To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that there are several senior assistant clerks in the various Government Departments who have already reached their maximum of £150 per annum, whose ages range from forty years and upwards, and who have little prospect of promotion, he can hold out any hope of conceding personal allowances, so that these persons may receive more than £ 150 in each year. (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The scale was fixed as appropriate to the duties, and it is not reasonable to expect a grant of personal allowances merely because the maximum 'is attained in due course

To ask Mr. Attorney-General whether, in the event of the Criminal Appeal Bill becoming law this Session, and seeing that the Bill gives prisoners increased security against punishment for wrongful conviction, he will consider whether it will be necessary in future to send indictments before a grand jury, and the question of introducing a Bill to put an end to the grand jury system. (Answered by Sir John Walton.) The grand jury system provides a safeguard against the oppressive exercise of the right to prefer an indictment against an accused person. Its abolition would be a serious change in the administration of the criminal law, which would not be justified by the creation of a right of appeal in favour of persons who have already been tried and convicted. I do not see that any case for the proposed change has boon established.

To ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether the headmastership of the Metropolitan School of Art in Dublin is still vacant, if so, when an appointment will be made; and whether he will endeavour to recover and apply to purposes of the art school the sums which have lapsed to the Treasury by the prolonged refusal to fill this post. (Answered by Mr. T. W. Russell.) An appointment is about to be made to the headmastership of the Metropolitan School of Art. The suggestion contained in the latter part of the Question is, I am afraid, impracticable. The unexpended balance of salaries must, in the usual course. be surrendered to the Exchequer.

To ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) if the Department is still in possession of the hackney stallions handed over to it by the Congested Districts Board some years ago; if so, whether he will state if these horses are now used for breeding purposes in Ireland; and, if they are, whether the action of the Department in this respect has the approval of the Council of Agriculture and of the committee appointed by the Department to advise in matters connected with horse breeding in Ireland. (Answered by Mr, T. W. Russell.) Twelve hackney stallions were transferred to the Department by the Congested Districts Board at the close of 1903. Seven of these animals were sold early in 1904 in England and one has since died, leaving four still retained. Two of these have been located by the Department in remote parts of county Donegal and two in county Galway. It is intended, as opportunity arises through the purchase of sires of a more suitable type, to dispose of the hackney stallions in question. On the recommendation of the departmental advisory committee on horse-breeding stallions of the hackney breed have always been declared by the Department to be ineligible for registration under the general horse-breeding scheme, and accordingly none of the four hackney stallions at present in their possession are used by the Department in connection with that scheme. The action of the Department in excluding hackneys from the operations of the horse-breeding scheme formed the subject of discussion at the meeting of the Council of Agriculture held on 13th February, 1902, when a resolution approving of the policy of the Department in this respect was adopted by a large majority.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the numbers of boys and girls, aged seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, and fifteen years, respectively, who were charged and summoned at the metropolitan police courts during the twelve months ended 1st May, 1907. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) It would be impossible to give the age of children who have merely been summoned, and many of whom have not been in police custody at all. The ages of children who have been apprehended and charged are recorded, and, so far as they are concerned, it would be possible to give the Return; but its preparation would involve a long search through the records of each of the police courts, and I am not prepared without strong reasons to impose this additional labour on the already hard-worked officers of the police courts. The hon. Member will find, in Table XIII. of the Criminal Statistics, particulars of the number of children under twelve years and between twelve and sixteen who are convicted after apprehension. I may supplement that information by the following figures for the Metropolitan Police District for the year 1905 (those for 1906 are not yet completed) — Youthful offenders convicted summarily of indictable offences, under twelve years of age, 175; between twelve and sixteen, 777. Youthful offenders apprehended and convicted of non-indictable offences, under twelve years of age, 52; between twelve and sixteen, 1,295. The hon. Member will bear in mind that these figures relate to a district with a population exceeding 6,000,000.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the London County Council have determined to terminate the arrangement which they entered into in 1904 with the National Institution for Inebriates, under which inebriates committed from London wore sent to their reformatories on condition that the more hopeful class of cases should be transferred to the Council's reformatory at Farmfield; whether the effect of this decision will be that London magistrates will be deprived of the opportunity of committing inebriates to inebriate reformatories, except as regards a small number of strictly selected cases eligible for Farmfield; and what steps he proposes to take to render possible the continued committal of London inebriates to reformatories in suitable cases, so that the Inebriates Act may not be made largely inoperative so far as London is concerned. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) My attention has been drawn to the decision of the London County Council to discontinue their present provision for the reception of all classes of female inebriates and to restrict their work to a few selected cases eligible for Farmfield, and there is no doubt that if this policy is maintained the London magistrates will be deprived of the opportunity to commit female inebriates to reformatories save as regards a few isolated cases. I am about to communicate with the Council upon this important matter.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has yet been able to ascertain at what age the right to vote in parliamentary elections is conferred upon citizens of the principal foreign countries. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The following information has been collected for me by the Foreign Office from His Majesty's representatives abroad. The age at which persons, who are otherwise qualified, are entitled to exercise the franchise is in a large number of countries either twenty-one or twenty-five years. In the following countries twenty-one years is the age: Brazil, Bulgaria, Cuba, France, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Roumania, Servia, Sweden, United States of America, Wurtemberg. In the following countries the age is twenty-five years: Baden (Baden Diet), Bavaria, Belgium (Chamber of Representatives), Germany (Empire), Hesse-Darmstadt (Hessian Diet), Luxemburg (Chamber of Deputies), Netherlands, Norway, Russia, Spain (Cortes), Saxony (Landtag). In Mexico and Uruguay married men otherwise qualified may exercise the franchise at eighteen years of age, unmarried men at the ages of twenty-one and twenty in the two countries respectively. In Hungary and Switzerland the age is twenty; in Spain, for the election of senators, it is twenty-three; in Austria and the Kingdom of Prussia it is twenty-four; and in Belgium, in the case of direct election to the Senate, and in Denmark it is thirty.

To ask the Postmaster-General whether he has acquired a site yet for the proposed new post office at Bolton; and, if not, what steps he is taking to secure one. (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The matter is under consideration.

To ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that Postman Lang-worthy, of Tiverton, applied for transfer to another walk, and quoted the regulations saying that rural postmen on arduous walks have the first claim to better walks, either town or rural, in the same district, and that not only has he been refused permission to transfer, but has been informed in the Secretary's name there is no such regulation, although it is quoted on page 24 of the Tweedmouth Committee's Report; and whether he will make inquiries into this case with the view to granting Mr. Lang-worthy's request. (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) It is recognised that rural postmen on arduous walks may reasonably be allowed a first claim to better walks in the same district, other considerations being equal. This point was by no means overlooked in the present case, but was in fact pressed with a serious desire to grant Lang-worthy's request, if possible. There are reasons, however, which make it undesirable that he should be transferred to the duty he asks for; and, as it appears that there is nothing very arduous in his present duties, his request was refused. The reference to the regulation seems to have been given under a misapprehension; but this in no way affected the decision.

To ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that Mr. Dixon, of Dublin, has been repeatedly passed over for promotion to the rank of assistant inspector of postmen, but is constantly called upon to perform the duty as substitute without extra pay; and whether he will take steps to see that Mr. Dixon is promoted to the next vacancy. (Answered by Mr Sydney Buxton.) It is the case that Acting Head Postman D. Dixon has frequently been employed with- out extra pay as a substitute assistant inspector under the direct supervision of a superior officer. In view of his seniority, it is not considered desirable to deprive him of the opportunities thus afforded of qualifying for advancement, although under the rules he does not receive extra remuneration on such occasions. I can only say that his claims and qualifications for promotion have always been and will still be carefully considered in connection with vacancies on the higher class.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the number of continuous discharge books issued to seamen since the scheme was instituted; the number of new discharge books issued during 1906, distinguishing the number issued to men going to sea for the first time, together with their ratings; and the number of books of deserters, etc., now in the custody of the Board of Trade; and the number received and returned to seamen during 1906. (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The total number of continuous discharge books issued up to 31st March, 1907, was 418,917. The number of new discharge books, including renewals, issued during 1906 was 41,463. The number of books of deserters, etc., now in the custody of the Board of Trade is over 35,000, and the numbers received and returned during 1906 were 16,959 and 8,307 respectively. The work and cost of ascertaining the number of books issued in 1906 to men going to sea for the first time, and the ratings of those men, would be so considerable that I regret that I cannot supply the information on those points for which my hon. friend asks.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the fruitless efforts of some Maltese shareholders in the American Exploration Mining Company of San Francisco to obtain information about La Fiesta Mine; and whether he will direct the British Consul for the district to find out whether such mine exists, and to send a report on the subject. (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) I am afraid it is not practicable to instruct British consuls to make inquiries on behalf of individual shareholders in foreign companies in order to correct or supplement the information given by the companies themselves.

