To ask the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he can state how many cows were kept within the area of the county of London during the last five years, giving the number for each year separately. (Answered by Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.) The number of cows kept within the area of the county of London during the last five years respectively were—1899, 5,467; 1900, 5,040; 1901, 4,972; 1902, 4,669; 1903, 4,689.

To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state on how many days each Fishery Board cruiser has been at sea during the year ending 31st December, 1903, and the number of convictions for illegal trawling secured by each vessel. (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) The Return for 1903 as required by the hon. Member is—

To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state how many foreign trawlers have been observed fishing in the Moray Firth during the year ending 31st December, 1903, and their respective nationalities. (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) During the year 1903, foreign trawlers have been observed fishing in the Moray Firth upon 195 occasions, on 170 of these occasions the boat was of Scandinavian and the remainder, I believe, were all of I Belgian, nationality. The hon. Member will remember the numbers given are of I occasions on which boats have been observed, and are no index to the actual number of different boats engaged in fishing the Moray Firth.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government I of Japan guarantees against loss vessels proceeding with cargoes to Japan; and, if so, can he state whether such guarantees are restricted to vessels chartered by the Japanese Government or are given generally, and also whether such guarantees are confined to vessels carrying particular cargoes; and, if so, what cargoes. (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) His Majesty's Government have no knowledge of the terms of any contracts which the Japanese Government or their agents may have concluded with firms in this country, and are consequently not in a position to answer the right hon. Member's Question.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can say when the Return relating to exports of coal from various ports in this country to various countries abroad will be in the hands of Members. (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour). The Return will probably be issued next week.

To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in view of the fact that shells are now illegal currency in the Uganda Protectorate, he will substitute a coin of as nearly as is possible the same value, and holed. (Answered by Earl Percy.) The introduction into the Uganda Protectorate of new copper coins representing decimal parts of the rupee is dealt with in the Draft Order in Council providing for a new currency, which is now before the Commissioner. The possibility of holing the coinage has not been lost sight of.

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury when and under whose supervision it is proposed to expend the extra sum of £3,155 on replanting and improving the Phœnix Park; is he aware that any timber trees planted in the Park in recent years have been of the cheapest and commonest kind; and that there are a variety of expensive trees and shrubs planted in the London Royal Parks to which the Phœnix Park is equally suited, but which are not to be found there; and will the work of replanting be entrusted to some landscape gardener or nurseryman of recognised authority. (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) The money will be expended after the 31st inst under the supervision of the I Board of Public Works, who have had the best professional assistance as well as the co-operation of amateur experts, one of whom has presented the Board with about 800 specimen trees not to be obtained in the open market. The answer to the second Question is in the negative. No expense is spared in selecting the best trees and shrubs suitable for the soil and climate of the park. The replanting will be entrusted to the park bailiff.

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury how many clerks of the senior assistant (abstractor) class have been called upon to retire, after twenty-five or more years continuous service, upon pensions of 15s. a week or less; and, having regard to the condition such pensions must entail, he will consider whether some steps can be taken to augment the allowances to these clerks. (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) I am not in a position to state the number of persons who have retired under the circumstances referred to by the hon. Member, as a list of such cases is not kept at the Treasury. Clerks of the abstractor class are pensioned under the same conditions as other members of the permanent Civil Service; and I see no reason for treating them differently.

To ask the Secretary of State for India if a statement can be presented showing particulars relating to recent working of the modern system of Indian currency; the net export of gold from India during the latter half of last year and the month of January in the present year, stating what amount or proportion of the total has been received here on State account; what amounts of gold were held by the Indian Government at the end of January in the Currency Reserve, the Government Treasuries, and the Gold Reserve Fund, including the amount of the latter invested in Consols; what is the total number of sovereigns disbursed in the above period in payment of the Indian Government's public works material, salaries, and other current charges; and the number of sovereigns, in lieu of Rs. 15, that have been received by the Indian Government for land revenue, Customs, or other fiscal liabilities. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) Exports and Imports of Gold—Exports from 1st July to 31st December, 1903, £4,571,700, of which £3,267,700 was consigned to the Secretary of State. Imports, £6,640,300. Net Imports, £2,068,600. Complete figures for January have not yet been received from India. Gold in possession of Government of India, 31st January, 1904; in Currency Reserve, £9,207,000; in Treasuries. £145,000; in Gold Reserve Fund, £500,000; British Securities held on behalf of the Gold Reserve Fund, 31st January, 1904—£4,762,150 (amount of stock held). Receipts and disbursements of sovereigns—The Government of India have informed me that for the reason given in the reply to the hon. Member's Question of Kith July, 1903, † it is not possible to furnish the information asked for concerning the disbursements of sovereigns in payment for public works, etc., and the receipts for land revenue, etc.

To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state what were the total imports of silver into India during the latter half of last year and the month of January in the present year, specifying the amount on Government account, and sums of silver coined or recoined and issued in the period; what net values of currency notes have been issued, on monthly average, in that period, and what is the gross total estimated now co be in circulation; the amount of the cash balances of the Indian treasuries in India and England, respectively, at the end of January; the estimated profit made by the Indian Government on coinage of silver in the period; and how that sum is allocated or placed to account. (Answered, by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) Imports of Silver—1st July to 31st December, 1903, £4,682,900 (viz., on Private Account, £2,707,500, on Government Account, £1,975,400). Complete figures for January, 1904, have not yet been received from India. Coinage—Silver coined 1st July to 31st December, 1903, £3,313,700 (including recoinage of old and uncurrent coin). Figures for January, 1904, have not yet been received from India. Currency notes—Gross circulation on 15th February, 1904, £23,608,672. In the seven months period mentioned in the Question there was a reduction of £731,603 in the gross circulation (a monthly average of £104,523). Cash balances on 31st January, 1904—India £9,201,300; England, £5,518,600. Estimated profit on coinage of silver—From 1st July to 31st January, £1,323,000 (this sum has been invested on behalf of the Gold Reserve Fund).

† See (4) Debates, exxv., 845.

To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state what arrangements, if any, have been made for post commission study by seconded officers of the Indian Medical Service; and in what respects the arrangements in force or proposed are similar to or differ from those of the Royal Army Medical Corps and the medical officers of the Royal Navy. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) An officer of the Indian Medical Service may be granted one month's study leave for each year's service up to twelve months in all. During such leave the ordinary furlough pay will be given, with lodging allowances of 4s. 6d. and 8s. a day for lieutenants, captains, and field officers respectively. In the Royal Army Medical Corps the arrangements for post commission study are somewhat different. All junior officers are posted to the Royal Army Medical College for six months. While there they draw their ordinary pay. The examination at the end of the course is combined with examination for promotion to the rank of major. Medical officers of the Royal Navy are required to undergo a post-graduate course of three months once in every eight years. They receive full pay, lodging allowance at the rate of £50 or £70 a year according to rank, and provision allowance at the rate of £24 a year. In addition to the extra furlough for study granted to Indian Medical Service officers they may be seconded before proceeding to India for the purpose of holding appointments in recognised civil hospitals. During such periods they receive no pay from India revenues.

To ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in accordance with the assurance of the Secretary of State on 16th July, 1903, the Government of India have been consulted with regard to continuing or discontinuing the Royal Indian Engineering College at Coopers Hill; and whether any decision has been arrived at. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The Government of India were consulted as promised by my predecessor, and I hope shortly to announce the decision arrived at by the Secretary of State in Council on this question.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that a tenant has the power, under the Purchase Act of 1891, of extending the period of repayment of annuities from the shorter to the longer number of years and thereby get the benefit of decadal reductions, he can state what the amount of the annuity payable by a tenant would be, and for how many years, who purchased a £20 rental at eighteen years purchase without decadal reductions under the Purchase Act of 1891; and whether he can state, in the case of the same tenant who purchased a £20 rental at eighteen years under the 1891 Act with decadal reductions, what number of years his annuity would have to run, and what would be the amount of his annuity for each of the periods over which he is entitled to get the benefits of the decadal reductions, and what would be the amount of his total payments and his average annual payments under the extended period of repayment, with decadal reductions. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The following table gives the information desired. Acts 1891–1896. Rent £20, eighteen years purchase, purchase money £360. Annuity £14 8s. which would repay advance in forty-two and a half years without decadal reductions. Total amount paid in forty-two and a half years £612.† With decadal reductions—Annuity payable for first ten years, £14: 8s.; second ten years £12 6s. l0d.; third ten years £10 11s. 6d.; final period forty-two and a half years £9 1s. 6d. Total payments—first ten years £141; second ten years £123 8s. 4d.; third ten years £105 15s.; Final period forty-two and a half years £385 13s. 9d.; Total paid in seventy-two and a half years £758 17s. 1d.† Average annual payment for term of seventy-two and a half years £10 9s. 6d.

†Includes sinking fund and interest.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will arrange that the appointment to be created on the permanent establishment of the veterinary branch, clerical staff, of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction will be filled by the promotion of one of the gentlemen who have from nine to thirteen years service, and whose salaries are still less than £100 a year. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The claims and qualifications of all persons who are considered eligible for promotion to the position referred to will be duly considered.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state how many vacancies have occurred on the First of First Teachers' Pension establishment; and the number who have been promoted to it since the new pension rules came into force in 1897. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The number of vacancies in the pension establishment of the First of First Class which occurred since 1st January, 1898, when the new pension rules came into force, is ninety-four, and the number of promotions is the same.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is part of the duties of the prison warders attached to Maryborough Convict Prison to drive the prison horses and carts and deliver vegetables and farm produce in the town and district; whether he is aware that on last pig fair day in Maryborough two warders were sent out in full uniform driving a number of pigs before them; and whether, in view of the effect of the imposition of such duties upon the standard of men who join the Irish prison service, he will take steps to insure that such duties shall not in future be imposed on prison warders. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) It is the duty of the warder who is detailed to take charge of the prison transport car to deliver farm produce grown in the prison grounds, and to convey goods to and from the railway station. Two warders in uniform assisted the storekeeper on a recent occasion in the manner stated in the second part of the Question, but this was done without the authority of the prison governor, and will not occur again.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will introduce a clause in his proposed amending Land Bill, giving the tenants of an estate not principally agricultural or pastoral, but consisting of ground rents in a village with plots of land, who agree with their landlord as to the purchase price, the right to purchase under the Irish Land Act, 1903. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The reply to this Question is in the negative.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will arrange that every classed teacher engaged in any national school in Ireland who desires to get trained shall, without any entrance examination and by application to the National Education Commissioners, get an order for admission to some approved training college in rotation according to the date of application, in order to save the strain involved in preparation for such an examination. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The question will be considered by the Commissioners at their meeting on Tuesday next.

To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state how many Presbyterian chaplains, commissioned or acting, were employed during the South African War, and how many belonged to the Established Church, and how many to the United Free Church respectively, and what was the amount of money paid to the ministers of the two denominations for their services in the war. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) Six commissioned chaplains of the Presbyterian denomination were employed during the South African war, two belonging to the United Free Church, one to the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, and three to the Established Church. In addition to these there were thirty -two civilian Presbyterian clergymen at one time or another on Army duty. From the information at the disposal of the War Office, it is not possible to distinguish the particular branch of the Presbyterian Church to which they belonged, and accordingly the amount of money paid to each cannot be determined.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the principles which are to regulate the proceedings of the Army Council are to be formulated by Order in Council; and, if so, when. (Answered, by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster). A portion of the recommendations of the War Office Reconstitution Committee will require to be formulated in an Order in Council. The matter is under consideration; and steps will be taken to frame the Order in Council as soon as possible.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether a Chief of the General Staff of the Army has been appointed as stated on page 22 of Part II. of the War Office Reconstitution Committee; and, if so, who holds this appointment, and upon what Vote his salary will be borne. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) Lieutenant-General Sir N. Lyttelton has been appointed Chief of the General Staff, and his salary is provided in Vote 13 as a military member of the Army Council.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state the rate of wages paid to natives in the Rand mines immediately before the war, immediately after the war, and at the present time. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) The hon. Member will find the information he requires at page 202 of [Cd. 1895], and in Exhibit I. following after page 671 of [Cd. 1897].

