asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he could give any particulars as to measures taken by the Peruvian Government to secure and punish the criminals concerned in the murders of Indians on the rubber plantations of the Putumayo; whether that Government is in a position to establish effective administration in the territory; and whether His Majesty's Government will now publish Sir Roger Casement's report?

I am still in communication with the Peruvian Government with regard to the two first questions. I am not yet in a position to give a definite reply to the last part of the question, but my hon. Friend may rest assured that the matter is receiving close attention.

May I ask whether the reason for non-publication now depends upon the wishes of any foreign State?

I must ask my hon. Friend to give notice of that question.

Has anybody really been brought to justice?

I must ask for notice of any further questions.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received communications concerning the alleged ill-treatment of political prisoners in Portugal; whether the British Minister in Lisbon has visited the Portuguese prisons; and whether there is any reason to doubt that Portuguese political prisoners are humanely treated?

The answer to the first two parts of my hon. Friend's question is in the affirmative, and I have no reason to doubt the truth of the suggestion in the third part of it; but; as the question concerns the internal affairs of another Power it is one with which I am unable to deal at any length.

Have any of these prisoners been kept in prison without trial any longer than Miss Malecka?

I cannot add to the answer I have given.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is approximately the total number of Russian troops now in Persia; how many of these have entered the country since 10th November, the date of the presentation of the first Russian ultimatum; and whether since that date any Russian troops have been withdrawn from Persian territory?

As regards the total number of Russian troops in Persia, I have no later information than that contained in my reply to the question asked by the hon. Member for Leicester on the 20th ult. I understand, however, that orders have been issued for the withdrawal to Russia of the Russian troops at Enzeli and Resht, and also for a withdrawal from Kazvin; a part of the force withdrawn from Kazvin will remain at Enzeli and Resht, the remainder returning to Russia. A considerable reduction in the force at Tabriz has also been ordered.

Does the right hon. Gentleman know whether any of these orders have been carried out yet?

That is all the information I have at present. If the hon. Member will ask me a question next week I will give what further information I have.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the Persian Government have consented to the terms of the Joint Note with reference to the proposed loan?

His Majesty's Minister at Teheran has not reported that a reply has yet been received from the Peruvian Government.

Has the right hon. Gentleman yet received the exact terms of the Anglo-Russian Note?

I do not think I have got the exact terms: I have only got a telegraphic summary. As soon as I can get the exact terms of the Note, and the Reply, I will communicate with the hon. Member.

Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the telegram from the "Frankfurter Zeitung" in to-day's papers stating that the Persian Government has sent replies to the Note to both the British and Russian Embassies, and that they have been returned unopened?

I have not seen that report: I have not heard of any such occurrence.

The "Manchester Guardian."

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the ex-Shah is still in Persia; and, if so, what steps are being taken to secure his withdrawal?

His Majesty's Minister reported on the 2nd that the ex-Shah had left Persia.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he could say whether and, if so, when the Mejliss would again be summoned?

I have no information on the subject.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the terms of the present appointment of M. Mornard; whether it is proposed to make it permanent; and whether the Persian Government protested against the appointment?

I will send to the hon. Member a copy of the Decree of 6th January, appointing M. Mornard provisionally Treasurer - General. It is of considerable length. As regards the second point, I have nothing to add to the statement that I made on the 21st ultimo, to which I would refer the hon. Member. With regard to the third point, the Persian Minister in London intimated verbally some time ago objections on the part of his Government, but I have received no official protest from them.

Does the right hon. Gentleman know whether the Persian Government still protests against the appointment of M. Mornard?

They have not renewed the verbal objection they made some time ago, and they have not followed that up with any official protest.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Russian Government have withdrawn or modified the demand for an indemnity contained in the second ultimatum presented to Persia on the 29th November; and, if so, to what extent?

I have no recent information on this subject.

May I take it that the right hon. Gentleman adheres to the declaration he made in December?

Yes, that holds good still.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can make any statement with regard to the island of Palmyra, in the Pacific Ocean, and the question that has arisen as to the ownership of that island?

I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given yesterday to the hon. Member for West Staffordshire on this subject.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether it is proposed to set up a High Court for the new province of Behar and Orissa?

The different questions relating to the organisation of the new province are still under consideration, and no decision has been made on the matter mentioned by my hon. Friend.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has had brought to his notice the case of J. Garstin, formerly a chargeman on the Oudh and Rohilkhand State Railway, who was dismissed for having petitioned against a fine of ten rupees, which he alleges was unjustly inflicted; whether he had twelve years' service on the line without complaint or charge having been made against him of any kind; and whether he can take action to secure an independent, inquiry into the facts of the case?