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state what is the number of men now in the navy under the short-service system, and how many were recruited during the year 1906; will he also state what is the highest rating that a man enlisted under this system can attain without passing over to the continuous service, and how many short-service men have reached such highest rating since the introduction of the System; and how many men enlisted under the short service have passed over into the continuous service. (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) (1) The numbers of special-service men borne on the 25th March last were:— Seamen, 1,324; stokers, 3,645; total, 4,969. (2) The numbers recruited during the year 1906 were:— Special - service seamen, 527; special service stokers, 2,329; total, 2,856. (3) Leading seaman and stoker, 1st class, respectively. (4) Special-service seamen, none. Special-service stokers, five. (5) The number of transfers from special-service to continuous service up to 31st December last were:— seamen, 58; stokers, 37; total, 95.

To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he will give the names of the schools selected for teaching junior students, and the reasons why these have been chosen in preference to others making application. (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) A list of the schools in question will be included in the Report on the training of teachers which will be issued shortly. It is not possible to state in detail in answer to a Question the considerations which have guided the Department in making a decision in each case, but generally speaking those schools have been accepted which gave promise, either from past successes, or from the undertakings now given to provide a sufficiently qualified staff and suitable equipment, of being in a position to give a complete five years' course of secondary instruction to pupils who have reached the stage of the qualifying examination (Article 29 of the Code).

To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware that the firm of Davidson and Company, Limited, Sirocco Works, Belfast, insist upon all men when entering their employment signing an agreement to cancel memberships with any labourers' society or of any union of which they are members, and that they shall not join any trade union while in the employ of that firm; and whether he will take such action as will prevent any repetition of such action in the future. (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) I have no information upon the subject of this Question. The matter is not one which falls within my province.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Patents and Designs (Consolidation) Bill will in any way interfere with or override the provisions of the Patents and Designs Bill now before a Standing Committee of the House, having regard especially to the clauses in the latter Bill relating to the revocation of patents worked abroad, and to the procedure thereon. (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) No, Sir. It is intended, before the Consolidation Bill is passed, to incorporate in it the provisions of the amending Bill.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total tonnage of British shipping actually trading to South Africa in the years from 1902 to 1906 inclusive; what percentage of that tonnage was chartered to American firms in those years; and what percentage of the total tonnage owned by British South African lines was lying idle in each year. (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The following table gives the particulars asked for in the first part of the Question. I am unable to give the further information which the hon. Member desires. Statement showing the net tonnage of British vessels, including their repeated voyages, that entered and cleared at the ports of the United Kingdom from and to British South Africa in each of the years from 1902 to 1902 inclusive: —

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the authorities of Guernsey and Jersey have yet passed into law the detailed suggestions prepared by the Board of Trade with a view to the assimilation of the shipping law of the Channel Islands to that of this country, in respect of certificates of competency, safety, and inquiries into shipping casualties. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) It is proposed to hold a meeting with the insular authorities at the Board of Trade early next month to deal with points in the Board's memorandum on which discussion has been found to be desirable. There will be no avoidable delay, but the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Acts are long and complicated, and their application to the Channel Islands, and the provision of the necessary machinery, must occupy some time. In the meanwhile the Guernsey Bill, to which I referred in my Answer on the 19th March last, has received the approval of the King in Council.

To ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that, owing to international gambling operations in the United States and in Great Britain in options and futures of American cotton, its price has been j artificially raised to over 7d. per pound on the Liverpool Exchange and a corner for the next few months established; and, if so, what steps does His Majesty's Government intend to take in order to safeguard the Lancashire cotton industry as well as the masses of this country in the future from advances caused by international gambling operations in fictitious raw materials through option and future contracts.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Board have any official information showing that the explosions in the case of the American cruiser "Maine," the Brazilian battleship "Aguidaban," the Japanese battleship "Mikasa," and the French battleship "Iena," were due to spontaneous explosion of smokeless or nitro-powders; and whether, in the cases of the spontaneous explosions of cordite in the "Revenge "some years ago and in "Fox" last year, a quantity of cordite was found to be in a very deteriorated condition.

It would be manifestly improper for me to make any statement in regard to the foreign battleships in question; and as regard the second part of the Question the reply is in the negative.

Would it not be proper for the right hon. Gentleman to answer the Question, seeing that a Commission has already reported, and the Report has been published in the Press?

I do not think so.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state the date of the spontaneous explosion of a six-inch cordite cartridge in the magazine of the "Fox" last year; whether it was subsequently found that a quantity of the cordite was in a deteriorated condition; and whether he can afford any information as to the name of the maker of the cordite and its age.

The date was 31st October. The Answer to the second part of the Question is in the negative, but cordite stowed in the same magazine was destroyed as a precautionary measure. The cordite in question was eight years old. There is no reason to suppose that the ignition was due to any defect in manufacture, and it is not therefore considered desirable to give the name of the maker.

Was not the explosion due to the deterioration of the cordite? If not, what was the cause?

It is supposed that the cause was high temperature acting on a weak spot in the cartridge in question.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty how many of our fifty-one battleships, twenty - eight armoured cruisers, and seventy-six unarmoured cruisers have refrigerating apparatus for their magazines in order to prevent the risk of deterioration to cordite which is caused by high temperature.

Ships at present under construction are being fitted with magazine cooling arrangements, and steps are being taken to equip ships on tropical stations with apparatus of this description at once. The remaining ships will be fitted as the necessary machinery is delivered.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how many cases of the spontaneous explosion of cordite in magazines occurred last year; whether the magazine which exploded at Woolwich on the 11th February last contained a large quantity of cordite; and whether he can lay the results of the investigation into this explosion upon the Table, or indicate their purport to the House.

There was no explosion last year in any magazine under the control of the War Office. The magazine which exploded on 11th February last contained various explosives including a small amount of cordite. It is not considered expedient in the interests of the public service to make known the results of the investigation.

asked whether there were not two explosions in magazines under the India Office.

said that was quite true.

asked whether those explosions wore due to the presence of mercuric chloride in cordite.

said he thought that was extremely unlikely. He was inclined to think that the cordite was made out there.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been directed to the reply given by General Sir T. Kelly - Kenny to Dr. Maurice Ernst, the London correspondent of the Neues Wiener Tagblatt for publication in that paper, on England and the disarmament question, and the answers of Generals Sir Ian Hamilton and Sir Alfred Turner to the Allegemeine Zeitung of Munich on the same question; whether either of these generals are on the active list of the Army or Reserve of Officers; if so, whether any permission has been given to these officers to express their opinion in the newspapers on the action of the Government; and, if not, what does he intend to do in the matter.

Of the generals referred to, only one—Sir Ian Hamilton—is on the active list and thus subject to military law. On General Hamilton being approached by a representative of a Bavarian newspaper, with a view to expressing his opinion on disarmament, Sir Ian replied that the military regulations forbade his writing to the Press on military matters. The expression of opinion in the Bavarian newspaper ascribed to General Hamilton is a translation of a passage of a speech delivered by him at Petersham on the 27th April last. I may add that the opinions of the retired officers alluded to in the Question are not such as to call for any action on my part.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what has been the cause of recent failures of rifle ammunition; how many rounds of ammunition will have to be withdrawn from issue; and how many cases of cartridges bursting the rifles have occurred this year.

The whole matter is being investigated; and until the investigation is completed and full information obtained, a reply to the Question cannot be furnished.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to a report by Mr. Percival Birkett, made to the council of the metropolitan borough of Woolwich, as to the existence of rights of common upon Eltham Common; and whether he will now abandon the proposal to build upon this metropolitan common, and at once stop the felling of trees upon and the removal of the loam by the military authorities from it, with a view to its preservation as an open space for the benefit of the inhabitants of Woolwich.

I have not seen the report referred to, but Mr. Birkett has been in correspondence with my Department on the subject. The proposal to build is still under consideration, but the felling of trees and removal of loam has nothing to do with the proposal to build. These measures have been taken to render the ground more suitable for the purposes of military training.

Is the War Office entitled to do this without bringing in a Bill?

I have said that no decision has yet been come to.

Will the right hon. Gentleman prohibit the removal of the loam?

It is only being removed in order to improve the ground and to make it available for training purposes.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any general scheme is laid down by the War Office for the inspection of Imperial Yeomanry regiments; and, if so, whether he will ensure that such general scheme is adhered to by inspecting officers. I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state for what reason the War Office has recently decided that Imperial Yeomanry regiments must march past at inspections. I beg further to ask the Secretary of State for War whether ho is aware that two and sometimes three different officers insist on inspecting Imperial Yeomanry regiments during a single training, and in consequence unnecessarily encroach upon the already limited time at the disposal of Imperial Yeomanry regiments for real practical work; and whether he proposes to take steps to stop this practice.