To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there is any law in force in the Transvaal to prevent the importation of persons of any class or colour; and, if not, would he consider with Lord Milner the desirability of legislation for the Transvaal on lines similar to those proposed in the Government measure for preventing undesirable alien immigration into the United Kingdom. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) There is no law in force for preventing the importation of persons of any class or colour into the Transvaal, but the Peace Preservation Ordinance affords opportunity of controlling it. Lord Milner proposes later on to pass an Immigration Restriction Ordinance on the lines of the Cape and Natal Acts.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that pensions are now granted to retired officers, foremen, and assistant foremen of the clerical staff of the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich, but withheld from men working in the same establishment on low wages who have served as soldiers or sailors, he will consider the advisability of dealing with the latter in the same manner as other discharged soldiers are dealt with who serve in prisons, parks, post offices, barrack departments, and other Government establishments.

I am afraid that the hon. and gallant Member's Question is not understood. Would he be kind enough to specify more particularly the cases which he has in view.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, having regard to the fact that the estimated expenditure for stationery and printing for the Army is given under Class 2, Vote 23, as £140,000 for 1904–5, the same sum as the previous year, will he consider the expediency of ordering some inquiry with a view to ascertain whether it is practicable to effect a saving under this head.

The sum of £140,000 does not represent the total Estimate for 1903–4, which, with Supplementary Estimates, after deducting Appropriations in Aid, came to about £157,000. There is no reason to suppose that the sums provided for 1904–5 will be insufficient. Every effort is, and will be made to cut down expenditure under this head, and there would appear to be no need for a special inquiry.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will explain why an increase of £40,000 in the cost of small-arm and machine-gun ammunition is anticipated for the year 1904–5, as shown under Vote 9, Sub-head C, of the Army Estimates.

The difference is due to increase of repayment services which will be found under Subhead M of this vote.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any allowance will be made to the Longford Board of Guardians in respect of the maintenance of Gunner Murphy, who was wounded by an accident at the last Donegal Militia training, and has been an inmate of Longford Union since October, 1903.

No, Sir. Gratuity for injuries granted under paragraph 592 of the Militia Regulations is not issued concurrently with maintenance at the public expense.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will say whether he has received from Lord Milner any estimate of the number of Asiatics proposed to be introduced into the Transvaal; and whether Asiatics recruited from British territory will be permitted to work in the Transvaal mines.

I have received no definite estimate from Lord Milner, but for the present the introduction of these labourers must admittedly be of the nature of an experiment. It is not proposed to recruit British Indians for the mines, but if any Chinese British subjects desire to go, they would be permitted to do so.

Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider that decision with a view to facilitating the exportation to South Africa of natives of Asia Minor from the neighbourhood of Park-lane and Throgmorton Street?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any proposals have come to his notice for introducing Chinese labourers into Rhodesia.

The British South Africa Company and the Rhodesian Land and Mine-owners' Association have asked that permission may be given for the introduction of Chinese labourers under the Southern Rhodesia Ordinances No. 18 of 1901 and No. 3 of 1902. The request is under consideration.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in any of the legislative Acts passed during the last thirty years dealing with immigrant Asiatic labour in British Crown Colonies, there are any cases of the introduction of the system of confining the coolies in compounds as proposed in the Transvaal; and, if so, in which Acts.

The answer is in the negative, but the hon. Member will see from the Parliamentary Paper of 7th December, 1900, that in Trinidad, for instance, and British Guiana, indentured immigrants are bound to reside on the plantation to which they are indentured and in dwellings assigned to them by the employer.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he now proposes to secure that the regulations to be framed under the Transvaal Imported Labour Ordinance shall provide that any Chinese labourer who desires that his wife should accompany or follow him to the Transvaal shall have the right to have her conveyed to the Transvaal at the cost of the persons to whom he himself is indentured.

I have given very definite pledges on this topic, to which I intend to adhere.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there is any Ordinance now in force in any British Crown Colony which prohibits indentured Asiatic labourers from engaging in any occupation other than unskilled labour; whether there is any Ordinance providing for the compulsory repatriation of such labourers on the termination of their indentures; and whether any Ordinance, other than that in force in Trinidad, renders such labourers liable to penalties if they are found away from the premises of their employer without a permit.

I may refer the hon. Member to the Parliamentary Paper of 7th December, 1900, In answer to the first paragraph of the Question there is no such Ordinance in the Crown Colonies. In answer to the second paragraph, there is no Ordinance in the Crown Colonies compelling the repatriation of indentured labourers on the termination of their indentures. In answer to the third paragraph, the Immigration Ordinances of all Crown Colonies provide that an indentured immigrant must everywhere reside in dwellings assigned to him by his employer, and absence without a pass and desertion are punishable by fine or imprisonment.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give any information with regard to the attitude recently adopted by the Free Churches at Johannesburg on the question of the importation of indentured Chinese labour.

I have no official information as to the attitude of the Free Churches at Johannesburg, but according to a telegram published in The Times of the 7th inst., the Witwatersrand Church Council at a meeting embracing representatives of the Baptist, Congregational, Presbyterian, and Wesleyan Churches of Johannesburg and district passed on the 5th inst., by thirty votes to one, the following resolution:—"That, while expressing no opinion on the economic questions involved, this meeting strongly deprecates the Free Church Council's agitation against Chinese labour, and thinks that fuller knowledge will modify the latter's views regarding the conditions of service, which are voluntary and similar to conditions which have long prevailed in South Africa. The meeting suggests that the Free Church Council's efforts should be directed to securing perfect freedom for Christian work among the Chinese."

Will the right hon. Gentleman give us the terms of the resolution passed by the Free Church Council?

Order, order!

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the fact that the rate of wages paid to the Kaffirs working on the Rand was reduced after the war, he will state whether those reduced wages are still being paid; or, if not, what is the rate at present as compared with the reduced rate, and also as compared with that previous to the war.

I would refer the hon. Member to the mining engineer's figures given at page 202 of Cd. 1895, and to the figures in Exhibit I following after page 671 of Cd. 1897, which give the rate of wages and show that a higher rate is now paid than after the war.

Has the right hon. Gentleman any objection to answer the Question on the Paper as to the present rate compared with that previous to the war?

I think, Sir, speaking from memory, that the rate of wages before the war was 49s. 9d., while the present rate is 54s.

asked whether it was not the fact that wages were halved, or nearly halved, immediately on the conclusion of the war.

Immediately after the conclusion of the war, when the country was suffering, the wages were 33s.

asked whether wages were not reduced by 30 per cent, in 1897.

I cannot carry the wages in my head for more than three or tour years. My impression is that my hon. and gallant friend is right.

What increase of wages will the Chinese get for being deported?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether an Excise duty is levied on dynamite manufactured by the De Beers Company entering the Transvaal equal to the coast duty levied on British manufactured dynamite.

No, Sir.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, replying to many Questions of this sort a year ago, always replied that the matter was under consideration. As this monopoly has now been in force for eighteen months, can the right hon. Gentleman not arrive at a decision with regard to it.

The conditions have changed. The question of railway rates affects the matter very closely.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the sanction of the Secretary of State in Council has been given to proposals, lately formulated by the Indian Government, whereby the railway on two-feet six-inches gauge, planned to start from Rawal Pindi and to run along the frontier south-westward as far as the border station of Bannu, would be changed over the greater part of the line to a sixty-six-inch gauge, with heavier bridge and other works; and, if so, will he state what is the estimated increased cost that will be incurred if such a change should be made in the plan of this military railway, and what is its total length of mileage.

The railway referred to by the hon. Member comprises a section from Rawal Pindi to Kushalgarh (seventy-nine and a quarter miles) which has been open since 1881, and was constructed on the broad gauge. The extension of this line across the Indus towards Bannu has beei: carried out as far as Thai on the two-feet six-inches gauge. But the adoption of this gauge for the section from Kushalgarh to Kohat was only a temporary measure, and it was decided last year to convert the line to the broad gauge, and to construct a permanent bridge over the Indus at Kushalgarh in place of the temporary arrangement hitherto provided for crossing the river. The conversion of the Kohat-Thal section has not yet been decided upon. The length of line from Kushalgarh to Kohat, which is to be converted to broad gauge, is 33·1 miles, and the cost of the conversion is estimated at Rs. 1,278,626. The cost of constructing the bridge is estimated at Rs. 1,1 67,191. The length of the two-feet six-inches line from Kohat to Thai is 58.12 miles.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if all indentures under which labourers from British India are employed in various British possessions contain provisions for repatriation; whether these provisions have always been strictly enforced; and, if not, will he state in how many instances labourers have been allowed to become free settlers, with the number thereof in each colony.

Except in the cases of Indian labourers in Mauritius and in the Straits Settlements, all indentures under which such labourers are employed in British possessions contain clauses regulating the grant of return passages to India. But if my hon. friend's Question is to be understood as referring to compulsory repatriation, then my answer is that this is in no case provided for in the indentures, except in Natal, where the labourer is bound at the cud of his term either to re-engage or to return to India. I have no reason to think that I the various provisions contained in the indentures of labourers in the different colonies are not strictly observed. As to the number of labourers who have settled in British colonies, I have no complete statistics; but I believe that it is considerable.

Is it not the fact that Indian coolies in Natal are allowed to re-engage and stay in the country on paying a poll tax?

I must ask for notice of that.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will place on the Table of the House the Draft of the Official Secrets Bill of the Government of India, as amended in Committee; and whether he intends giving the House an opportunity of expressing its views on the measure before giving his final sanction to it.

A copy of the Indian Official Secrets Bill, as amended by the Select Committee, was published in the Gazette of India for February 6th, which my hon. friend will find in the library of the House. The Bill has now been passed without a division through its final stage, and has become law. It requires no sanction from me; but His Majesty the King, has, of course, the power of disallowing this or any other Indian Act, upon the advice of his Ministers, if he should think fit to do so. I will lay a copy of the amended Bill as soon as I receive it.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he will consider the expediency of communicating with the Secretary of State for War, with a view to secure the manufacture at the Government ordnance factories in India of some of the new Army equipments required for service in that country.

The Government of India are at present taking steps for the manufacture in India of horse and field artillery guns and mountings, and rifles, and the factories at Cossipore, Jubbulpore and Ishapore are being equipped with the most modern machinery for the purpose. The principle of making India as far as possible independent of assistance from home in the matter of war material has been pursued by the Government of India during recent years. All equipments other than guns and rifles are already manufactured locally.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make the same suggestion as regards Ireland?

Will this manufacture of artillery not clash with what is being done in this country for India, as explained by the Secretary for War?

The factories are not equipped for the provision of the guns which the War Secretary has put at the disposal of the Indian Government.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state how many Government officials and how many non-officials were on the Committee on the Indian Official Secrets Bill; and, seeing that the Committee consisted mainly of Government officials, will he say if any non-official members were in favour of the measure, and, if any how many.

The select Committee consisted of five officials and four non-officials. All the members of the Committee signed the Report in favour of the measure; but three of the non-official members dissented in regard to two points in the revised draft.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware of the fact that there is no other provision at Mombasa for indigent Europeans but the gaol and labour till they have earned enough to pay their passage out of the country; and whether, under such circumstances, British subjects who are not possessed of a certain amount of capital, or who may be under engagement, will be prohibited from landing, and that foreign Powers who possess certain treaty rights will be notified of the Law as applied to British subjects so that they may inform their own subjects of she prospect before them if landed destitute in East Africa.

No special provision outside the gaol is made for destitute Europeans at Mombasa, and His Majesty's Commissioner will be directed to consider whether any steps can usefully be taken to give publicity to the fact. We have no evidence that the circumstances are such as to call for special legislation.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether precautions have been taken to prevent the sinking in the Suez Canal, intentionally or otherwise, of vessels belonging to either of the Powers at present at war in the East.

The free navigation of the canal is provided for by the Convention of 1888, Article IV. of which stipulates that no act of hostility, nor any act having for its object to obstruct the free navigation of the canal, shall be committed in the canal, and its ports of access. Russia is a party to this Convention, and though Japan is not one of the signatories His Majesty's Government have no reason to suppose that Japanese vessels would act otherwise than in accordance with its principles. In addition to the standing navigation regulations to which captains of ships bind themselves to conform, Rule 4 of the Regulations promulgated by the Egyptian Government on the 10th ultimo requires that every belligeren war-ship shell pass through the Suez Canal in the shortest time possible, and without stopping, except in case of necessity, or by order of the canal authorities.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether payment has yet been made by the Chinese Government of Britain's share of the Chinese war indemnity, estimated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1902 at £6,000,000 sterling; and, if not paid, whether any steps are being taken to secure payment thereof in the present financial year.

The indemnity is being paid by annuities extending over a period of thirty-nine years. The instalments of the British share are for the present being applied, as received, in discharging the private claims of British subjects.

