much of Conservatives as of Liberals. Hon. Members on the other side would not be abandoning the old traditions of Conservatism by adopting the policy of retrenchment and economy, and particularly of minding our own affairs, and not seizing the property of other people. The hon. Member for Durham had suggested the possibility of our Army having face Continental armies in an European war. He demurred altogether to that view. Even if we raised as many men as the most extravagant Member on the other side desired, it would be as a mere drop in the ocean compared with the armies on the Continent; while if our Navy were defeated, and this country invaded, we should not be on the "safe side," to use the hon. Member's words, if we had three times as many men as we have. If we were to prepare against invasion, we were woefully below the necessary number, while if we simply desired to guard our possessions in other countries, our Army was a great deal too large. He agreed with what had been said as to the class of men required in the Army, and that was one of his reasons for thinking a reduction necessary. The proper class of men could not be obtained unless higher pay was offered, and, as the country would not dream of voting more money than was now being voted, the only way to enable better pay to be given was to reduce the number of men. He should certainly support the Amendment, and he only wished it had been proposed to reduce the Vote by a much larger number of men.

said he desired to dissociate himself from the opinion that this country in the event of anything happening to the Fleet would be left entirely unprotected. It was time some protest was made against the impression that in the event of war, and in the event of our Fleet being defeated, this country would have to surrender because they would be un- able to defend themselves. He thought such an exhibition of cowardice would be unworthy of the great nation and the great Empire they had inherited. He thought they might rely upon the Auxiliary forces for the defence of this country. He knew from his own experience how much had been done at a small expense with regard to the Yeomanry in which he had the honour of serving. By the addition of about £300,000 to the national expenditure, the Yeomanry had been increased to something like 35,000 men, and he thought more might be done to increase their defensive forces by encouraging the Volunteers. It was in that direction, and not in the direction of a great increase in the standing Army, that they ought to look for insuring the safety of this country. On those grounds he should support the proposal for a reduction. He only wished to add one word about India. He well remembered how the whole question was threshed out years ago when a very wise statesman, the late Lord Derby, said that the true defences of India were a contented people and a well-filled Treasury, an Army not too widely scattered for its work, and neighbours who are satisfied that we have no designs on their independence or their territory-The safety of India was secured very much by their good relations with Afghanistan, a country which constituted a most ideal buffer state, because it was inhabited by tribes who would not permit an armed force to come within their borders, and it was a country so difficult that the Duke of Wellington once said that in it a small army would be annihilated, and a large army would starve. He believed that in India they were safe enough, and in this country they had Auxiliary forces sufficient to defend these shores. He was in favour of maintaining a small and well-trained Army with proper reserves, and he should cordially support the proposition before the House.

It is almost presumption for an outsider, who watches these little domestic jars with pain, but not with a wholly unsympathetic interest, to intervene at all on an occasion of this kind, particularly at a moment when there seems to he a prospect of a temporary reconciliation. My sole object in rising is to say this: I understand that the object of the hon. Gentleman in the Motion he has brought forward is to deal entirely with the question of recruiting. The reduction which he proposes is very much less than those who were opposed to the whole scheme would be prepared to vote for; and it is because of the limitation suggested by the figures of the hon. Gentleman, and borne out by the arguments of his speech, that some of us who would otherwise have taken part in the discussion have not been able to do so. The hon. Gentleman, I think, has very good reason for congratulating himself upon the response he has received to his Motion. Similar points were made in a speech of very great ability, marked by wide and minute knowledge, by the lion. Member for Fareham, who did not on that occasion get anything like the same amount of satisfaction from the responsible Minister as has been conceded to-day. It is well worth while to have spent some hours of the time of the House of Commons in inducing the Secretary of State to make the admission he has made to-day, and to give the undertakings, which I am sure will be carried out to the best of the right hon. Gentleman's ability, and which we hope will result in putting a very different complexion on the whole of this question. I, for my part, am not prepared to stand in the way of the withdrawal of the Motion.

said he believed the right hon. Gentleman had made an omission which, more than anything else, would have satisfied everybody upon this recruiting question. He wished the right hon. Gentleman to give a pledge that when making inquiries as to character, he would also include inquiries as to age. This would not require any expert correspondence, and

I have over and over again endeavoured to secure some proof of age. I am told that a very largo number of recruits do not know where they were born, and it is useless to ask them to prove their age. All I can do in such cases is to give instructions that the medical officers shall be very particular with the men about whom they have any doubts and see that they have the physical appearance and development of eighteen years.

said that as far as his experience went there was very little difficulty in ascertaining age in order to meet the requirements of the Factory Acts. Factory owners were bound to know whether boys were over fourteen or not, and whether they were eighteen or under. When the right hon. Gentleman became strict in inquiring into character he would find that boys of good character knew their age. It was only boys who did not know where they were born who did not know their age. He hoped the right hon Gentleman would make inquiry about age, and not simply trust to the report of the doctor.

At present inquiry is made into age, but in a great number of cases it is very difficult to get. I am quite certain that if every Member of this House were asked to go into the Vote Office and to write down at once where he was horn and where his birth certificate could be obtained the great majority would not be able to do so.