Inspections of Imperial Yeomanry regiments in Great Britain are at present carried out by staff officers for Imperial Yeomanry under the General Officer Commanding - in-Chief. The Imperial Yeomanry regiments in Ireland are inspected by the Brigadier - General Commanding 3rd Cavalry Brigade No departure from the above procedure has been reported to the Army Council except in the case of one regiment in Great Britain which was inspected by the colonel commanding a cavalry regiment. No recent decision has been given as regards the compulsory marching past of Imperial Yeomanry. When for any reason the Imperial Yeomanry arc required to march past, the same instructions are in force as those issued with the "Instructions for Training of Imperial Yeomanry," dated March, 1905.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in consideration of the suffering' caused by the removal of the garrison at St. Helena, he will consider the advisability of making a further grant to the islanders to help them tide over their present troubles.

I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that the Secretary of State is watching events in St. Helena with sympathetic interest, and, if circumstances at any time demand it, he will not hesitate to ask the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury to give further assistance to the island.

May I ask what garrison it is proposed to furnish St. Helena with in the event of Zulu prisoners being sent there?

Notice should be given of that Question.

I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in consideration of or connection with the guarantee by this country of the new Transvaal Loan of £5,000,000, General Botha, or any one on his behalf, was asked to give, or did give, any undertaking or promise or assurance to His Majesty's Government or to the Colonial Office regarding the repatriation of Chinese coolies from South Africa, or whether such repatriation came under discussion in connection with the guarantee.

The questions of according an Imperial guarantee for a £5,000,000 loan of the Transvaal Government and of the repatriation of the Chinese coolies from the Witwatersrand goldfield have been and will continue to be decided upon their respective merits by His Majesty's Government. No bargain of the kind suggested by the hon. Gentleman was over made. The Transvaal Government remain perfectly free to deal with the repatriation of the Chinese coolies within the limits of the constitution under which they have assumed power; and His Majesty's Government on their part have every intention of most strictly adhering to and enforcing the policy in regard to the termination of Chinese labour in South Africa which has been repeatedly declared to Parliament and which in important particulars is embodied in the Letters Patent. But it is right that I should add that among the reasons which influenced His Majesty's Government in their decision to accord the Imperial guarantee in question to the Transvaal Government was a desire that the credit of that Government should in the early days of its existence be independent of the favour or ill-will of local interests.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reply specifically to the last part of my Question, whether such repatriation came under discussion in connection with the guarantee? And may I ask, further, whether he will inform the House, if he can, the last occasion on which a loan issued by a self-governing Colony was guaranteed by the Imperial Government?

That is plainly a Question of which I should have notice, but I may say that there are several excellent precedents.

asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he would answer the last part of his hon. friend's Question.

All sorts of matters connected with South Africa formed the subject of discussion with General Botha and Ministers of the Crown during his stay in England, and I have already stated to the House that there was no question of balancing the policy of His Majesty's Government in respect of the loan against the policy of the Transvaal Government in respect of repatriation.

Is it not a fact that, in consequence of the granting of the Chinese Ordinance to the South African mine owners, they guaranteed the loan of £30,000,000?

That is a matter which concerns the late Government, and not the present one.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British Embassy at Tokio is a public institution within the meaning of the Medical Acts; whether a medical officer appointed to the Embassy ought to be a legally qualified medical practitioner; whether on the occasion of the last appointment to this office the vacancy was advertised or otherwise made known in Japan or in this country; and whether the gentleman now occupying the position of medical officer to the British Embassy at Tokio holds any medical qualification entitling him to act as a legally qualified medical man on British territory or to practise in Japan.

As regards the first, second, and last parts of the Question I am not prepared to make any statement involving an interpretation of the meaning of any portion of the Medical Acts, but would refer the hon. Member to the last sentence of my reply to him on 14th May†. In regard to the third part, I may say that no advertisement was issued in the Press, but his Majesty's Ambassador reported at the time that he had made numerous inquiries in Great Britain as well as in Japan, without, however, finding a suitable British candidate.

On behalf of the hon. Member for Mid. Armagh, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether an agreement has yet been arrived at with regard to the establishment of a branch of the Chinese Maritime Customs at Dalny; and, if so, whether he is in a position to state the nature of the agreement and when effect will be given to its provisions.

His Majesty's Minister reported on the 31st ultimo that an agreement was signed on 30th May, providing for the functioning of a Custom House at Dalny from 1st July next, if the necessary arrangements were completed by that date. The reply to the second part of the Question is at present in the negative.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the modus Vivendi on trade arrangements between Germany and the United States has now been settled.

I am informed that the administrative changes will take effect at once in the United States, and the reduction of duties on the 1st proximo.

I bee to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the recent Report of His Majesty's Minister in Tehran to the effect that all

† see (4) Debates, elxxiv., 787.

His Majesty's Minister at Tehran has reported that a younger brother of His Majesty the Shah is in revolt between Kermanshah and Hamadan, and that military measures are being taken.

Has there been any request for mediation made to either the British or the Russian Government?

Not that I am aware of.

I bog to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the anti-opium edict is of the same character, force, and validity as the ordinary official edicts of the Chinese Government.

As far as I am aware, the reply to the hon. Member's Question is in the affirmative

In that case, Sir, has the right hon. Gentleman seen the edict decreeing the posthumous promotion of the sage Confucius from the rank of the Sun and the Moon to that of Earth and Heaven?

How can it be supposed the edict will be carried out when our Consuls are unable to give even an approximate idea of the amount of opium grown in China?

asked for notice of the Question.

I bog to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been called to the fact, that the list of representative bankers' securities now shows a depreciation in their value, since 1st January, 1906, amounting to more than the whole cost to us of the Transvaal war; and whether, having regard to the uneasiness caused to investors by this fall in values and to the losses which the Revenue must ultimately sustain, he will consider the question of applying a larger portion of the sinking fund to the purchase of Consols than he did in the past year.

I am aware that a very considerable depreciation has taken place in securities generally during the period in question, but I doubt whether any useful conclusion can be based on statistics showing the precise sum by which an arbitrarily selected list of stocks may have fallen in value within an arbitrarily selected period, or by comparing that sum with the total cost of the South African, or any other war. On the question of the mode of application of the sinking fund during the current year, I am not prepared, for the reasons which I gave in reply to a Question by my hon. friend the Member for the Mile End division on 27th ultimo, † to make any definite pronouncement at the present time.

May I ask if any of the money falling into the fund has been temporarily loaned for the purpose of the issue of Irish Land Stock?

I should like notice of that Question.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can now give an estimate of the probable receipts into the Exchequer resulting from the new regulations as to compulsory returns of income made by individuals and employers.

No, Sir. I have no data on which to base an estimate of the amount of taxable income which escapes assessment through the imperfections of the present regulations.

Can the right hon. Gentleman make no estimate?

† See (4) Debates, clxxiv., 1818.

It is purely conjectural. We must wait to learn by experience.

I desire to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is necessary the Royal Assent should be given to this Bill by any particular date?

I do not think so.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a recent ease heard in the City of London Court, in which a printer who had sustained serious injuries in the course of his trade was disqualified for compensation on the ground that the premises on which he was working at the time were a portion of a factory hired temporarily by his employers from another firm occupying it; that the Judge said he was very sorry for the plaintiff', but there was no course open to him except to find for the defendants with costs; and whether he will consider the desirableness of amending the Workmen's Compensation Act so as to cover such a case.

I have seen the new paper report of the case which the hon. Member has been good enough to send me. The point is met by the amending and consolidating Act of last session, which comes into force on the 1st July. Under that Act workmen will no longer be debarred from recovering compensation from employers on the ground indicated in the Question.

Does the fact that the premises were only temporarily hired constitute good ground for the refusal of compensation?

I am afraid I cannot answer that question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his Departmental Committee on Check-weighing in the Iron and Steel Trades contains a representative of the finished trades; and, if not, will he appoint such, in view of the fact that the necessity for compulsory weighing or measuring applies more particularly to the finished iron and steel trades, than even to the pig iron or smelting trades.

The Committee does represent the employers and men engaged in a part of what I understand my hon. friend to mean by the finished iron and steel trades, and as I informed him on 8th May I prefer not to add to their numbers. The present Committee may, I think, be left to deal with such of the finished trades as come within their own experience, and the question can then be considered whether the Committee should be reconstituted with different representatives of the masters and men for the purpose of dealing with others.