Will the right hon. Gentleman apply the money, if there is I any balance, to the reduction of the Floating Debt, according to the promise of his predecessor?

The money is being applied to the satisfaction of private claims at the present time. Therefore there is no opportunity of considering the allocation of any further sum.

The predecessors of the right hon. Gentleman said the money being expended on account of the war, when repaid, would be applied in redemption of borrowings. May I ask—

Order, order! Notice had better be given of any further Question.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will say who is responsible for the collection of the £1,250,000, admitted by Lord Milner to be due to Great Britain I on account of the Imperial Railways of South Africa; whether he will lay upon the Table Lord Milner's statement on the subject; and say in what way the money will be recovered.

Correspondence is still proceeding on this matter, and, until it is completed, I can add nothing to the information which I have already given to the House.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether there exist any Papers showing the extent of the adoption of any metric system in the United States; and, if not, whether, with a view to the consideration of any measure upon the subject which may reach the House in the latter part of the present session, he will move the Foreign Office to cause a Return to be prepared and laid before Parliament, giving recent information upon the subject.

I am in communication with the Foreign Office with the view of obtaining such a Report as the right hon. Member suggests.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland in view of the fact that only £3,000 per annum is placed at the disposal of the Scottish Fishery Board in aid of the construction of piers and harbours, will he consider the expediency of arranging for a sum sufficient to meet the requirements of those districts in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland which are outside the Congested Districts Board area.

Perhaps I may be allowed to answer this Question. I should be glad if the figure available for the purposes referred to by the hon. Member were more considerable, but I fear there is under present circumstances no prospect of the augmentation to the fund suggested by the hon. Member.

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman approach the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a view of getting an increased grant?

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware that, notwithstanding the declarations on the subject made by him in debate on the Irish Land Bill last session, it is still the practice of the Inland Revenue Authorities in Ireland, on the sale of their holdings by Tenant purchasers, to require stamp duty to be paid on the conveyance on the unpaid balance of the loan due to the Irish Land Commission, as if that sum formed portion of the consideration money on the sale; and whether this matter will be dealt with in the Bill to amend the Land Act.

Until I read the hon. Member's Question, I was not aware that the practice he mentioned had, as he alleges, been adopted, nor do I know what particular declaration he refers to. I have, asked for a report upon the matter, and pending the receipt of that report I cannot reply to the earlier portion of his Question. In reply, however, to the last query, I beg to say that the provision he suggests would be outside the scope of the Bill to be introduced to-day.

The question was raised in the debate last July?

I will look it up.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether as the recent instruction, issued by the National Board of Education in Ireland to their inspectors that no teacher of a national school the reports upon which fall below the standard good will be recognised to earn fees for the teaching of an extra subject, is calculated to interfere with the teaching of Irish in schools classed as fair or very fair, he will recommend the modification of this instruction so that children may not be precluded from learning the Irish language.

The recent circular of instructions does not in any way interfere with the teaching of Irish during school hours. It has reference to its teaching as an extra subject, outside the ordinary school hours, for which a special fee is payable. With this aspect of the circular I dealt very fully in answer to a Question put to me yesterday by the hon. Member for West Kerry.†

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland when it is proposed to introduce the new plans and estimates for the building of teachers' residences and schools in Ireland; whether he is aware that it is now nearly six years since plan VIA. was condemned as inadequate, and when it is proposed to give effect to the repeated promises to increase the estimates in respect of this plan.

I must refer the hon. Member to the reply to the similar Question addressed by him on the 26th May last to the Secretary to the Treasury, ‡ to which reply I have nothing at present to add.

Has nothing been done since then?

The Report is under consideration.

You have been waiting a long time.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, in view of the fact that the Head Land Commission for the hearing of appeals for the fixing of fair rents has not sat in the district of North Tipperary since January, 1901, and that there are a number of cases still listed for hearing, he will sec his way to arrange for the next sitting of the Court at an early date.

The last sitting of the Commissioners was in November, 1902. It embraced all appeals from the district lodged prior to January, 1901. The Commissioners will arrange a further sitting at as early a date as possible, having regard to the claims of other districts.

^*See page 460.

‡See (4) Debates, cxxii., 1791.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that twenty county councils, and over 100 other representative bodies in Ireland, have passed resolutions praying that the equivalent grant should be used to improve the condition of national schools; and whether he will give this matter his consideration.

The allocation of the grant has been carefully considered, and can be discussed on the Estimate shortly to be introduced.

I beg-to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if ho will explain why the National Board refuses the use of national schools in Kerry for technical instruction under the county council, as there is no interference with the working of the school as an ordinary day school.

The Board has not refused to sanction the use of vested schools for the purpose mentioned, provided the manager gives a guarantee that the ordinary school work will not be allowed to suffer, and that any damage done to the premises or furniture will be made good by the County Committee for Technical Instruction. The Commissioners exercise no control over the use of non-vested schools except during school hours, and the managers have the right to grant the use of the buildings subject to the intervention of the Commissioners in cases leading to contention or abuse.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether there is any legal disability which prevents the Crown from appointing a Roman Catholic as Provost of Trinity College, Dublin; if not, why, as the office is in the gift of the Government, no Roman Catholic has ever been appointed; has his attention been called to the recently expressed desire of the Fellows to attract Roman Catholic students; and will he ascertain if the appointment of a Roman Catholic would be welcomed by them.

So far as I have been able to ascertain no legal disability is opposed to such an appointment. The reply to the third inquiry is in the affirmative. In respect to the second and fourth, I must respectfully decline to discuss the methods followed, in the past or the present, to select the most eligible candidate for this important appointment by the Crown.

When will the Protestant it is intended to appoint be appointed?

At an early date.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the cause of delay in the sale to the Congested Districts Board of the Lucan Estate, in the parish of Kilmeena, near Westport, county Mayo; and whether, seeing that the emigration season is setting in, he will use his influence with the Board with a view to the speedy purchase of this estate, and its division among the inhabitants of the surrounding district who are in need of larger holdings.

It is believed that the solicitor for the vendor will be able to complete the sale of this estate without delay. When this has been done it will be resold by the Board to the tenants.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the dissatisfaction among the tenant farmers in Cork county, with reference to the reductions given by the Creon Sub-Commission on applications to fix second-term rents on the Kingston and other estates; and if he will explain why the percentage of reduction on second-term rents fixed during the quarter ending December last is only 14 per cent, in Cork county, while it is 22 per cent, in county Down; and whether he is aware that many tenants are deterred from entering the Court on account of the action of the Sub-Commission.

I have no information on the matters alleged in the Question. The percentages of reduction in rents fixed by the Sub-Commissioners vary with the varying circumstances of cases, holdings and districts, and an appeal against their decisions is open to the parties who feel aggrieved.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say on whose recommendation these Sub-Commissioners were appointed?

No, Sir.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland during how much of the year is the President of the Queen's College, Cork, in residence; whether his absence from Cork is in violation of the regulations on the subject contained in the charter of the college; and why the regulations in force in the Queen's Colleges of Galway and Belfast are not observed in Cork.

The President of the Queen's College in Cork, who is at the present, and has been for some time, under medical treatment, has made it a rule to be in Cork during term except when public business connected with the National Board of Education, or business connected with the Royal University, or his health, has obliged him to be elsewhere. His absence from Cork is not in violation of regulations.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this President spends most of his time at Munich?

No, Sir.

It is the fact.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the relations which existed between Mr. Daly, of Dunsandle, county Galway, and his tenants; whether he is aware that complaints have been made to the constabulary authorities of the firing of shots at night in the district, and that a constabulary patrol caught a police pensioner, named Hansberry, who is employed by Mr. Daly as bailiff, in the act of firing on the public road between the hours of 9 and 10 p.m. on the night of the 17th February; and, if so, whether, in the interest of the peace of the district, he will arrange that this man shall not have a licence to carry firearms.

I am informed that the relations between Mr. Daly and his tenants have improved. No complaints have been made to the police in respect of the firing of shots at night in the district, but on the night of the 17th February they detected Hansberry in the act of discharging a gun on the public road. He was prosecuted and fined. J Further inquiry is being made in the matter.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now state if Constable Walsh has denied having stopped a lady visitor in Rostrevor, and having insisted on reading to her in the street certain passages from the Bible; if so, whether the lady referred to has been, or will be, afforded an opportunity of identifying him; whether any other charges of engaging in religious controversy have been preferred against him; and whether it is still proposed to retain this policeman in Rostrevor.

The constable denies having acted in the manner suggested in the first part of the Question. I am not aware that the lady referred to asked to be afforded an opportunity of identifying the constable who so addressed her. She informed the police she would be unable to identify him. If she attends at Rostrevor every opportunity will of course be given co her in the matter. No other charges of engaging in religious controversy have been preferred against Constable Walsh. The answer to the concluding inquiry is in the affirmative.

Is it not the fact that this constable, being wiser than his superior officer, has applied for a transfer? Will his application be granted?

Order, order!

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it has yet been ascertained if any extra remuneration is due to Head Constable Moore for temporary duty in Greencastle, county Antrim; whether he has now been stationed there for eight months; whether assurances were given by the City Inspector, by the Inspector-General, and by the Chief Secretary that the appointment was only a temporary one; and whether he can state when this constable will be recalled.

The Head Constable is not entitled to any extra re-numeration. I have answered the last part of the inquiry in reply to a Question of the 2nd inst by the hon. Member for North Kilkenny†.

Were not assurances given by the Chief Secretary and by the Inspector-General of Constabulary that the appointment was only a temporary one. The right hon. Gentleman has not said when he will be recalled.

I have answered that Question four or five times.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the tenants on the King Estate, county Wexford, agreed to purchase their holdings in the Land Judge's Court, previous to the passing of the

†see (4) Debates, cxxx., 1480.

Land Act of 1903, at from eighteen to twenty years purchase, and that the landlord accepted this offer; that, owing to a mistake in the maps, the sale was postponed, on the understanding that the tenants should not suffer by the postponement; and, if so, whether, as the landlord is now demanding twenty-two years purchase, with the bonus, he will direct the Estate Commissioners to arrange that both landlord and tenant will stand by their former agreement.

The tenants did agree to purchase their holdings on the terms mentioned. The agreement, however, was not made with the landlord, and was, as in all other cases, provisional upon its acceptance by the Land Judge, after hearing all parties concerned. It is not the fact that the matter was adjourned on the understanding suggested in the Question, but the tenants' counsel expressed a hope that the tenants would not suffer by the postponement. The matter will come again before the Land Judge on Monday next, by which time it is believed an agreement will have been come to which the Court can sanction.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Justice Ross stated publicly in Court that the tenants should not suffer by the adjournment of the sale. Is there any way of inducing Mr. Justice Ross to keep that promise co the tenants?

reply was inaudible.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a great deal of time is taken up in the Land Judge's Court with questions relating to boundaries, rights of way, turbary rights, and small charges on an estate; and whether the Government would consider the advisability of appointing another of the Irish Judges to deal with these minor matters in order to allow Mr. Justice Ross to give more time to the 40th Section of the Land Act of 1896, and the 7th Section of the Land-Act of 1903, so as to remove the congestion in his Court.

A marked diminution has been effected in the amount of business in the Land Judge's Court. The amount of the gross rental returnable to the Court in recent years has been reduced by one-half, a result mainly attributable to the extensive sales effected under the Land Purchase Acts. The reply to the latter part of the Question is therefore in the negative.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that five days a week and a portion of the sixth are taken up in this Court by disputes on these minor matters. Seeing that so many Irish Judges have been presented with white gloves recently, will the right hon. Gentleman appoint one of them to do this work?

I do not think that the course suggested would really expedite matters.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the sale of certain estates to the Congested Districts Board has been delayed owing to the non-publication of the rules for carrying out such sales under Section 79 of the Land Act of 1903; could he explain the cause of the delay in publishing those rules; and can he say when they will be published.

The rules have been drafted and are before the law officers. They will be published very shortly.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the costs of schemes under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts are considerably increased by stamp duties payable on the contracts to build, which requires a 10s. stamp, though a similar contract by a private individual or a limited liability company could be so entered into as only to require a duty of 6d.; on the bond securing the contract; on the conveyance of the tenant's interest in each site; on the conveyance of the landlord's interest in each site; on the registration of each conveyance in the Registry of Deeds, when a fee of 10s. 6d. each at least is payable; on registry searches on examining the titles to each plot, which may run up to a very substantial sum; and when the plot is acquired from a tenant purchaser fees for registering the conveyance, insurance fund, opening a new folio, and taking out new land certificate, which may amount to about £1 10s. for each cottage; and whether, in his proposed Bill, he will provide for the same exemption from stamp duties under the Labourers Acts as now exists under the Land Purchase Acts.