Will the terms of reference entitle the Committee to inquire into the case of other trades where piecework obtains? For instance, quarrymen and navvies are nearly always employed by piece.

As it is a Departmental Committee I can add to or alter the terms of reference in any manner I may consider desirable. It is my intention that the inquiry shall cover the cases referred to by the hon. Member.

I bog to ask the President of the Board of Trade when it is proposed to proceed with the Companies Bill [Lords].

It is proposed to proceed with the Companies Bill on the first available day, but I am unable to give an exact date at present.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the Privy Council Order of 27th July, 1900, which permits the sale without trial of fluids containing less than 3 per cent. carbolic acid or its homologues, on the ground that such fluids are not poisons within the meaning of the Pharmacy Act of 1868, has resulted in flooding the market with disinfectants containing less than 3 per cent. carbolic acid; and whether he proposes to take such action as may be necessary to prevent this and to ensure the standardisation of disinfectants.

Liquids containing less than 3 per cent. of carbolic acid are, I understand, chiefly used as deodorants. They would not be likely to be used where, in case of infectious disease, disinfectants wore supplied by the sanitary authority on the advice of the medical officer of health. My attention has not been drawn to an increased use of deodorants of the kind referred to since the Order of the Privy Council was made, and it does not appear to me that I could take any action in the matter.

Is it not the case that many of the fluids are bought by the public under the impression that they are not only deodorisers but also disinfectants? If they do not disinfect, are they not a source of public danger?

If the hon. Member will supply me with examples, I will inquire.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the Southminster guardians' election, where two candidates by the name of Messrs. Pipe and Downing were elected, at the same time holding contracts under the Maldon Union for the supply of boots and conveyances, and who took their seats in defiance of a protest made to the returning officer (Mr. White, of Maldon) before the votes were counted; and whether he intends taking any action.

I have no authority to deal with the qualification or disqualification of candidates at an election of guardians, but I have made inquiry with regard to this case, and I understand that before the counting of the votes at the election a protest was made on the ground referred to in the Question. I am, however, informed that no contracts were then or are now held by either of the two candidates mentioned. It is stated that one of them has been accustomed from time to time occasionally to supply a pair of boots or shoes to paupers, but that since his election he has stopped supplying them, and that the other has never since his election supplied conveyances to the guardians.

I beg to ask the Postmaster - General whether ho will explain the diversity of treatment with regard to various grades of postal officials in relation to leave of absence for urgent domestic distress, in view of the fact that recently a telegraphist in the Central Office, London, was refused leave of absence by his deputy controller to attend the funeral of a near relative.

If the hon. Member will give me the particulars of the case to which he refers, I will have inquiry made.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if there are. at present in the post office, Belfast,, thirteen post office assistants, originally in the service as telegraph messengers, who should have been dismissed at the age of sixteen, if it was not desired to continue them in the postal service; if these lads have service and unimpeachable records for from four to six years; if they are now aged from eighteen to twenty-one years, and, if dismissed, will have to search for new employment, out of which their continuance in the service after the age of sixteen has thrown them; what were the conditions under which they were so continued; and can he see his way, under all the circumstances of the case, to retain them in the postal service.

There are thirteen telegraph messengers at Belfast, aged from eighteen to twenty, who have been employed from four to six years, and most of whom have a good record. Their employment was continued after the age of sixteen in the hope that it would be possible to appoint them as established postmen within a reasonable time. Unfortunately, the prospect of finding them established appointments is still remote; and it is considered best in their own interests that they should procure outside employment. They have for some time been employed as substitute postmen; and their employment in this capacity will be temporarily continued. It is clearly understood, however, that they will not thereby acquire any claim to established positions. It may be possible to appoint a few of them assistant postmen in the near future.

May we take it that the boys will not be dismissed immediately?

They are not exactly dismissed. They are simply told it is better for their own prospects to obtain outside employment.

asked if it was not a fact that a considerable number of these boys were dismissed from the service about this age, because a preference was given to ex-military and naval men.

The House knows that an agreement was entered into years ago by which a certain percentage of vacancies was sot apart for ex-soldiers and naval men. We do not propose to extend that system, or indeed to interfere with it.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of giving some technical training to these boys so that they may become skilled servants as sorters or telegraphists?

The right hon. Gentleman was not present I think when I spoke on the Post Office Estimates. We have given the utmost consideration to the question. We have the very greatest sympathy for the boys who have to find other work because we cannot employ them.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General is he aware that the North Gorman Lloyd steamers are 23-knot vessels while those of the White Star Company are only 19; and as, under the altered arrangements of sailing, the steamers of both lines are to leave Southampton at 11 a.m. on Wednesdays, letters carried by the North German Lloyd steamers will arrive in New York on Tuesdays and enable replies to be sent by the White Star steamer leaving the following day, whereas mails sent by the White Star steamer from Southampton will not be in time for answers to be so sent, is it, in these circumstances, his intention to continue sending the mails which are ready for despatch on Wednesday mornings, and which heretofore have been embarked in Liverpool, by the White Star steamer at 11 a.m., or will he have these mails sent by the North German Lloyd vessels leaving at the same hour.

The fact that the packets of the White Star Line now sail from Southampton instead of Liverpool will not affect the arrival of the mails in New York; because the packets will continue to call at and to leave Queenstown at the same hour as before, and the final despatch of mails from England will still take place on Wednesday evenings. It is and has always been possible to secure the transmission of correspondence by the German steamers by superscribing the letters accordingly. Consequently I do not propose to alter the arrangement by which all correspondence is sent by the British contract packets, unless marked for transmission id some other way. It should be borne in mind that the foreign steamers do not furnish a regular weekly service all the year round whereas the British packets are bound under contract to perform the voyage regularly.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that rolls of green paper constantly arrive at the London Docks with an outside label, "Paper for the Westminster Gazette "; and whether, in view of the 16th section of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, he proposes to take steps to secure that the paper contained in this outer covering shall not be put into circulation bearing printed matter in the English language without a definite indication of the country in which such paper was made or produced.

Before the hon. Gentleman replies, may I ask whether he is also aware that rolls of white paper constantly arrive at the London Docks labelled "Five miles of paper for the Daily Mail," and whether he will apply similar regulations to this paper?

I am informed by the Board of Customs that the facts are not correctly stated in the first sentence of the Question. The rolls of green paper referred to are not labelled as described, but boar merely an initial letter and a number when cleared by the Customs Department.

asked whether the hon. Gentleman had himself seen this paper arrive at the docks marked as described, as ho himself had, and on whose authority he contradicted the statement in the Question. What was the name of the inspector on whose authority he spoke?

replied that, as the hon. Member must be aware, at the time the paper was cleared by the Customs it bore only an initial and a number, and not the mark referred to in the Question.

Then I understand that the label is put on afterwards in order to deceive the public.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, in view of the fact that an examination for seventy vacancies in the Second Division has been announced by the Civil Service Commissioners, if he will state whether there are any new class assistant clerks serving in those Departments of the State in which such vacancies exist who are efficiently performing duties similar to those on which their Second Division colleagues are employed; whether any such assistant clerks are eligible for promotion to the Second Division; and, if so, whether he will consider the desirability of arranging that some of the Second Division appointments now vacant should be given to such eligible assistant clerks.

Promotions of assistant clerks can only be made in cases of exceptional merit and upon the recommendation of the head of the Department. Any such recommendations will be carefully considered, but I cannot undertake to adopt the course suggested by the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, what is the meaning of the word "dog" for the purpose of regulations under Section 2 (1) (a) of The Dogs Act, 1906; and at what age a puppy becomes a dog for that purpose.

The word "dog" is not defined in the Act, but there is no doubt that it includes puppies.

But at what age does a puppy become a dog under the Act? I wish to know because several of my constituents have been prosecuted.

What the hon. Member wants to know is the effect of this section. It imposes no obligation, but it gives power to make orders; and what happens is that the local authorities submit regulations to the Board of Agriculture for approval. The hon. Member suggests that the local anthorities and the Board of Agriculture would be so stupid as to make puppies wear collars.

I ask the simple question, What is the age which the regulations lay down?

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, in view of the facts that chilled meat, marked U.S., inspected, and passed, was seized in Glasgow Meat Market on 18th and 20th February, and found unfit for human food, that this meat showed no evidence of having been previously inspected, that United States statistics show that each inspector there has to examine the car cases and viscera of at least 937 animals daily, he will take steps to ensure greater precaution in admitting into Scotland this class of meat for human consumption.

I am not in a position to confirm the suggestion in my hon. friend's Question as to the conditions under which meat is inspected in the United States. The Local Government Board for Scotland have no power to take any stops to ensure greater precaution in the admission into Scotland of the class of moat referred to. I am informed that chilled and frozen meat does not come direct to Scotland from the United States, but that it usually goes to London or Liverpool and is consigned to Scottish centres from those Ports.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland if he is aware that, notwithstanding the present provisions of the Licensing Law requiring public-houses to close, in all but certain towns in Ireland, at 9 o'clock, chemists and druggists claim the right to sell medicated or other wines and Burgundies between nine and ten o'clock; and if he will take steps to stop this practice.

I am aware that a claim by chemists and druggists mentioned in the Question has been made, but the Government has been advised that it has no foundation in law. The police, however, have been instructed not to interfere when they find that the sale of medicated wines for the use of invalids is bona fide carried on as chemists' business, but where there is reason to believe that an ordinary wine business is being conducted and the regulations of the Licensing Acts merely evaded, prosecutions will be instituted.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the climatic conditions prevailing in Ireland, causing distress among children attending national schools through the insufficient and irregular heating of class rooms, he will urge the Government to take steps to provide the funds necessary to remedy the existing state of affairs before winter sets in.

I am afraid that I can add nothing to the reply given by my right hon. friend to the hon. Member's previous Question on this subject on 14th February last. †

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board have ordered a sworn inquiry into the election recently of a medical officer by the Skibbereen Board of Guardians, in view of allegations of bribery and corruption which have been made publicly.

The Answer is in the affirmative.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a number of grazing farms in county Roscommon cannot be used by their occupiers because of the intimidation and unlawful interference with their user organised by the United Irish League; whether he is aware that it is publicly asserted in the district that the Government approve of the methods of the League; and whether, seeing that the object of this action is to force the sale of the grazing farms for distribution among members of the League, the Estates Commissioners will be instructed not to purchase any lands in regard to which intimidation has been practised to force a sale.

I am informed that there are a number of grazing farms in county Roscommon at present unoccupied,

† See (4) Debates, clxix., 311,562.

May I ask whether the intimidation and unlawful interference spoken of is properly described in the evening newspapers as "Terrorism in Ireland"?

That is a matter of opinion.

Does it amount to that?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland at what date was the Nevins Estate at Mountshannon, Annacoty, county Limerick, parcelled out to the tenants; how was the allotment made; wore all the persons who were given farms on this estate evicted tenants; have any changes been made since by any inspector; and has an inspector power to change a tenant from one farm to another after such tenant being put in possession and signing the agreement for purchase for the farm allotted to him.

The Estates Commissioners inform me that the distribution of the lands referred to took place on the 7th of last month. Of the persons who were allotted holdings, nine were

‡ See (4) Debates, clxxiv., 799–800.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how many claims for compensation for malicious damage to property were before the last Birr quarter sessions; and what was the total amount awarded by the court.

Three claims for compensation were heard on the occasion mentioned. In one case the claim was dismissed. In another case the sum of £1,660 was awarded as compensation for the malicious burning of a stable and horses. Appeals have been lodged in this case by both the county council and district council. In the third case, the sum of £35 was awarded as compensation for the burning of the roof of a dwelling house.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in the event of the Irish Council Bill not becoming law, he will take steps to secure that the whole or some part of the proposed additional grant of £650,000 shall be available for development purposes, and particularly to facilitate land purchase and to avoid further inroads upon the Guarantee Fund.

The financial provisions of the Irish Council Bill were framed in connection with the Bill itself, and cannot be considered apart from it.

Is it not necessary to do something towards relieving the congested condition of Ireland? Cannot a portion of this money be applied to that purpose?

said he thought it was desirable that they should get as much money for Ireland as they could in every possible way.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state what sum is at present available for advances to purchasers under the Land Purchase Act of 1903; and when it is proposed to make a fresh issue of Irish land stock.

Money is at present being supplied to the Irish Land Purchase. Fund by temporary loans from funds in the hands of the National Debt Commissioners, as and when required, as provided by Section 30 of the Irish Land Act, 1903. This answers the Question just put by the hon. Member for York. There is no present intention of making a public issue of stock.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what sums are lying to the credit of the Estates Commissioners?

I cannot say without notice.

I bog to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the great interest taken by.Members of all Parties in the House in the working of the Street Betting Act, and of the unique opportunity afforded by the Epsom racing carnival of ascertaining in what respects the Act requires amendment or extension, he will consider the desirableness of adjourning the House over Derby Day, and thus afford Members an opportunity in the public interest of studying the matter upon the spot.

The Answer is in the negative.

moved to insert after the word "Act" the words "and of the Militia Ballot Act which shall be applicable to the Territorial Force. "He said the Secretary of State had made an appeal for a nation in arms, but he had not attempted to enforce that duty upon the nation by putting into the Bill any clause which would lead the nation to recognise the duty. The other day the right hon. Gentleman made a very remarkable statement. He admitted that country was in the greatest difficulty in regard to its military institutions, owing to the system of voluntary enlistment. Successive Secretaries of State had endeavoured to overcome those difficulties with various schemes which had been put before the House. But the right hon. Gentleman had not gone to the very root of the matter. He hoped under his system to get the number of men he required, and many hon. Members shared that hope, but some of them were very sceptical on the point, and consequently desired that there should be some safeguard in the Bill upon which the Government could fall back in the event of the right hon. Gentleman's hopes failing realisation. The whole question was based upon this point: it was impossible to get trained men in time of war in sufficient numbers unless there was some compulsion in time of peace. It was not that the British citizen was unpatriotic, nor was it that ho was unwilling to serve when the necessity stared him in the face; the difficulty was one rather of want of thought. Men were not anxious in time of peace to undertake the drudgery of military instruction. Where thousands would be willing to come forward in time of war only tens, or perhaps hundreds, would come forward in time of peace and consent to undergo the drudgery which was essential for their utility in time of war. When the right hon. Gentleman threw out the hope that his scheme might be successful he forgot that other schemes which had also been heralded with high expectations in the past had proved failures. Every device had been attempted, but all had been equally futile. The history of recruiting was an ignominious one wholly ignored in popular histories. They had tried voluntary enlistment with high bounties, and they had also tried a modified form of compulsion, but both systems had broken down. The right hon. Gentleman had told the House that he had copied the example afforded in the Parliamentary wars and had set up county associations, but he did not tell the House that that most successful army of Cromwell's was based upon a system of compulsion. Coming to later times they would find that this country carried on its wars with the aid of subsidised allies and the employment of foreign mercenaries. He knew of no great war in which this country had been engaged, barring the late South African War, in which that had not been the case. That, however, was impossible in the present day, and, therefore, the question of what they were to fall back upon in time of a great war was one which would have to be considered in a different spirit from the spirit of optimism which the right hon. Gentleman had displayed. The right hon. Gentleman had referred more than once to the Napoleonic wars, the last great European conflict in which this country was engaged. Well, it was only by putting the Ballot Act in force during that war that we were enabled to maintain a large force in the field. For the Militia was able to find drafts for the Regular Army and yet maintain its strength. But the Act had another effect at that time. The Volunteer movement, it was true, was partly due to a purely patriotic spirit, but it also originated in a desire to avoid the liability imposed by the Ballot Act. The right hon. Gentleman, in some of his speeches, had told them that in some future war we might require as many as 900,000 men. The highest total the forces of the Crown ever reached during the wars of Napoleon was about 800,000; therefore the right hon. Gentleman contemplated the possibility of Army Forces which would exceed the greatest force ever raised by 100,000. Yet he hoped to raise that force by a purely voluntary system of enlistment. He was afraid the right hon. Gentleman was doomed to disappointment. He was not asking in his Amendment that compulsion should be applied, but he was asking that the power of compulsion should be retained in the hands of the Government, so that if it should turn out that they were not able to procure the necessary men in the way the right hon. Gentleman expected they would have some power to fall back upon. Compulsion was not, as he had endoavoured to point out, a new principle, nor was it an undemocratic principle, because it was enforced by some of the greatest democracies both in the past and in the present. Neither was it at variance with the principles of the Party opposite, because they had introduced the principle of compulsion in the matter of land purchase, and ho failed to see that it was any wore contrary to the principles of Liberalism to compel a citizen to defend his country than to acquire land under compulsion for the public service. The first argument ho wished to put forward in defence of the retention of the Ballot Act was that it was necessary, and that probably the right hon. Gentleman would not be able to provide an Army without it. The second reason was that it was the primary duty of every citizen to take part, or be liable to take part, in the defence of his country. That principle was recognised by our Colonies and by our late enemies in the field—the Boers. Thirdly, it was the only fair way to raise troops The right hon. Gentleman's Bill called upon a large number of men to serve in the Territorial Army, not for payment but from patriotism and a sense of duty. Under the Bill a largo number of men would serve, owing to a sense of patriotism, at great inconvenience and possibly loss of income, and they would see around them men who were indifferent and were unwilling to face the obligations which they themselves had readily undertaken. Therefore, the only fair way was to provide that all citizens should be equally liable to serve in the Territorial Army. Such an obligation would not encourage a spirit of what was called "militarism" or "jingoism." On t he contrary, the Auxiliary Force that would exist under such a system would be mainly civilian in spirit, and every question would be looked at from the civilian rather than the military point of view. He wished to draw attention to two points connected with the Ballot Act itself. At the present time the Secretary of State for War had to consider, not how many men he required for the Army or for the Territorial Force, but how many he could raise. Under a system of compulsion he would be able to fix the establishment at what he regarded as necessary and to maintain it at that strength. The other day the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Doan said that the Ballot Act was obsolete as applied to Militia. He would be more than reluctant to differ from the right hon. Baronet, who was a well-known authority on such matters, but there were high authorities whom he had consulted who did not agree with that statement. Moreover, there was a debate in the House of Lords in 1900 when the matter came under discussion, and Lord Lansdowne then stated that the retention of the Ballot Act was a power the late Government were not willing to part with. Evidently, therefore, in the opinion of Lord Lansdowne the provisions of the Ballot Act were still applicable. Until they had a statement to the contrary from the Law Officers of the Crown they were entitled to assume that in the opinion of the present Government also the Ballot Act was still on the Statute-book and could be enforced. He frankly admitted that the Ballot Act as it stood was archaic and would have to be re-drafted and re-east. It was impossible for him on that Amendment to suggest what its provision should be, but if the Amendment wore carried it would entail the re-casting of the Act. The old Act allowed anyone who was drawn for service to obtain a substitute. He would object to any system which allowed substitutes. Those who were richer should not be allowed to buy off and compound their duty to their country by hiring men to take their place. It was rash for the Secretary of State for War to assume without any proof that he would obtain the number of men he required under the Bill, and even if he obtained them it would only be at an enormous expenditure, an expenditure far exceeding any amount yet presented to the House as the probable cost. If he were willing to base the Territorial Army upon duty to serve when the Government considered the necessities of of the country required it he would get a more efficient and vastly cheaper Army than he would get under this Bill, and he would have behind him an inexhaustible supply of men ready to fill up gaps in the Army during a long campaign. He, therefore, moved the Amendment, which he believed was in consonance with the dictates of true patriotism and citizenship.