The facts are substantially as stated in the Question. The Bill to be introduced to-day does not deal with the matter, which affects the financial arrangements underlying the Labourers Acts and other statutes applicable to England. I will look into it before the Committee stage.

Will the title be wide enough to enable Amendments to be moved?

I should say so.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Department of Agriculture in Ireland have taken any steps in connection with the growing of tobacco in Ireland during the coming season; and whether any expert has been employed or appointed with a view of giving practical instructions as to planting, growing, and curing of the plant.

The Department of Agriculture has arranged for the cultivation of tobacco on a commercial scale in the county Meath during the present year. No expert has been employed to advise on the cultivation of the crop, but one will be employed to advise on the treatment of the leaf when grown.

Why has the county Meath alone been selected?

I suppose because it was considered the most suitable.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that a tenant has the power, under the Purchase Act of 1891, of extending the period of repayment of annuities from the shorter to the longer number of years and thereby get the benefit of decadal reductions, he can state what the amount of the annuity payable by a tenant would be, and for how many years, who purchased a £20 rental at eighteen years purchase without decadal reductions under the Purchase Act of 1891; and whether he can state, in the case of same tenant who purchased a £20 rental at eighteen years under the 1891 Act with decadal reductions, what number of years his annuity would have to run, and what would be the amount of his annuity for each of the periods over which he is entitled to get the benefits of the decadal reductions, what would be the amount of his total payments and his average annual payments under the extended period of repayment, with decadal reductions.

This information cannot conveniently be given orally, but I have communicated it to the hon. Member, and it will also be printed on the Votes Paper to-night.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state how many years purchase the Commissioners of Education have recently demanded from the Clonoe second-term tenants on the Dungannon school estate, and also the number of years purchase for which the Commissioners a few years ago sold to second-term tenants their Fermanagh estate, and the amount of arrears wiped out.

This Question will be brought before the Standing Committee of the Commissioners at its next meeting on the 18th instant.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on the Butson Estate, county Galway, which is about to be sold in the Land Judge's Court, there is a large tract of grazing land subject only to a temporary Court lease, while the general body of the tenants have only small impoverished holdings many of which are constantly inundated by floods; whether he will take steps for the enlargement of the cottier tenancies, and will the provisions of the Purchase Act which prevent advances of public money to new tenants having no real connection with the estate be strictly enforced so as to prevent the rich grass lands, which it is the policy of the Act to redistribute amongst the smaller tenants, being sold to outsiders.

I am making inquiry into this matter, and will ask the hon. Member to repeat the Question on Monday.

asked if the right hon. Gentleman would take steps to prevent the landlord getting advances before this was decided.

The case is in the Court, and I cannot therefore intervene.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Board of Works refused the loan of a suction dredger to the Wexford Harbour Board to remove the silt from the harbour, although guarantees were offered against all risks; and whether, as the harbour is silting up more, facilities will be given to the Wexford Harbour Board to purchase a large suction dredger.

Yes, Sir. The Board are advised that their dredger cannot safely be allowed to work on the Wexford bar until the channel is deepened. I understand that the Harbour Commissioners have already a dredger, and that the Board of Public Works offered last year to send an engineer to demonstrate to the Commissioners that their dredger is capable of removing the sand efficiently.

Will facilities be given for the purchase of a large suction dredger seeing that the bar has silted up and that vessels engaged in the cross Channel service have grounded on it?

We believe the present dredger can do the work if properly managed.

That is not so.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether, in the case of delivery of telegrams between Blacklion and Glengevlin, in county Cavan, he is aware that full porterage was charged for five miles without deduction in respect of the three miles allowed for limit; whether this is in accordance with the regulations of the Post Office; and, if so, does he intend to modify it so as to allow for the three-mile limit.

The charge to which the hon. Member refers is in accordance with the Statutory Telegraph Regulations of 1898, and I do not propose to alter the regulations in that respect. I will see, however, whether it is possible to open a telegraph office at or near Glengevlin under guarantee.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the want of telephonic communication between Limerick and the following towns, viz:—Ennis, Kilrush, Tipperary, Nenagh, Kilkee, Clonmel, and Mallow; and whether, in view of the commercial advantages it would confer on those districts, he will have such a system established.

I have received a letter from the Limerick Chamber of Commerce asking that telephonic communication may be established between Limerick and the other places mentioned by the hon. Member. Arrangements have already been made for an extension of the Post Office Telephone System to Mallow and Tipperary as soon as additional funds have been provided by Parliament for the telephone service, and I am making inquiries as to the conditions on which similar extensions can be made to the other towns.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will arrange that the House of Commons shall have an opportunity of considering the question of the expedition to Tibet before that expedition makes further advance.

At the present moment I no not think anything would be gained by a discussion of this question, and I do not propose to make any arrangement as suggested in the Question.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury can he say when His Majesty's Government propose to introduce the Licensing Bill; and can he give any indication of its character and provisions.

I cannot fix a date at present for the introduction of this Bill, and, of course, any statement as to its contents should be deferred to the period when it is introduced.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say definitely whether it will be introduced before or after Easter?

No, Sir, I cannot answer that Question. As the House knows, the business of Supply is being dragged out considerably—[OPPOSITION cries of "Oh!"]—quite legitimately, no doubt, but, as a matter of fact, it is being considerably prolonged. I cannot, therefore, give an Answer until we make further progress.

I may assume there is a Bill prepared?

Yes, you may.

asked the attention of Mr. Speaker to a Motion by the right hon. Member for Ripon on the fiscal question, which appeared on the Papers distributed to Members of the House that morning, in the shape of an Amendment to the I Motion of the hon. Member for North I Aberdeen. He wished to know whether a Motion of that importance could be sprung on the House of Commons as an Amendment with practically no notice whatever. It was said to be what was J called a "put-up job." An important I and highly controversial subject ought not to be dealt with in that way; if not improper as a matter of order, it was highly improper as a matter of convenience, and he hoped he might be successful in eliciting an expression of opinion that the hands of Parliament ought not to be forced on such a matter. Could not some steps be taken to prevent the House of Commons being dragged into such a discussion?

The Amendment is in order. No doubt the subject matter of the original Resolution is of great importance as the right hon. Gentleman has said. The Amendment expresses different opinions, which, of course, are also of great importance, and must be if they are relevant to the Motion. The Amendment is relevant and that is the only question I have to consider. It is quite competent on the principal Motion for the right hon. Member for Ripon to propose an equally important Amendment.

There will be no time to discuss it, Sir.

In asking leave to introduce the Labourers (Ireland) Bill I should like to give my reasons for taking the step of introducing it under what is known as the ten minutes rule. Had I followed the ordinary course, it would have been impossible to take the first stage of the measure, I believe, before Easter, and perhaps not before June. I desire to express my regret that, in the circumstances, many Members on this side of the House, who would have wished to take part in the discussion on the Bill, will be precluded from speaking on the subject, a subject in which they feel an exceeding interest. I might have brought in the Bill without any words of explanation, but this would have been open to misconception, and, besides that, I desire to state my reasons for omitting certain provisions suggested to me from many quarters, suggestions in some cases excellent in themselves, but, in my judgment, impracticable under existing conditions, and especially under existing financial conditions. In the first place I have been asked to secure that the period of redemption of loans shall be prolonged and the interest on the loans lowered, but the condition of the money market, not only in England but throughout the civilised world, makes it impossible to take any steps in this direction, and we must await a more propitious time. I have been asked also, to increase the minimum of 1s. of the rate which might be imposed on any county under the Labourers Acts, but the same reason may be adduced, and there are also other reasons. When the Labourers Act was introduced in 1893, the local taxation amounted to £4,250,000, but it now amounts to £6,250,000, and I, for one, do not see my way to add to the burden of the rates of the country. The existing limit of 1s. will produce £12,500,000 in all, and as only £2,700,000 has been sanctioned in these loans, I believe that within that 1s. limit a great deal more may be done, providing the procedure is shortened and cheapened.

On a point of order, I thought the first Bill to be introduced was the Irish Land Bill?

I handed that in. I am now proceeding with the Labourers Bill. Then I have been asked to increase the size of the allotments. I have declined to do so, partly on the same ground, partly because the average size of the allotment in England is three-fifths of an acre, and partly because I could not be accessory to creating a fresh state of congestion. There are grave objections in my judgment to bringing in other competitors for land who would have compulsory powers behind them. What remains to be done, therefore, is to cheapen the procedure. By the first clause we make the representation by six labourers and not by twelve, and provide for a simple statement of the need for accommodation with no formalities attached to it and no risk of being refused on a technical point; by the second clause we enpower the district council to act without representation if no representation is forthcoming; and by the third clause the purchase of land by agreement, and where there is no building a scheme can be arranged without any formal scheme, without any inquiry, and without any Provisional Order. I now come to the pith of the BUI, the scheme which involves the compulsory acquisition of land and which aims at the building of cottages. Broadly speaking, the county council, acting through a standing committee, will take the place of the Local Government Board, and the Local Government Board will take the place of the Privy Council. I hold that the county council ought to come and play an important part, an important administrative part, in this matter. It is the county council who receive the Exchequer grant and which has to see that no one district monopolises the resources available. The county council too is cognisant of the general burdens and charges that are laid on the county, and therefore it is proper that it should play the most important administrative part, and I am confident they are competent to discharge that duty. I now come to the next stage, appeal from the petitioners. If the county council reject the scheme of the district council there is a petition from the district council to the Local Government Board, and the decision of the Local Government Board, after local inquiry, will define the needs of the locality and the amount of accommodation which should be provided. I now come to an appeal which in certain cases may be lodged, an appeal as distinct from a petition. The appeal under this Bill will be a local appeal to a Judge of assize on a limited issue instead of a metropolitan appeal to the Privy Council in Dublin upon a general issue. There will be an appeal available if the scheme is lodged merely in respect of selection of site to interfere with the demesne or the amenity of the residence, or interfere unreasonably with the user or enjoyment of land in occupation. That is not an appeal against the necessity or amount of accommodation to be provided. By Clause 12 we make a drastic enactment. We say that where the district council fails to put these Acts into operation, I the Local Government Board may step in and take their place. Under Clause 13 there is a plan for redistributing the Exchequer contribution on a more equitable basis in proportion to the loans which are outstanding under the Acts. This I believe to be a fairer method of distribution than the present distribution, which is based upon certain arbitrary data, obtained many years ago. Incidentally it will afford relief to those counties which built a number of cottages before 1891. Clause 16 enables labourers who have discharged their obligations under the Labourers Act, who have paid their rents for cottages under those Acts during five or six years, to purchase a farm under Section 2 of the Land Act of last year, but no provision is given in this Bill, and I think rightly, to enable the labourer to purchase his cottage and plot. He would then cease to be a labourer. We hold it is necessary to prevent labourers from coming on to uneconomic land, but we think it necessary to provide a bridge to enable an energetic and successful labourer to pass out of the ranks of the labourer into that of the peasant proprietor. I beg to move.