said the noble Lord's speech showed that he had given serious consideration to this question, and had endeavoured to got at the facts and the law of the case. But he had admitted that the Militia Acts, even if they could be applied to this force, were of such a character as to work in the most unfair fashion. Those Militia Acts not only took no account of the Volunteers, but they enabled rich men to buy substitutes. If there was any proposition likely to prove more odious than another it was that a rich man should be allowed to buy a substitute. What, then, became of the proposal to apply the Militia Ballot Act to this force? The noble Lord had asked whether hon. Members on the Government side of the House could take objection to his plan of making compulsory what was the duty of the citizen. Why should that question be addressed to that side of the House? He was not sure what was the view of hon. Members opposite. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon was an apostle of the objection to compulsion. How, then, was it possible to challenge the Government on this principle? No doubt they would have a clear and emphatic utterance from him upon this question. The noble Lord said they would never get this force; but was it not worth trying? The Government were asking for 300,000 men when the establishment was full. They had very nearly that number at the present time n the Yeomanry and Volunteers, and it was not extravagant to expect that such a force would come forward if a proper and satisfactory organisation were provided. At any rate, that was the view of the Government, and they wished to do everything in their power to see whether this force could not be raised upon a purely voluntary footing. The Militia Acts of 1852 and 1860 were both alive and could be applied; but the view of the Government was that it was not expedient to raise the question of compulsion. There was not the smallest reason for passing the Amendment, because they did not propose to sweep away any obsolete machinery. They were not proposing to raise a force of 900,000 men, except in a case of very great emergency. What they were proposing was such a force as would give the public a sense of security, and so get rid of all the grumblings and murmurs that distracted attention from useful topics. Therefore, they did not desire to resort to machinery which could not possibly be required excepting under circumstances of such grave emergency that they might be left to take care of themselves. The Government had endeavoured to frame an organisation for a comparatively small force, and for that purpose they considered that compulsion was useless, and might be mischievous to their ends. For those reasons they could not accept the Amendment.

said that if the Government system were voluntary, it could not be uniform. If the plan were tried upon a uniform basis it would inevitably have to be strengthened by compulsion. He thought the plan of the Government was going to fail. There was also a question of principle involved. The right hon. Gentleman said the Militia Ballot Act remained in force. That was true, and it enshrined the principle that in this country for the last thousand years it had been the duty of its inhabitants to defend it. The existing Ballot Act, however, was not only suspended, but was quite obsolete. It was possible to amend it, and an amending Bill had already been drafted and printed. It contained these words—

"A person balloted to serve in the Militia shall not be permitted to find a substitute."

said the Amendment involved a principle which was advocated by a great many Members at the present moment. He joined that band of isolated individuals who favoured the principle without being desirous of seeing it enforced unless it was proved to be an absolute necessity. It had not been enforced in this country for a good many years. It was obvious that if the present scheme failed the country must be involved in a position of great danger. In fact with regard to our Auxiliary Forces there would be chaos. The right hon. Gentleman was very sanguine with regard to the success of the Bill, and he declined on that account to contemplate any suggestion of failure. He could not say that he shared the right hon. Gentleman's optimistic views. Ho did not believe the men of this country would come forward in the spirit in which the Secretary for War wished they would. In saying that he did not wish to say anything against the patriotic spirit of the country, but he did not believe that the men were prepared to sacrifice a great deal for the purpose of displaying the spirit of patriotism. Consequently he welcomed the Amendment because he believed it would place in the hands of the Government a weapon which they ought to possess, and one which, if the necessity arose, they should put in force. With regard to the 300,000 men whom the right hon. Gentleman hoped would come forward, it was obvious that the conditions under which they would be asked to serve in future would be different from those which had obtained in the past. A great many of the attractions which formerly induced the I Yeomanry and the Volunteers to join would I be absent. They knew well how recruits I joined the Regular Army. A certain percentage joined for the purpose of doing something for their country, but he believed that was a very small percentage. That was proved by the seasons at which the majority of the recruits joined. They joined because they were unable to find other employment in the labour market. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would get the recruits he believed would come in. Under ordinary circumstances this weapon, which involved the principle of compulsion, would not be put in force, but he thought the Government should have the power of enforcing men to join the ranks for the purpose of serving their country in a time of great national emergency. That was done during the Peninsular War, and there was no reason to believe that circumstances of equal magnitude might not arise in the near future. The time might come when the Government would be at their wits' end to obtain a large number of men, and when it might be necessary to send a large force to the continent of Europe. He sincerely hoped the emergency would never arise, but he thought that the Government should be furnished with a weapon for the purpose of expanding the military forces of the country.

said he understood that the Secretary for War fully acknowledged that contingencies might arise when it would be necessary to enforce the Militia Ballot Act, and that at the present time it was a living Act. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that when the Territorial Army was created the Militia Ballot Act would die a natural death. Therefore the present Bill entirely killed the Militia Ballot Act. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would correct him if he was wrong.

said it did not kill it legally; so far as the Militia continued to subsist for a short time theoretically the Act would remain with vitality. But should the Militia in their present form become obsolete, then, no doubt, the Statute Law Revision Committee would regard the Act as obsolete

asked whether the Act would continue as far as the Irish Militia were concerned.

said they came under Part III., and would cease as Militia in the old sense.

said he understood, at any rate, that the Militia Ballot Act would be practically killed. He much regretted that he found himself unable to support the Amendment of the noble Lord. The right hon. Gentleman had brought forward a voluntary scheme, and he thought it only just that they should give that scheme a fair chance. Nobody knew better than the right hon. Gentleman that, if he failed to obtain the men under it, there would be and could be no alternative but compulsory service. But the right time to discuss compulsory service was when they had practical proof of the failure of the right hon. Gentleman's scheme.

mentioned that high legal authorities had advised successive Governments that the Militia Ballot Acts were virtually already obsolete, because they largely applied to a class of Militia which had ceased to exist.