While I regret extremely that the Bill by a force of circumstances has been introduced in this particular form which prevents discussion, I would like to say that when it was represented, to me that we had cither to have it introduced in this way or have the Bill postponed until after Easter, I expressed the opinion that it ought to be introduced in this way rather than be postponed, because there was great anxiety in Ireland to see the provisions of the measure. Of course, I cannot express any decided opinion with reference to the value of the Bill, but I am bound to say that there will be very widespread disappointment in Ireland when its provisions come to be known. Of course, as everyone is aware, the chief difficulty in the way of the working of the Labourers Acts in the past has been the cumbrous, lengthy, and costly nature of the procedure; and although the right hon. Gentleman has told us that the object of this Bill is to shorten and cheapen the procedure, I confess that I do not think it has substantially done so as far as I have been able to follow the right hon. Gentleman's observations. It seems to me that so far from shortening the procedure he has added, in the case where there is opposition or contest, another stage to the proceedings. At present the steps are, first, a representation to the district council; then the preparation of a scheme and an inquiry by the Local Government Board, with appeal to the Privy Council. As I understand the right hon. Gentleman, under the new measure the steps, in cases where there is opposition, will be representation as at present or in a simpler form; the preparation of a scheme by the district council, inquiry by the county council, and then a second inquiry on the spot by the Local Government Board followed in the end I by an appeal to a Judge of assize. So that, in point of fact, there will be two inquiries instead of one, and there will be an additional stage to the procedure. I confess, therefore, that I do not see in what way the right hon. Gentleman has succeeded in shortening the procedure. With reference to the abolition of the appeal to the Privy Council, that, of course, is an admirable, amendment of the law, but the right hon. Gentleman substitutes for that an appeal to the judge of assize; the appeal, I admit, is of a limited character, but still an appeal to the Judge of assize, for which there is no precedent whatever in the English law, seems to me absolutely unnecessary. Therefore, I think the right hon. Gentleman has not shown in his new Bill that he materially shortens the procedure. Now does the right hon. Gentleman materially cheapen it? and this perhaps is more important still. The right hon. Gentleman commenced his speech with an apology for not touching the rate of interest. There is no provision which, in my judgment, would so materially facilitate the working of the Act so much as one which extended the period of redemption of the loans. At present loans are repaid by annuities which run from 4½ to 4¾ per cent., and this, coupled with the necessary repairs, means that for every cottage the labourer has to pay about £6 per year. The charge for rent is only 1s. per week, so that the difference, a considerable matter, falls at present upon the ratepayers, and I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to have been able, notwithstanding the present condition of the money market, to extend the period of redemption so as to diminish the amount of annuity payable in respect of these loans. It is not only in this respect that the right hon. Gentleman has done nothing to cheapen the procedure. There is no portion of the cost of the present working of the Act which is more oppressive than the expenditure connected with the investigation of title and the distribution of purchase money, and the right hon. Gentleman has made no proposals to lighten the expenditure in that regard. Another serious item of expenditure is that on arbitration. Under the present system the progress is slow and the cost very considerable, and I think it is regrettable that the right hon. Gentle man has not seen his way to introduce some limitation of expenditure in this regard. In his measure the right hon. Gentleman has not proposed any substantial shortening of the procedure or any substantial cheapening of the procedure either. With reference to the other proposals in the Bill, I have only a few observations to make. The right hon. Gentleman has made a very interesting announcement with reference to the Exchequer contributions which are at present paid to counties for the purposes of the Labourers Acts. Some counties have not used them at all, some have used only a portion of them, and he pro poses to redistribute these in the future on a new principle, giving most to those counties making most use of the Labourers Acts. It seems to me on the first blush that this is a proper proposal, though it is one which will have to be properly discussed. But what is going to become of the existing balances I The right hon. Gentleman only proposes to deal with the contributions in the future, but at the present time there are unexpended balances to the extent of £150,000. What is the right hon. Gentleman going to do with these? Although some of the counties may have a local grievance, I think the majority of the people might support him if he intends to take them and make use of them for the benefit of the labourers of Ireland; but, if he is going to take these unexpended balances away from the counties and devote them to any other purpose, then this is a proposal which I believe will be very seriously discussed and very strongly opposed. There are other provisions in the Bill with which I cannot deal, but I wish to say just one word with respect to a proposal which I understand is in the Bill, and which disqualifies from election to district councils, labourers who are tenants of cottages in the locality. Now at present they are entitled to be elected. The question was recently tried in the Courts, and it was decided on the analogy of English cases that they were entitled to be elected. And they are, as a matter of fact, elected at present, and if, as I have reason to suppose, the right hon. Gentleman is going to disqualify them he will certainly arouse a very bitter feeling amongst the whole class of labourers and will not certainly smooth the path of his Bill. I will not go into other matters, but will content myself by saying now, as I did at the commencement, that the right hon. Gentleman has sketched a measure which will cause widespread disappointment in Ireland, and I think when we come to discuss it he will find that unless he is prepared to I accept very large Amendments in the direction of improving the position of the labourers, ho cannot count on anything in the nature of general support from tins part of the House.

in replying to the Questions which had been addressed to him, said he gladly recognised the favourable tone of the debate that had taken place. The criticisms had been limited in number, and not, to his mind, very important in character. He had found support for the ideas he entertained in the speeches which had come from both sides of the House. There had been exceptions, but he was very glad to find that the vast majority of the House were agreed as to the great value of the Report on the reorganisation of the War Office, and as to the desirability of giving effect to such of its recommendations as they approved. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition was the most prominent exception. He ventured once more to express the opinion that, here again, the right hon. Gentleman had got a little out of touch both with the sentiment of the House and the country and with the sentiment of the Army. In his speech he I not only pleaded for postponement of any action in connection with the Report, but I there was scarcely-veiled criticism of the authors of the Report, and unveiled censure of the views expressed by the authors of the Report. He did not find I an echo of the right hon. Gentleman's views in any part of the House. All he could say with regard to the right hon. Gentleman's criticism was that he did not agree with him, and that he did not believe the future would show that such criticism was going to prevail. He had been criticised, not in a hostile spirit, from two quarters with regard to this Report, and the action of himself and of the Government in connection with it. He had been reproached because the Government had been too quick and because they had been too slow. They had been reproached because they had not accepted the Report in its entirety and guaranteed that they would carry it out; they had been reproached, I on the other hand, because they had not given enough consideration to the matter, and because they had already taken action which had committed the Government and which had greatly altered the constitution of the War Office. It was perfectly clear that, whatever their laches in this matter, these particular criticisms were very inconsistent, and that they could not be found guilty on both counts at the same time. In his opinion, there was here what there was so very often in practical politics, a via media, which happened to be the road of caution and of experience. They had been reproached with not embodying in the Estimates all the consequences that might possibly flow from the complete acceptance of the recommendations of the Report. He had given the right hon. Gentleman opposite a pledge to which he intended to adhere absolutely, that if they found that any additional expense would be thrown upon the Army Votes in connection with the administration of the War Office by these changes, he would take the first opportunity of informing the House. He retained the belief that no extra charge of the kind would be entailed; certainly none had been entailed up to the present moment. They were told they ought to have put all these matters into the Estimates. He went back to the question of dates. The ware commission reported in September. That Report revealed a state of things that made many of them sick at heart. The duty of a responsible Government was to take immediate action to see that that state of things should never happen again. What took place? The Prime Minister almost immediately appointed a Committee, which he and many other people believed was a body calculated to indicate a remedy for the state of things which was disclosed. It happened that one member of the Committee was serving his country many thousands of miles away. He was recalled, and the very day after his arrival the Committee began its deliberations. Within a month, the Committee represented its first Report, in which they laid down that, in their opinion, before the Government went any further some radical changes must be made in the organisation of the War Office. Who was there to dispute that? Who was there in that House who denied that proposition? Who was there now who would be willing to censure their action in adopting that recommendation? He did not believe there were half-a-dozen men on either side of the House who would do so. The Government acted upon that Report, and with, as he believed, universal approval they made those changes in the War Office. His hon. friend the Member for Oldham had said that the change in the personnel of the War Office was not a matter to be undertaken lightly, and that, if they were going to give the impression to the Army that changes were to be lightly made, and that great officers who had served the country well were to be transferred from one sphere of activity of another without adequate reason, it would be doing much more harm than good. He agreed, but he knew his hon. friend would believe him when he said that they were fully aware of the gravity of the work they took in hand. He hoped the view which some critics had adopted, that these distinguished officers had been dismissed from their employment, would not be adopted in that House. "These officers had not passed out of the service of their country. They were still either capable of being employed or were employed in the service. One name had been mentioned—that of Sir William Nicholson. He had a great admiration for that very distinguished and very highly gifted soldier, but he did not think that great harm had come to the country if Sir William Nicholson's term of service, which would have been curtailed in four months, had now been extended for six months, and if he were doing what he believed was the invaluable service of superintending the whole of the Intelligence work in the Far East during the present war. He could hardly trust himself to speak of Lord Roberts, from whom he had received the greatest and most unvarying kindness in every period of his life. Throughout the whole of these proceedings, Lord Roberts had been the guide and helper of those who were interested in carrying this scheme into effect. He was consulted with regard to all the appointments and with regard to the officers upon whom the posts should be conferred, and he could not too freely acknowledge the generous, the admirable conduct of Lord Roberts throughout the whole of this matter. He only said this because he was rather moved by what seemed to be suggested by the hon. Member for Oldham, that these changes had been undertaken with undue rapidity and without due cause. That was not so. They felt throughout that they were performing the wishes of the House and the country, and, while the Government attempted to carry them out in the way which would be most effective, they also endeavoured to secure that it should be the way that commended itself most to all those who were concerned. With regard to the changes that had been made, they had to begin with the personnel of the War Office by selecting the members of the Council. That involved bringing from South Africa and India two of our most distinguished officers. The Council was not yet fully constituted, three of its members were here and the fourth had yet to arrive. Charges had often been made against those responsible for the conduct of the affairs of the nation in regard to the recommendations of Commissions and Committees, and those complaints had more often been made with regard to Army Commissions and Committees than any other, but when the Government got this information they proceeded to act upon it, and in face of the criticisms of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, he maintained that they had done better to make progress than to wait indefinitely before carrying out what they believed to be right. The process had been carried further than appointment of the Council, they had appointed some of the directors, who were the officers who would carry out the work under the military and civil members of the Council. They had selected these directors, as far as possible, but not entirely. The Chief of the General Staff was not yet in this country, and this selection was to be a direct selection, as the Government were of opinion that those who were to perform the business of the War Office should decide how the business was to be distributed. That did not seem to him to be unreasonable, and did not arise from any apathy on the part of the Government, because they had no interest in the matter. With regard to the selection and promotion, of officers, he said nothing about the selection in the past, but he had always felt that so long as what might be called the promotion centre of the Army was in London, so long was there a danger that selections for promotion would be made, not by those serving in the field, but by those serving in the administration. Under the present scheme the whole of the promotion of the lower ranks of the Army would come from what we might call the circumference of the Empire. It would be seen that the moment the system was adopted a necessary corollary was that an officer should go about from one part of the United Kingdom to another to correlate the different officers of the Army. Army Corps were not like Fleets. Ships could be brought together, and their commanding officers brought under the scrutiny of a single man. That was not so in the case of Army Corps. There might be two officers of great quality in one Army Corps and two of indifferent quality in another, and the tendency would be for the officers commanding the districts to recommend one man for promotion from each district. Yet it would be quite right for the two men in one district to be promoted, and the two in another to be passed over. It was for this purpose that the Inspector-General was appointed. His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught would not take up his duties as Inspector-General until the beginning of May, but he did not think any loss, from the point of view of the public service, would arise through the absence of the Inspector-General for a month from the post to which he had been appointed. It had been said that the Government ought to have gone further, that they ought to give the Committee a pledge that they would accept the Report verbatim, et literatim. The second part of that Report had not been before the country more than ten days and the last part was not before the country now, yet within two working months of the commencement of the work of the Committee, the reorganisation of the War Office had been begun and great progress had been made. The Committee did not want his personal opinion of the method to be adopted to improve our officers. The proper body to discuss this question was the Army Council, but the Army Council was not yet completed, and what would be said if he were to come down to the House and produce a scheme as to which, no matter how good his intentions might be, he could not say that the Army Council agreed with it? The Army Council was only just constituted, and the most important member of it, the chief of the general staff, was not yet in England. That being so, was there any relevance in criticism of that kind? His hon. friend the Member for Plymouth had spoken of his betrayal—for that was what his words came to—of the views which he had so long entertained. His hon. friend reproached him for saying nothing about all those things which he cared for in days when he had less responsibility and more independence. Well, he had worked very hard for many years in the House of Commons with the section of the House of which the hon. Gentleman was a member, and he thought, probably, that he hon. Gentleman was the only member—if, indeed, he was one—of that section who really believed that he had abandoned or changed his views by one jot or title. For many years he had worked as hard with regard to another branch of the service, and during the three happy years in which he was privileged to take part in the administration of that great service, he was permitted to participate in changes which, every day, were a fulfilment of the proposals which he had advocated in the years that had gone before. He trusted, therefore, that his hon. friends—whose support he desired and honestly hoped to obtain—though they might criticise his powers and doubt his capacity, would at any rate not doubt his good faith, or think that he was any less anxious for the cause in which he believed in former days. He would only say further of this question of the Report that, though they were to discuss it on other occasions—and he thought they might discuss it with much greater advantage when they had the whole of it before them—anyone who was in the House during the whole of yesterday's debate must know, that it was absolutely impossible for him to pass over the matter without some such reference as he had made to it to-day. He would ask the Committee to excuse him if he did not now deal with all the subjects which had been brought up in the course of the discussion. It would strike rather oddly upon a foreigner, with his continental view of the importance of an Army, if he were to come into the House of Commons and hear he subjects which were discussed on the important occasion of getting the Speaker out of the Chair on the Army Estimates, at a time when the atmosphere was full of clouds, and when the whole Army question was exciting the people of our Empire almost beyond any other question. Yesterday they discussed tailoring, bottled stout, the needs of the Empire, the cost of stationery, the arming of the field artillery, the headings under which salaries should appear in the Estimates, the Army Medical Department, belts and buttons, and the position of the Judge Advocate-General. He thought that these subjects were capable of being segregated, and that they might with greater advantage discuss the larger subjects apart from smaller; and he would do his best to deal with various matters which had been raised when they got to the individual Votes. Some of the questions were doubtless of great importance, and his hon. friend opposite, the Member for Newington, incidentally touched on one of the most important when he asked why they were discussing these Estimates without any knowledge of what the Army had to do? He would ask whether the hon. Gentleman had ever heard the Army Estimates discussed with any real knowledge of what the Army had to do I They had gone on in that House for years discussing the Army Estimates, not only without knowing, but without attempting to find out what the business of the Army was it was only recently that that attempt had been made, and he dated it from the formation of the Committee of Defence. He believed that more had been done in that direction since the formation of the Committee of Defence than had been done in any period that he could recollect since he had been a Member of the House. One great step had been taken. The Prime Minister had laid down a policy which he believed was accepted by nine-tenths of the House as to the functions of the Army. That policy was that the functions of the Army were primarily to conduct military operations across the seas, and that we need not anticipate serious danger from an invading force so long as our Navy was kept up to its proper strength. That was an enormous contribution to the solution of the problem.

We heard exactly the opposite two years ago.

said that the hon. Member could not have heard what he was saying. He was saying that since the Committee of Defence was formed a new and most valuable light had been thrown on the problem which the hon. and gallant Member for Newington raised yesterday. He did not think that even now they knew the complete answer, though they had got nearer to that answer than before; but his own opinion was that until they had a professional staff really taught to consider, day by day and year by year, the needs and the dangers of the Empire they would not get a final and categorical answer to the Question which the hon. Member asked. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would go on asking it, for it was the duty of this Government and of every Government to do its best to try and get a succinct and clear answer. If he wanted an answer, however, let the hon. Member support the recommendations of this Report. One of the principal recommendations was that they should create precisely this general staff which they had so long lacked, and have a bond of union established between the two services to an extent which had never existed before. That was what he considered an important and legitimate subject of debate. He did not think that the right hon. Gentleman opposite was always an advocate of what might be called a "thinking department," but he thought the right hon. Gentleman would now give them his support, because they all saw the importance of the proposal. The hon. and gallant Member for Tiverton was afraid that they were going to let loose junior officers in the Intelligence Department upon important State Papers. He might rest assured that that would not be the case, for the proposals were that the heads of the Intelligence Department should in the future, as in the past, be the representatives of the great staffs of the two services on the Committee of Defence. The right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean had fairly criticised a portion of the Report which he considered to be inconsistent with the tenor of the remainder of the Report, and which, if taken alone, would certainly not be a correct expression of the opinion of the framers of the Report. The paragraph might have been modified with advantage, n order to express more precisely the intention of those who drafted it; but he believed that if there were a discrepancy, it was a drafting discrepancy only, and that they would find ample ground for agreement in the later paragraphs of the Report, in which the duties of the general staff and the intentions of the authors of the Report in regard to it were made perfectly clear. His hon. friend the Member for Aberdeenshire had spoken of the condition of the soldier, and he would welcome every assistance the hon. Member could give him in improving that condition. One might have thought from the hon. Member's remarks that the recruit was given less to eat than, or food different from that received by, the trained soldiers. He did not get so much pay, but the recruit ate quite as much as, and probably more, than the trained soldier, and it was surely not a very irrational thing to withhold full wages from a boy or man until he was capable of earning them. His hon. friend the Member for Oldham had gone into a great many matters as to which he had great sympathy with him. He had referred to the recruiting of the Militia, the India drafts, and the abolition of the linked battalion system. His hon. friend knew that he agreed with him in thinking that the Army was suffering greatly in all the particulars to which he referred, and he claimed him as a supporter if he were able, as he trusted he might be, to make proposals which commended themselves to his judgment, dealing with some of the evils which they both knew to exist and were equally anxious to remove. He had done his best to confine himself to important questions, and he trusted that he had made the action and the policy, both of the Government and of the War Department, clear in regard to the immediate past, the present, and the future.

The right hon. Gentleman has devoted the greater part of his observations to the question of this Report, but he did spare a little time to speak in slighting language, language of reprehension certainly, to the House of Commons of the manner in which it conducted these debates. He said that we wasted the time which ought to be given to those lofty themes with which he is accustomed to deal—that we devoted it to questions of bottled beer. I do not think that it is worthy of the position which the right hon. Gentleman occupies as Secretary of State to make this complaint. The House is enabled to bring forward anything which it thinks is of advantage to be discussed. Its character is like the description which has been given of the elephant, which is capable of picking up a pin or rending an oak. Sometimes the picking up of a pin may be very important, especially if the pin happens to be in a vital part. The right hon. Gentleman complained also of inconsistency on the part of those who have criticised the treatment by the Government of the Report of the Committee; but there is no inconsistency in the criticism of those who say that the Government has been in too great haste in its publication and yet too slow in their action and in the indications of policy which they have given to the House. The extraordinary thing in this matter is the hurry with which this Committee has acted, and especially the haste with which the Report has been published. What advantage has been gained by the publication of the Report at the time when it is not complete, when the Government have not made up their minds upon it, and when there are other things to do in preparing the Estimates for the year? These Estimates are illusory, for they cannot represent what is to be the policy of the future. The right hon. Gentleman says that the Government cannot say what that policy will be because they would have to consult their new Council and their new officers. That is true; but it is all the more reason not to publish what has been published, seemingly under their authority, nominally, and indeed, as explicitly stated in the Report itself, with their approval, and thus to mislead to a great extent public opinion on the subject, Why this extraordinary haste? Sir George Clark came home at the end of December. Before ten days the first Report was signed; and so on they proceeded at headlong pace. We all know that the Report embodies the views of a certain little knot of so-called Army reformers who have been busy for many years, and of whom the right hon. Gentleman himself is one. They have endeavoured through the Press and otherwise, very properly, to impress their views on the public. But their views are cut and dried views which are capable of being rapidly developed in this way. What was the object of the publication? I remember a friend of mine once saying that whenever a public speaker asked a question we may be perfectly sure that he had furnished himself with an answer beforehand. I will give my answer to my own question at once. The publication was designed to remove from the public the sensation created by the War Commission Report. They said, "Let us get out a revolutionary, sweeping Report; never mind whether it is right or not, let us get it out by all means to occupy the public mind and to get us out of the difficulty in which we find ourselves." There is too much hypocrisy sometimes as to the effect of a policy on the public mind, and the House need not think to deceive itself when everybody knows that it is so. I am not referring to the conduct of the eminent and capable men composing the Committee, but to the action of the Government. These Estimates cannot, it is said, be founded on this Report, and I agree with that view, for it is impossible that the members of the Council who signed the Estimates can either have investigated them or made themselves acquainted with their justification, or even approved the military policy which the Estimates embody. That is what I complain of. I do not complain of the Government for delay, but for not exercising more delay, not with the view of putting off the question or escaping from the necessity of its decision, but in order that they should not mislead and confuse the mind of the country by putting forward as their accepted policy documents which it now appears do not necessarily embody their policy, and then inviting the House to go through what is little more than the farce of voting these Estimates, which do not express the policy which they intend to adopt. I do not think that a word can be said in defence of the action of the Government. Some of the main recommendations made by the Committee are such as I entirely approve, as I have shown in the past by taking steps in the same direction. But if the House examines the Report closely and the things in it, I for one should be slow to give my assent to the sweeping denunciations it contains as to certain branches of the public service which have done great good in their day and are still capable of doing great good, and which this Committee seem to have been so rash as to condemn. I must now turn to the Estimates themselves, for I have a few words to say to the Committee in regard to them. What is the most remarkable fact in connection with the Army for many years? It surely has been the continuous growth of expenditure. I will take the: period from 1897–98, the first year in which there was a considerable spring in the amount of the Estimates and in the size of the Army. The regular Army has risen from 163,000 to 217,000 men, an increase of 33 per cent. The Guards have been increased by three battalions, the Horse Artillery by six batteries, the Field Artillery by fifty-two, and the Infantry by three battalions. The charge for personnel, including clothing, housing, and food, as shown in Appendix 19 of these Estimates, has increased in these seven years from £11,800,000 to £18,600,000. I direct the attention of the Committee to the fact that this is an increase of 50 per cent., whereas the force has only increased by 33 per cent. That is a significant and remarkable fact. A good deal has been done in increasing the pay. We are all willing to do anything that is possible to increase the comfort of the soldier, and to make the service attractive to him; but I have always held, and I think I am supported by the best opinions on military matters, that no small increase of pay is at all likely to have much effect in recruiting and in inducing men to enlist. If you want to bring into the Army another class altogether, to improve the character of your soldiers, to tap a different social stratum, then you must double the pay or immensely increase it. If you do that of course you will incur this evil result of paying all that additional sum for many of the men you already get, and this will be a pure waste of money. At any rate we have this increase of 50 per cent, in the cost of the soldier. At the same time, the cost of the Militiaman has gone up from £15 5s. to £20 11s. 8d., or an in crease of 33 per cent., and we have fewer than ever on the books, both of men I and officers. The cost of the Volunteers j has been increased from £1,000,000 to; £1,750,000—that is, 75 per cent.; and all these things put together give an increase of £9,250,000. What is the outcome of this great additional expenditure; what have we got for it? These Estimates are said to show a small reduction from what the right lion. Gentleman called the normal Estimates. Some questions were addressed to him as to what "normal" Estimates were, and the right hon. Gentleman said that what he meant by "normal" Estimates were Estimates which would be £280,000 greater than these. He gave that as his answer, and I thought it was exceedingly ingenious. Do these Estimates show a real reduction? Are there no future expenses which have been announced to us, and which we must keep in view? There is the cost of the new rifle. We have not been told how much that will come to. It is not to be commenced this year, as I understand.

The new rifle has been under manufacture for some time, and will shortly be supplied to both the Army at home, and in India. I was misreported in The Times, and I have made a correction.

Everyone must be glad to hear of these improvements, regarded merely from the point of view of the efficiency of the service. But there is the new gun, which does not involve any charge this year, because all the guns of the new pattern are to be sent to India, and paid for by India. But what will it be in subsequent years? Will there not be a large expenditure on this account? Then there are the garrison battalions coming in a short time for their pensions, and other necessary sources of expense to which we are already committed, and which must inevitably tend to increase the Estimates still further in subsequent years. What has been the return for this great increase of cost? There have been some additional Guards' battalions, which are not needed, or at any rate not used, now for the purpose for which they were raised, because the Guards no longer garrison the Mediterranean stations. There have been some highly-trained field artillery raised for the non-existent Army Corps. There have been some Indian battalions—and of those I quite approve—to provide for increase of force in tropical stations; and there is the garrison of 21,500 men for South Africa, to be maintained there at a cost additional to what the cost at home would be of £1,360,000. I shall refer to this by-and-by. What is the conclusion of the whole matter? It is nothing but this—that the cost of the whole Army has been allowed so to increase that the burden has become absolutely insufferable. If I seek to find the cause to which this great increase is due, I should say it was due, in the first place, to a policy of conquest and adventure, and, in the second place, to a disposition to hurry which has 'ed to steps being taken on very insufficient consideration and without really increasing the power of the country. I doubt whether the causes of this £9,000,000 of increase, with more to follow, were really properly weighed in the balance before being adopted. Does the country contemplate such a charge as this as being permanent? Not for a moment. I do not think I should find much disagreement if I said that at the present time the country is sick of war—sick of what I have called a policy of conquest and adventure. This scale of military expenditure cannot be maintained. That is what the House of Commons has in its mind and what it must impress on the Government, of the day, whatever Government that may be. And the great expenditure which has been so rapidly incurred can only be reduced by decreasing the numbers of the Army with the Colours. We must therefore look forward ultimately to the withdrawal of this garrison in South Africa, whose maintenance at the expense of the British taxpayer is an entirely new departure from the established policy of the country. That the garrison is intended to be permanent notwithstanding this established policy is shown by the fact that barracks are being built for it, on the footing, I presume, that it is to be there continuously. I have said that the policy of the country lies in the other direction. It has been laid down, not by one side of the House or by the other, and not by any erratic politician, but after the most serious consideration of all the circumstances, and many years ago, that this country should cease to maintain forces for local purposes unless the colony concerned itself paid for their maintenance. I have some words here of a high constitutional authority on the point which perhaps the House will allow me to read; for this is not a question of some fancy scheme devised by military administrators who found it convenient to withdraw; troops from the Colonies. It was deliberately done under the authority of Parliament—

"Within the past thirty years a fundamental change has been effected in the administration of the British Colonies by the withdrawal of the Imperial troops, previously scattered throughout every part of the Empire, arid the consequent devolution upon the self-governing Colonies of the responsibility of self-defence. This reform originated in the Report of a Departmental Committee consisting of Mr. Hamilton of the Treasury, Mr. Godley of the War Office, and Sir T. Elliot of the Colonial Office, appointed in 1859 to consider the cost of I colonial military defence. The previous year the military expenditure in the Colonies: amounted to nearly £4,000,000, to which the Colonies contributed something under £380,000, and few of the Colonies had any effective Militia or local force of their own. This was followed in 1861 by a Select Committee which made an inconclusive Report. In 1862 the House of Commons upon the Motion of Mr. Arthur Mills resolved without a division:—' That this House (while fully recognising the claims of all portions of the British Empire to Imperial aid in their protection against perils arising from the consequences of Imperial policy is of opinion that colonies exercising the right of self-government ought to undertake the main responsibility of providing for their own internal order and security, and ought to assist in their own external defence. Thenceforward this principle was adopted by every successive Administration as the settled policy of the Empire."