thought that some of the explanations given in the course of the debates had been rather obscure. He had, unfortunately, been compelled to obtain his information from the public prints, and on many points he was absolutely in the dark. He believed that that state of things prevailed inside as well as outside the House. But there could be no ambiguity about the fact now elicited by his noble friend. They had now got two unequivocal statements— first, that the Secretary for War believed that the Militia Ballot Act was a valid and subsisting Act, and, secondly, that he believed that, being a valid and subsisting Act, it ought to be put an end to. The pretence which had been put forward by some supporters of this proposal, that the Militia was not going to be destroyed, must now be abandoned. It had been stated over and over again, in speeches and in contributions to the Press, that those who said the Militia was to be destroyed were mistaken. But they now found that so entirely was the Militia to be abolished, lock, stock, and barrel, that a set of Statutes which were valid and subsisting, which had been called into action in the past, and might easily be invoked in the future, would be struck off the Statute Book by the early efforts of the Statute Law Revision Committee because there would be nothing to which those Statutes could apply.

said he had expressly stated that this Bill did not abolish the Militia. The Militia would become obsolete in consequence of the new system set up under this Bill, and they had taken power to bring in Orders in Council to abolish Militia units if and as they pleased.

said that if ever there was a distinction without a difference, that was one. The right hon. Gentleman said he was not abolishing the Militia, but he was passing an Act which would be regarded by the Statute Law Revision Committee at an early date as having had that effect.

said the whole discussion had been on the assumption that the Militia Ballot Act, if put in operation, would compel these men to give themselves for service abroad. That was not so. If the Ballot Act were put in operation the only thing the men could be asked to do would be to serve for home defence. What was the good of that when they had in the Volunteer Act of 1863 a provision that in case of actual or apprehended invasion the whole of the Volunteer Force could be asked to serve for home defence? He thought it was immaterial whether the Ballot Act was in operation or not, since the Secretary foe War had all that ho wanted with regard to mobilisation in the Volunteer Act of 1863. The clause to which ho referred was in the following terms—

''Every officer and Volunteer and every N.C.O. of the Permanent Staff belonging to every Corps so called out shall lie bound to assemble as the Lieutenant of the County directs, and to march according to orders within Great Britain; and shall for the purpose of this Act, be deemed on actual military service. If any such Officer, Volunteer, or N.C.O., not incapacitated by infirmity for military service, refuses or neglects to so assemble or march, he shall be deemed a deserter."

said the hon. Member for East Edinburgh was generally very lucid in his contributions to the debates, but in this case he was confusing two matters which were totally distinct.

said he was supporting the Amendment because there was an element of compulsion in it. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh had forgotten that even the American Government could compel not only Volunteers but every man in the country to fight in its defence in case of emergency. The Secretary for War had told them that his scheme would give the people of this country a sense of security. He could not see how it could give them any possible sense of security; because the right hon. Gentleman would get neither the quantity nor the quality of men he required. The quantity of men for the Territorial Army was likely to be considerably less than it now was, and the quality to be considerably worse. After all, they had had warnings as to the dangers of invasion formal most all our great war captains from the Duke of Wellington down to Lord Roberts and Lord Wolseley. He asked the Secretary for War whether, oven if he succeeded in getting 300,000 men for his Territorial Army without the use of the ballot, he really thought that 300,000 partially trained men would be enough to protect the country from invasion? Three hundred thousand men would not be anything like enough to guard our coasts; and therefore it would be impossible to use the Navy in chasing and destroying the enemy's ships. And if we could not do that, we could not secure the necessary supplies of food for our people and of the raw material for our manufactures. That would mean that our people would be starved into submission in a very short time. The Secretary for War had gone out of his way to prevent the people of this country from learning that it was their duty to join the Auxiliary Forces. He had capitulated to that section of the Government Party who did not take any notice of history; and had prevented the teaching of boys in elementary schools that it was their first duty to learn enough to defend their country in any great national emergency. So far as he could make out the right hon. Gentleman was going to try—he thought probably unsuccessfully—to get 300,000 men to take all the trouble and risk of the defence of our shores, leaving millions of able-bodied men to do nothing to make themselves of any use. He could not see that that was a scheme on Radical or democratic lines. Moreover, by the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman they wore going not only to have fewer troops but less training. It seemed to him that we were really in danger of a sudden war and of invasion every month; and the Government might very well be compared to Nero who fiddled while Rome was burning, or to Belte-shazzar who trusted to water to defend his country—and they all knew what the result of that was.

said he hoped the hon. Member would adhere a little more closely to the Amendment.

said he was sorry he had got over the line; he found it rather difficult to keep to the Amendment, but if the Chairman should find it necessary to put him down again ho would remain there. It seemed to him that this attempt to get 300,000 men for home defence without using the Ballot Act meant that with the self-deception of the ostrich the Government were sticking their heads in the mud and refusing to see the dangers to which they were exposing the country; and he believed that if the country had the chance next month they would send the Government out to grass, like Nebuchadnezzar of the swollen head. "Quem Deus vult perdire prius dementat." He hoped, however that in this case, it might be the curious conglomeration of fragmentary atoms which called itself the Liberal Party which would be destroyed and not the country.

said that the hon. Member was not confining himself to the subject matter of the Amendment before the Committee.

said he did not want unnecessarily to prolong the discussion; but he was in a position of some difficulty as to how he should vote owing to the fact that he did not understand the position of the right hon. Gentleman as to the Militia Acts. The right hon. Gentleman had said that those Acts were real, vital, and living Acts, and he distinctly understood him to say that they applied to the Militia as at present constituted. If that were so, and they could be used in case of emergency, the right hon. Gentleman brought in a Bill that did away with the Militia in its present form, and by a side-wind destroyed the Militia Acts which were the safeguard of the reserve. If the right hon. Gentleman accepted that position and refused this Amendment, he supplied the Opposition with a very strong argument in favour of excluding the Militia from the scope of this Bill.

said he was against compulsion in every shape or form, and he did not want to see those Acts put in force.

said that the right hon. Gentleman had found himself in difficulty in trying to explain why there should not be compulsion; because he admitted that he could conceive a set of circumstances under which the only alternative to national danger was to have recourse to compulsion. The right hon. Gentleman based his objection to the acceptance of the Amendment on the ground—reasonable and natural enough for him—that if this Bill were passed there would be no necessity for the grumbles and murmurs of some hon. Members about compulsory service. If he could agree with the right hon. Gentleman in that respect he might postpone further consideration of compulsion till some future time. But if that grumbling and murmuring were to cease the right hon. Gentleman must correct his scheme so as to make the country certain that he was providing an adequate force physically lit for the defence of the country. The force should be capable in regard to the physique of the men and because they had boon well trained. The reason why the country was murmuring and looking to compulsion as a necessity was that this Bill, which was the last ditch between the present system and compulsion, did not provide an adequate force or give them sufficient training. He thought the right hon. Gentleman must amend his Bill in the direction proposed unless he showed that he had put aside the idea that compulsion might be necessary. It might be said that he was allying himself with the advocates of compulsory service, but ho was not. He did regret, however, that the right hon. Gentleman had not allied himself with any system for the production of national efficiency and training powers. He wondered whether his right hon. friend had noticed a curious piece of information given in print the other day by those representatives of the working classes who went through Germany, who laid it down categorically that the compulsory service in that country had been of direct advantage to the working population. That was a fact which the right hon. Gentleman might bear in mind as showing an increasing disposition in this country to recognise that some form of compulsory service was not inimical to the interests of the population or adverse to the growing desires of the people. He confessed he was not desirous of advocating immediate compulsory service in this country, but he was glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman confessed that it might become necessary, and that when it was necessary he would not shrink from it.

:associated himself with the position taken up by the hon. Member for Fareham, although he had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would think him very stupid for doing so. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say last night, that the Militia as it existed would to a largo extent be absorbed in the special contingent or reserve In that case the Militia Ballot Act would not apply to any of the Auxiliary Forces absorbed, and the Irish Militia would also be excluded from the possible operation of the Ballot Act while this Act remained in force. However, he might ask if any of the Militia absorbed into the Territorial Force would be liable to the operation of the Militia Ballot Act?

No.

was glad to have it made quite clear that the Bill excluded any member of the Territorial Force from the operation of the Militia Ballot Act, His hon. friend the Member for East Edinburgh had asked what was the good of the Militia Ballot Act, because they wore already able to secure by means of the Territorial Forces what they required in cases of emergency. But the Secretary of State for War had said he was going to leave great emergencies to take care of themselves, and he was not going by this Bill to do anything to provide any safeguards for emergencies except on the principle of embodiment. He put it to the Secretary of State for War, supposing he had 700,000, 800,000 or 900,000 men, which was the number the right hon. Gentleman expected to keep up for expansion and to get from this Territorial Force, did he imagine that that force would be a Reserve providing a large number of men to go abroad? In the Napoleonic wars four out of every five men who joined the Militia subsequently entered the Regular Army. They might expect therefore that a great number of men could be brought in under the Militia Ballot Act, and that would provide a much larger number of men not only for Home defence but to go abroad. The proposal was perfectly sound and reasonable, as he thought the Minister for War would admit. What he complained of was that the Minister for War had deliberately excluded from this Bill a safeguard which had been given to this country and exercised by them for generation after generation. Did the right hon. Gentleman think it wise to throw aside a weapon which the State had placed in his hand—a time honoured weapon and a live weapon as he himself had said? What harm would it be to retain it?