We have been told, indeed, that these men are to be maintained in South Africa as a reserve for India. Why, Sir, that is an afterthought. This is a Government of afterthoughts. They waste on afterthoughts what would be better expended on forethought. It has the effect of blinding the public to the fact that this is the direct outcome of the Government's policy. I want to ask the Secretary of State a plain question. What army has Lord Milner demanded for South Africa to maintain peace in the Colonies and to protect them? There was the constabulary, which would have been paid locally, and which, while fufilling the ordinary duties of constabulary, would have been useful as a military force; but the constabulary has been allowed to dwindle. The Indian plea is a mere pretence, and the Indian Government has shown that it is so by declining to accept any responsibility for this increased force in South Africa; and to ask for these 21,500 men as a permanent increase in the garrison of South Africa is to proclaim the failure of your South African policy in one sphere, just as the bringing in of Chinese labour proclaims its failure in another sphere. I protest against hurry in all these matters. I wish to know how the three years enlistment scheme is answering, and whether it is found at the present time to work well with a view to supplying the necessary drafts to the Indian garrison. After so many schemes and so many failures the House ought to demand the fullest information before agreeing to any new departure. One reference I must make to the Committee on the reorganising of the War Office. Just at this moment, when economies must be enforced, that Report throws a perfectly undeserved slur—and I think a most unworthy slur—on that department in the War Office which is mainly charged with keeping both soldier and civilian within due limits. I saw that part of the Report with great regret, and I am sure that any one who is acquainted from the inside with the working of the War Office—which, though it may have changed since my day, has not changed in this respect—will agree as to the injustice of this summary judgment which is contrary to the published evidence before more than one Committee, and to the opinions of the highest military authorities. It is a slur on a department which I am sure does not deserve it. One other question. The Mowatt Committee's Report and the evidence given before the Committee—ought they not now to be laid before Parliament? The Committee was called into being and conducted its deliberations in the hurry-scurry of the war, when there was not a little alarm lest we should be unable to meet the requirements of the war; and a heavy charge was laid upon the public. A good deal of the Report has been published, but surely now that the war is over there is no reason why Parliament should not have the Report and the evidence before it, as the recommendations of the Committee must be the basis for expenditure on stores and armaments in future. I should expect that its decisions will have to be revised in view of the actual experience of the war down to the close. These are the three definite subjects on which I wish to put questions to the right hon. Gentleman:— Lord Milner's estimate of the garrison required in South Africa, the subject of drafts under the three years enlistment arrangement, and the presentation of the Mowatt Report. The policy of the Government is necessarily in a fluid state to a large extent, but what I complain of is that they have forced public opinion on this matter by the partial publication of this Report before they have made up their own minds in regard to it. The right hon. Gentleman said something to which I entirely demur when he talked of the necessity of the War Office Council formulating some great military policy for this country. It is not the War Office Council or even the Cabinet Council of Defence that ought to formulate that policy. It is the Government itself, it is the House of Commons, it is Parliament. It is Parliament that will fix that policy. Our military policy will necessarily depend on the general external relations of the country, the general foreign policy of the country, and in that matter no help can be obtained from any skilled advisers, however eminent. It is a matter which must depend on the feeling, intention, and desire of Parliament and the country.

We have had some opportunity during the course of the speech which has just been delivered of estimating the right hon. Gentleman in the double capacity of an Imperial statesman and a War Office reformer; and I confess that neither as an Imperial statesman nor as a War Office reformer has he raised himself in my estimation, nor, I think, in the estimation of those who in coo blood consider the tenor of the advice which he has given the Government and the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman has referred, and he was perfectly justified in referring, to the enormous burden of tine Army Estimates. Nobody denies that burden; nobody denies its magnitude, and there is one question, and one question only, to be asked with regard to it, is or is it not necessary? I do not say that means may not be found for reducing it consistently with our full Imperial obligations; but I do not believe that, consistently with those obligations, it can to any very great extent be reduced unless great alterations are made, which the right hon. Gentleman appears to deprecate, in the constitution of the Army. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that it is possible for this country to alter the amount of the forces available for the defence of this country according to its own humour at the time. I say it is not possible for the country to do that, and that, if the country once begins to consider this question of Army expenditure from that point of view, under modern conditions we run the very gravest peril as an Empire. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that the great cost of the Army is due to a policy of conquest and adventure. No doubt we have recently added to the extent of His Majesty's dominions in South Africa, but that the war which has had that termination was undertaken in a spirit of conquest and adventure is a total misrepresentation of the facts. I do not know how far the right Sum. Gentleman thinks the Government of this country ought to submit to His Majesty's territories being invaded before the Government which attempts to repel that invasion is open to the charge of having a policy of conquest and adventure. In that connection may I express my great regret at some observations which fell from the right hon. Gentleman in connection with the South African garrison? I do not precisely understand, I admit, to what conclusion the right hon. Gentleman wished to induce the Committee to proceed; but I am perfectly certain, whether it be easy or not for: us in this House exactly to understand the right hon. Gentleman's policy, that hat policy will bear a very clear meaning to the Boer party in South Africa. The meaning that they will put upon it, rightly or wrongly, is that as soon as the right hon. Gentleman and his friends have the control of the policy of this country, so soon will they reduce the South African garrison.

And make the self-governing Colonies pay for the garrison.

Exactly. I do not know how far the hon. Member for Dundee is an authorised exponent of the policy of the Leader of the Opposition, but I accept his gloss. I think that is exactly the interpretation that will be put upon it—that as soon as Gentlemen on the opposite Bench have the control of our policy the garrison will be reduced to a point at which the Colony itself will be able to pay for it. All I can ay is that assertions like that——

The assertion is on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. What I referred to was the fact that the necessity which the Government allege of maintaining 21,500 men in South Africa is the fruit of the policy of the Government. It may be true that it is very difficult at present to deal with the result of their policy.

The right hon. Gentleman has again, on behalf of his Party, committed the mistake which has led to great disasters in the past. [OPPOSITION Cries of "Oh."] That is my opinion. He has uttered words which in South Africa will be interpreted, as words uttered from that Bench have so often been interpreted, as meaning that the instant the Radical Party come into power the vigour of our South African administration will be diminished, and immediately the hopes of all those, either in South Africa or in this country, who desire to see the results of the late war reversed will have a chance——

I never said a word to justify any such statement.

That is where I differ from the right hon. Gentleman. I do not question the excellence of his motives, but I do say that he has used unguarded language, and of the interpretation of that language I venture to say that I am as good a judge as he is.

You are assisting the Boers to put that interpretation on what I said.

If I thought that, I would at once withdraw what I have said, because, after all, there are much greater interests at stake than a mere controversy across the Table. I am afraid I cannot lay the flattering unction to my soul that it is what I have said and not what the right hon. Gentleman has said which will produce this regrettable result. The right hon. Gentleman in the earlier portion of his speech severely criticised the Government for the course they have taken in regard to War Office and Army reform. When the right hon. Gentleman speaks in this House he always gives expression to a fine crusted old Tory view of Army reform. He deprecates any haste in this matter. There is no change I know of which has ever been made slowly enough for the right hon. Gentleman. I think he misinterprets public sentiment in this matter, and what is much more important, for public sentiment may change from month to mouth. I think he has mistaken the real necessities of the situation. The Government found themselves, after the Report of the War Commission, naturally subjected to a great deal of criticism. I think most of that criticism was unjust. I feel confident that an impartial historian in the future will take that view. In my view the period antecedent to the publication of that Report, ever since Lord Lansdowne took office in 1895, has been a period of Army reform on a great scale. It is perfectly true that the Ministers responsible for that Department worked upon the traditional lines that had been handed down to them ever since Lord Cardwell's time, and which had been worked upon, among others, by the right hon. Gentleman. They worked within those lines, and within those lines they carried out, in my judgment, very great reforms—reforms without which it would have been impossible to carry on the South African War in the way in which it was carried on. It is for that reason that I have always thought the criticisms upon my right hon. friend on this Bench and his predecessors are grossly unjust. The impression left on my mind by the War Office Commission was not that any great reform was possible under the existing system, but that the system itself required the most critical examination and revision. We began without one moment's delay to make that critical examination, and carry out the revision. We began, rightly as I think, with the War Office constitution. The right hon. Gentleman has accused us of going too fast. Almost every other critic of my right hon. friends in the Government has accused us of going too slowly. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean and other Gentlemen who have taken great interest in Army matters in this House have taken precisely the opposite line to that which commends itself to the right hon. Gentleman, who has told us that we are proceeding with almost indecent haste, and that time should be given to this House and the country for the elaborate consideration of the whole machinery of the War Office. We took precisely the opposite view. We thought that the time for these lengthy examinations by Committee or Commission of this House, by such bodies as the Hartington Commission, had passed, and that the facts were known. We believed that if we appointed this small Committee to suggest a scheme of reform, we should be able to set to work upon the War Office constitution with a speed and a success which no other possible procedure would give us. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that we ought to have waited until the whole of the Report of the Committee had been finished and approved by the Government before publishing. I disagree with him. In the first place let mo say that the approval of the Government is never one of the conditions under which the Report of a Committee ought to be published. I have never heard of such a proposition being laid down. Was the Report of the Hartington Commission, for example, never to be made public until approved by the Government?

That was a Royal Commission. This is a small Committee, and we do not even know the terms of reference. It is a small ad hoc Committee appointed for a certain definite purpose, no doubt, by the right hon. Gentleman himself.

That the Committee was appointed for a definite purpose is, I hope, not an uncommon peculiarity of a Committee, and the fact that it was appointed by me appears to me to be wholly irrelevant to the argument. Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that because it was appointed on my recommendation, therefore if I did not like the Report I was to keep it indefinitely secret the thing is wholly absurd. The Report had to be published whether the Government approved of it or disapproved of it. Whether it was desirable to publish it on the exact date selected for publication may be open to question, but that it had to be published^ whether we approved or disapproved of it, that is, I think, beyond question. Now the question is, was it desirable to publish it piecemeal? I say it was desirable to do so because it was desirable that we should at once sot to work to constitute the Army Council, which was the pre-requisite and condition of further reform; and the first part, which recommended the Army Council, was one which we were bound to act on at once, and, being so bound, we were compelled to publish it. As regards the second part, I do not know that anything was to be gained by its publication at the particular moment; I do not dogmatise as to that; but the Committee were in favour of its publication, and certainly I saw no reason for taking a different view, and I am perfectly prepared to take the whole responsibility for having accepted the suggestion, and that responsibility I do take. Now, about this second portion of the Report, we are not bound because we have published it to approve of it either in whole or in part. That we do look favourably on the general tenor of it the House naturally will expect. The Committee was our own creation, and its work, I think, deserves the highest praise from the House and the country. It is our own creation, and on it we have founded high hopes for the reform of the Army system; but we certainly do not commit ourselves either to every statement of fact or every opinion or every recommendation which this part, or any part, of the Report contains. I am not quite sure that I do agree—so far as I can form an opinion I should say I do not agree—with some of the criticisms which the Committee have passed upon the transactions and the work that have gone on in the War Office. Certainly, I do not feel bound to associate myself in any sense with those criticisms; but, nevertheless, I do hope and believe that, we shall be able to carry out great reforms through the assistance given us by the Committee; and we have given a most effective earnest of our policy by revolutionising already, as we have done, the War Office system within a very few months of the access to office of my right hon. friend and the appointment of this Committee. The right hon. Gentleman opposite stands alone. I think, in his view that we have gone too fast.

It is the publication I object to.

Does the right hon. Gentleman want us to act without publishing? I do not understand what be means. We found ourselves face to face with a situation which, partly on the ground of cost, partly on the grounds supplied by the Report on the South African War, in our judgment required thorough reconsideration both of the War Office system and the Army system. Well, we are carrying that out as fast as in human nature it is possible to carry it out. Some Gentlemen talk as if we were putting forward Reports—I think the right hon. Gentleman himself said so—like throwing bits of meat to a dog that might otherwise be disagreeable. If that charge has any meaning it can only mean that we are amusing the public by hopes of reform which we do not mean to carry out. That is the only meaning that such a metaphor can suggest. Considering that we have already revolutionised the constitution of the War Office, what is the meaning of the charge? Some hon. Gentlemen appear to suppose that it would have been possible for the Government and my right hon. friend, before the preparation of these Estimates, to bring forward some new Army system. No one who understands the practical limitation upon the preparation of Estimates can hold that view for a moment. Anything that may be done in the way of reform this year cannot show itself, of course, until the Estimates of next year; but I should be very sorry if this session passes without the Government's being able to make a much fuller statement of their general views upon the Army problem than is either possible or proper at the present moment. Let the House not forget what it too often has forgotten, that the size of our Army depends upon the duties that Army has to perform, quite apart from that imaginary policy of conquest and adventure which appears to haunt the right hon. Gentleman's mind. Apart from that, and looking simply and solely to the question of Imperial defence, I tell the House that no investigation which I have been able to make shows that the military burden of this country can be a light or an insignificant one. It is true, indeed, that many of us have come to the conclusion, after such an examination as we have been able to give to the question, that the invasion of this island by a large regular force, capable of undertaking its conquest, is, if our home forces are kept in anything like an adequate state, and above ail if the Navy is kept in anything like an adequate state—for after all this is really a naval question—that invasion is a dream, an illusory danger, and not one of the contingencies against which it would be right or proper to ask this country to make costly provision.

You did ask it a year or two ago.

A year or two ago we had nothing to go upon except the system which was then in existence, and the conclusions I have now given to the House are conclusions arrived at by an organisation which was not in existence then. But. Sir though I do not believe that this landing of a great organised force, competent to quell this country and reduce it by force of arms, is possible, no man can blind himself to the fact that the whole trend of circumstances in the East is to make us a Continental Power conterminous with another great military Continental Power, and that is the dominating circumstance which we have to take into account in framing our Army Estimates; and no Government, I do not care from which side it is drawn, will, I believe, be permitted to ignore the necessities of which I speak, or in the interests of any economy or reduction of taxation, however desirable, to lower our Army strength beyond a certain limit. I think that one of the most valuable results that have followed from the reconstitution of the Defence Committee is this, that we shall have something threshed out and argued out to go upon, and not mere obiter dicta as to the number of men required in this or that military operation, vaguely estimated by this or that more or less self-constituted military expert. I hope I have indicated to the House the way in which the general problem of Imperial defence and the Report of this Committee strike my right hon. friend and the Government. That we have been lax in carrying out reform seems to me of all the charges levelled against the Government the most absurd. One great revolutionary reform in three months, seems to me not a bad record. Those whose appetite for the revolutionary reform requires the process to be repeated every throe weeks appear to me to have an excessive desire for these dramatic changes. I do not think that anybody who knows my right hon. friend the Secretary for War, or who has understood the spirit in which I have endeavoured to address the Committee, will doubt for one moment that, difficult and complicated as are the problems necessarily presented by a voluntary Army and by the military needs of the British Empire, they are being approached by us in no laggard spirit, with no prejudice in favour of the system which we found existing, but with an earnest and impartial desire to turn to the very be; it account the materials with which the country supplies us, and to make our Army system, if not everything that we could wish, at all events, as far as may be, adequate to the great responsibilities which none who look round the world can doubt may have to be met by this Government or some of its immediate successors.

said his right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition had stated that the Committee had been asked to discuss illusory Estimates. The Committee had come dawn to-day to know what the policy of the Government really was; they expected to hear whether the Cabinet as a whole were prepared to adopt the recommendations contained in the second part of the Report of Lord Esher's Committee or not, and until they knew that these Estimates must be illusory. The Estimates were those of the Secretary of State for India; the policy that of the Secretary of State for War. What the Committee wished to know was whether the right hon. Gentleman had been able to force his view and his policy upon his colleagues. Until they knew that it was impossible to discuss the Estimates on their merits. The Estimates did not show the scale and character of the future expenditure, and it was necessary that that should be known. The Army expenditure was becoming intolerable, and it was the bounden duty of this Committee, and the first duty of the Government, to do what it could to reduce an expenditure which had become an intolerable burden to the taxpayer. Not only were the Estimates illusory from this point of view, but they did not represent the actual expenditure that would have to be incurred. The charge for the Somaliland force was omitted, as was also that for the quick-firing guns with which the Field Artillery were to be supplied. There was no Vote to be taken for those guns, and therefore discussion as to their character and quality would not be in order. The people of this country did not realise what an enormous military force they had to keep. Including the Regular forces at home and abroad we were maintaining an army of 561,000 men, and when the Auxiliary forces were taken into consideration, the military force of the Empire amounted to just over 1,000,000 men. The country did not realise the burden which successive Governments had laid upon their shoulders. It had long been the settled policy of Governments of both parties to maintain in India an army of 300,000, and when the Committee remembered that India was the only part of the world where we could meet a European enemy, and having regard to the fact that we had an Auxiliary force of 700,000 men he could not help thinking those who desired economy could only come to the conclusion that our armed force was enormously large for the wants of the country. The peace footing of the armies of France and Germany were only 600,000 men respectively, while that of the United States, whose condition more closely approximated that of this country, was 67,000. He would not point out where economy should take place, but his conviction was that a reduction must be made in the direction not of cutting down the expenses of the soldiers and still less of the general staff but in a general and large reduction in the number of the men. If a change of the kind was to be made, and the reduction was to be sufficiently large to have any effect on the Estimates, it must be done on the lines of the Report of the Commission which recommended the abolition of the double battalion system.

said he did not agree with an hon. Member who characterised the burden of these Estimates as intolerable. His object in rising was to ask the Secretary of State for War a question regarding the Army rifles. The right hon. Gentleman told them that the other day that he was producing a new rifle, and that 71,000 stands had already been ordered for the Indian Army. He wished to know if that new rifle was any different from the last rifle which he believed was five inches shorter than the weapon used in the Boer War. Tins question involved a rather important general point. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman would correct him if he was wrong, but last year when they heard that the new rifle was to be cut down by five inches the impression was conveyed— and he believed it was a correct impression—that some attempt was being made in the form of a compromise between the carbine and the rifle, and it was thought probable that both the Cavalry and the Mounted Infantry could be armed with the same weapon. Some of them were not satisfied that such a thing was possible, and from inquiries which he had made he believed that it was absolutely impossible to have a rifle five inches shorter than the weapon used during the Boer War which could possibly have the same trajectory and the same range as the longer weapon. Did the right hon. Gentleman propose to arm the Infantry as well as the Cavalry with that shorter weapon? He took it that one thing which was impressed on their mind by the late war, was that the rifle with which our Infantry was armed was a most important weapon. If we were to make a mistake in this respect in the case of future wars our Infantry found themselves armed with a weapon inferior to that carried by their opponents, it might have an important bearing on the result of that war. At all events he believed that it was necessary for the Infantry to have the best possible weapon. He was also one of those who believed that in the past our Army had not been armed with the best weapon as compared with the weapons held by the Continental armies. In his opinion the Norwegian and Swedish, and American rifles wore in many respects better than ours. There were two or three points on which he hoped the Secretary of State for War would give a reply. Was the new rifle to be a longer weapon than the last, which they were told was the latest-weapon with which our soldiers were going to be armed? If the right hon. Gentleman was going to stick to the shorter weapon was he absolutely convinced that it had the same trajectory and range as the old weapon, which was five inches longer. Could he five them some details of the experiments which had convinced him on the point? Finally, would he disabuse their minds of the suspicion that an attempt was being made to arm the Cavalry and the Infantry with the same weapon? He did not believe the latter could possibly be done because the Cavalry could not carry a large rifle on their holsters, but he would like to have some definite statement on the subject by the right hon. Gentleman, and to have that statement supported by any information that could be given to them.

congratulated the hon. Member on being able to bring his mind to the discussion of such details as those to which he had just referred. The effect of the Estimates on his own mind had been to render it impossible for him to consider seriously anything they contained. It seemed to him that the Estimates were a mere blind, brought in to amuse the House of Commons for a few weeks, while the Government completed their revolutionary scheme of War Office reform, without taking the House of Commons into their confidence. Only two days ago the Secretary of State for War had deprecated discussion of the Report of the Reconstruction Committee, and had expressed the desire that the Estimates should be considered without reference to the revolution that was being carried out at the War Office. What example had the right hon. Gentleman set to-day? The whole of his speech had been about that Report, and the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister had spoken about nothing else The Army Council set up under the Report had signed the Estimates, thereby giving the last touch to the unreality or the situation. The Government ought to take the Committee more fully into their confidence. What was there to conceal in these Estimates? What was the extent of the changes the Government intended to make at the War Office during the year? The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the officers to be newly appointed would take the place of other officers already existing, so that no additional cost would be involved. That was not a satisfactory explanation. The House of Commons ought to have an opportunity of expressing its opinion on the whole situation. According to the Prime Minister, the Army system had already been revolutionised, but what trace of that revolution appeared in the Estimates? The right hon. Gentleman had urged that the time had come, nor for publishing information, but for taking action, that we had had too much obiter dicta on the matter of Army reform, and the; something ought to be done. But the Report was full of obiter dicta; there was no evidence; the House was in ignorance of the reference to the Committee; and the Report was the most informal document ever presented to Parliament; and yet in obedience to its commands all these revolutionary changes were to be effected without the cognisance of the House. What were the terms of the reference? Certainly the methods pursued by the Committee were not such as to entitle its decisions to the deference displayed to them by the Government. The Committee decided not to publish the sources of their information; consequently it was impossible to see whether the recommendations accorded in the least degree with the advice or evidence submitted to the Committee. Possibly there would be another opportunity of considering the recommendations of the Committee in a more complete form, but at the present stage the House ought to protest against the incomplete form in which those recommendations had been submitted. As to the Estimates themselves, how could the Secretary of State justify his action with regard to the Somaliland troops? Conflicting explanations had been given of this matter. The first was in the right hon. Gentleman's own memorandum. There the omission of provision was attributed to the impossibility of forecasting the duration of the operations, and the hope was expressed that the War Office would soon be in a better position to judge of the situation, in which case an additional Estimate would be presented. But that attitude was not maintained, for in the Vote now before the Committee, 10,000 men were put down for Somaliland. The second explanation was of a more satisfactory character, because on Monday last the right hon. Gentleman held out hopes that there might, after all, be little or no further expense in connection with the campaign, that a certain success had been achieved, that if a favourable opportunity offered of bringing the operations to a close the Government would seize it, and that in any case the expenditure and the operations would be kept within narrow bounds. But before voting these 10,000 men the Committee ought to have a clear explanation why no corresponding monetary provision was included in the Estimates. The light hon. Gentleman had claimed that the present Estimates were £280,000 below the normal expenditure. What was meant by "normal expenditure?" He certainly protested against these inflated Estimates being regarded as the normal Army expenditure of the country. There had not been much hope of economy held out. In a remarkable speech at Liverpool the right hon. Gentleman said that people would be crazy to expect much reduction in Army expenditure.

was understood to say that he was then referring to the ordinary system.