It is a blunderbuss.

did not think the right hon. Gentleman's estimate of the weapon was quite in keeping with his previous utterance, which was to the effect that it was a live weapon. If it was a live weapon it could be applied. If it was applied it cast a responsibility upon the men. The only objection in principle which the right hon. Gentleman had to the Militia Ballot was that it gave the opportunity of substitution. As his right hon. friend the Member for Dover had pointed out, it could be amended, and if his noble friend had moved his Amendment and added the words—

"And the Militia Ballot Act; is it exists or may be amended,"

asked whether the Volunteer Act of 1863 would apply to the Territorial Force when the Volunteer Force disappeared.

No, but other provisions of the same nature will.

pointed out that a large number of the provisions of the Militia Acts alluded to a different kind of Militia from that which was now in existence. There used to be two kinds of Militia, a general Militia and a local Militia. The local Militia had ceased to exist. The Militia Acts were therefore inapplicable in every particular to the Militia as it existed to-day. It was at one time proposed to repeal all the Acts relating to the local Militia as being obsolete, but that was not done and large portions of them were still in force although they did not apply to the present force. It was the Act of 1802 which proposed to establish a local Militia which had been described as a respectable military force under the landed proprietors of a district. Under the later Act it would be found that there was a provision by which the overseers out of parish rates had to pay half the sum currently charged for a substitute in cases of persons not possessing property of £500, and a description was given of the persons who should have the opportunity of providing substitutes. Since boards of guardians were established that system had ceased to exist. A great many of the provisions of those Acts could no longer be put in force in regard to the existing Militia, and therefore they could not be put into force in regard to the Territorial Army which it was proposed to create.

said he was afraid that he must be suffering from the incipient military lunacy alluded to by the hon. Member for Gravesend as he did not think the scheme of the Secretary for War would be a success. He did not look forward to it as being an immediate failure, because it would take many years to establish, but he believed that when it was put to a severe test, comparable with the late war in South Africa or with a great European war, the scheme would fail as signally and totally as the other schemes which had gone before it. There was, however, at least one good point in the scheme, namely, that it did form the groundwork of a scheme of universal military service, and when the country came to its senses and saw that without a scheme of universal military service they could not consider themselves safe from any point of view it would be possible to go forward on those lines. To that extent, and from that point of view, he welcomed the Bill, but in other respects he did not think the system which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to set up would be better than the system under which they had been working for some years. Whether it would be worse was a matter upon which it would be premature for him to express an opinion, but at all events, it furnished a starting point, from which the country, when they realised what some of them had realised, what a system of makeshift the present was, could start upon a system of universal service. For these reasons he was glad that his noble friend behind him had introduced the Amendment, as it served as a distinct point at which Members could avow themselves in favour of some form of universal service and definitely state that in their opinion the voluntary system had been and always would be found wanting.

:supported the Amendment and said it was to be regretted that the debate must be necessarily curtailed, because a week could be usefully spent in thoroughly discussing the proposal which the Amendment involved. The Secretary of State for War had referred to the Ballot Act as inapplicable, but he was sure that the noble Lord who moved the Amendment did not desire that the Ballot Act, exactly as it stood now, should be applied in connection with the Territorial Force, but only that the right hon. Gentleman should consider whether it was possible to embody the principle in this Bill. It was the desire of everyone in the House that the Bill should be a thorough success. But it was felt that there would be a difficulty in obtaining a full establishment on the various occasions when it was needed. Therefore the noble Lord moved the Amendment to ensure that the establishment required would be obtained if the Government at any time found it necessary to have the full strength in connection with the Territorial Force. Under the Bill those who at present were taking, and those who in the future were to take, an active part in qualifying themselves to defend their hearths and homes were subjected to certain pains and penalties. It seemed to him, however, that it was those who took no part in such matters but stood by apparently indifferent to what happened to their country in time of difficulty and stress, who should have the pains and penalties and not those who took trouble in order to qualify themselves to take part in the defence of the country. Under the proposal of the noble Lord the Government would have in time of difficulty the power to call upon every man of suitable age to take his place in assisting his fellow-citizens in the forces of the kingdom. The Amendment did not propose, as some hon. Members appeared to have thought, that the Militia Ballot Act should be put in force at once. It was only with a view of meeting an emergency which might arise that the proposal was made. In that way it would not interfere with the working of the Territorial Act or the forces raised under that Act, but would merely supplement those forces at a time of national difficulty and danger. At the present moment they were face to face with a condition of things which discouraged many from associating themselves with that which the right hon. Gentleman had submitted to the House in connection with this Bill. National prosperity alone was opposed to it, and sports and games, which seemed to take up all the thought, time, ambition, and interest of vast numbers who might qualify themselves for service in the Territorial Force, also seemed to be opposed to the people taking upon themselves any such duty. If, however, it was understood that the citizens of this country were expected to qualify themselves in this way, it could not have other than an excellent effect both physically and mentally upon the young and growing men of the country. The mere expansion of suitable provisions such as had been adumbrated would not have the effect of encouraging a love of war. He did not think that love of war was widespread in the population at all, but there was a fear that what was called militarism would arise. Nothing could be more fatal to that spirit of militarism than the proposal of the noble Lord, and, so far from tending to foster any kind of military spirit, on every occasion when the country was threatened with a crisis or a war the Amendment would tend to the maintenance of peace, for the manifest reason that every man would be liable to be called upon, and therefore every man's interest would be in the direction of the maintenance of peace. Moreover it would constitute a protection against the difficulty which had arisen in France and Germany under their present system. There was no doubt, young men being taken from their occupations for a period of many months or for two or three years, the mere consequences of military training had the effect of killing initiative and originality in the working classes of those countries. At the present moment there was no question that the British working man was far superior to the working man in Germany or France or any other country in regard to initiative, inventive power, and enterprise generally. This proposal, which did not involve absolute military service for any considerable period, would not have any such drawback as was involved in the systems of other countries, while the physique of the population would be preserved and all their powers in the directions to which he had referred maintained to the great advantage of the industrial and other classes of the community. When they looked back upon the spirit shown by every class in the land at the time of the South African War, could they conceive for a moment that any section of society would consent to be exempt from such duties as they rightly believed ought to devolve on every able-bodied citizen in the country? Although the Amendment might not be carried that afternoon, he felt sure that the spirit and principle of the proposition would not have been placed in vain before the right hon. Gentleman, with his great and rapidly increasing knowledge of military affairs.

said he was very glad that the Secretary for War was carrying out to the full his assurances to many of them that this Bill would not be an indirect method of getting compulsion. He could quite understand that the noble Lord and his friends opposite had some real liking for the Militia Ballot Act. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean had shown him one clause which was unrepealed.

said that if the hon. Member had done him the courtesy to listen to his speech he would see that he was speaking under a total misapprehension. He had stated that the Ballot Act as it stood was archaic, and would require drastic redrafting. It was the spirit of the Militia Ballot Act which he advocated, and not the clauses.

said, with all respect to the noble Lord, he judged him by his Amendment on the Paper rather than by his speech.

said ho had expressly explained that the Militia Ballot Act should be subject to modification in the future.

said that would be a subject of separate legislation, and how could they know what modifications the noble Lord and his friends would accept or reject? Therefore, he submitted that he was within his right in reading an unrepealed clause of the Militia Ballot Act, and from that gathering something of what hon. Members were after. It was a truly appalling clause—

"That in case any person not possessed of any estate in land, goods, or money of the clear value of £500, and who shall make oath that he is not possessed of such estate, shall be chosen by ballot to serve in the Militia for any parish, tything, or place…..the churchwardens, or overseers of the poor, of such parish, shall pay to every such person any such sum of money not exceeding one half of the current price then paid for a Volunteer."

May I ask which Act the hon. Member is quoting from?

The clause is unrepealed.

said it was quite clear that if the right hon. Gentleman were to accept the Amendment he would undoubtedly be making a very serious concession to the openly expressed desire of hon. Members for compulsion. An hon. Gentleman opposite had said he would look upon compulsory training as the triumph of the Bill into which it was introduced. On his side of the House they would regard the introduction of compulsion in any form as being reactionary and requiring vigorous resistance. He ventured to say that the right hon. Gentleman in resisting the Amendment was keeping to the voluntary character of his Bill, and for his part he should oppose the Amendment.