The Secretary of State has no official information on this matter. If the facts are as stated, Garstin would have the right of appeal to the Railway Board, to the Government of India, and ultimately, if his salary at the time of dismissal exceeded Rs.250 a month, to the Secretary of State.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India (1) whether his attention has been called to the facts connected with the expulsion of Lalas Pyari Lal and Devi Dayal from the Jullundur Cantonment, Punjab; whether Lala Pyari Lai is 65 years of age and is the head of a respectable firm of bankers and traders; what is the nature of the charge against them which has led to their expulsion without trial and solely on the order of the cantonment magistrate, Lieutenant-Colonel A. Newnham; whether he will cause full inquiry to be made into all the facts of the case and, pending such inquiry, order the restoration of Lala Pyari Lal to his home; and (2) whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Badri Dass, of the Jullundur Cantonment, who was fined twenty rupees for having allowed a band, of which he was secretary, to play in connection with a religious festival of the Jains, and for which he had obtained a special permit from Colonel Falcon, the commandant of the cantonment; whether on appeal the sentence was reversed and the fine ordered to be refunded; whether Lalas Pyari Lal, subsequently expelled from the cantonment without trial, is the head of the local Jain community, and grandfather to the said Badri Dass; whether Lieutenant-Colonel Newnham, who fined Badri Dass, also issued the order of expulsion against the grandfather; and whether inquiry will be made into the whole circumstances to ascertain the fitness of Colonel Newnham for the position he now occupies?

The Secretary of State has written to India for information on these matters.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he can state where the various orders and decorations distributed at the Durbar at Delhi were manufactured?

The badges of the various Orders conferred by His Majesty on the occasion of the Durbar were obtained from the usual London firms. The medals awarded on the said occasion were struck at the London and Calcutta Mints.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware in what country these things were made?

No, I have no information. But I can give the hon. Member the names of the London firms, and if he likes, he can make inquiry of them.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that in the Royal Proclamation of 1858 Her late Majesty Queen Victoria guaranteed to the inhabitants of all those territories which had hitherto been administered by the East India Company that, so far as may be, her subjects, of whatever race or creed, should be freely and impartially admitted to offices the duties of which they may be qualified by their education, ability, and integrity duly to discharge; whether the Indian Government hold that this guarantee is compatible with a regulation absolutely excluding from the civil and police services of the territories affected all persons who are not of pure European descent on both sides; and whether he will take any steps to assure the people of India, who regard this Proclamation as the charter of their rights, that its guarantees will be adhered to?

So far as the territories for which I am responsible in this House are concerned, no such regulation as my hon. Friend describes, exists. As regards territory which has been transferred to the Colonial Office, the Govern- ment of India has expressed no opinion, nor has the Secretary of State received any complaints. I would suggest that my hon. Friend should address himself to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Proclamation is regarded by the people of India as a charter of their rights, and that the interpretation placed upon it by a Member of the Cabinet completely nullifies the Proclamation?

If there is any discontent with the regulations affecting the welfare of the Indian people a memorial should be sent to the Government of India and the Secretary of State. No such complaint has been, received.

If the right hon. Gentleman receives complaints from India will he remonstrate with the Colonial Office?

We will always be ready to communicate with the Colonial Office concerning any complaints of substance we receive.

asked the Under Secretary of State for War why, in view of the fact that the officers of the Guards regiments are allowed to wear turn-down khaki collars when in khaki, the officers in other regiments of the Army are not allowed to do so, and why they are compelled to wear stiff stand-up collars either with or without the addition of a stiff linen collar; and whether he could issue Regulations to the effect that all officers may wear the same kind of collars when in khaki as those worn in the Guards?

The pattern of khaki Service dress for officers is now under consideration.

asked how many men presented themselves as recruits for the Territorial Force in 1909, 1910, and 1911; of these how many were rejected as medically unfit; whether all men serving in the Territorial Force are examined annually by a medical officer before proceeding to camp for the annual training; how many officers and men were absent without leave from the annual training in 1911; how many of the men have been prosecuted; how many of the officers are still serving; and how many men now serving in the Territorial Force have qualified in musketry in 1911?

There are no statistics available at the War Office of the numbers of men who presented themselves for enlistment or of those who were medically rejected. Men are not examined by a medical officer before proceeding to camp. Forty-one officers and 6,755 non-commissioned officers and men were absent without leave from the annual training in 1911. There is no information at the War Office to show how many of these officers are still serving or how many of the men were prosecuted. As regards musketry figures, I must ask the hon. and gallant Member to refer to the detailed replies given to questions on this subject put by the hon. Member for Canterbury on Monday, the 26th of last month.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the latter part of the question as to how many men now serving have qualified?

It is all laid down in the Regulations how the men must qualify. They must qualify at full range if possible, and if not at the small ranges.

Does a man get the same certificate in either case?

I think so, but I should not like to answer all these technical questions. As the Noble Lord knows, the question of ranges is a difficult one.

Is the Territorial compelled to let off his rifle at all?

Of course he has to let off his rifle.

asked what would be the percentage of Reserve men in the ranks of the Infantry of the Guards and in the ranks of the Infantry of the Line, respectively, in the event of six divisions being mobilised for war at once?

It is not considered expedient to publish the information required.

asked what reason has led to the decision that Dunbar will not be available for the purpose of courses of instruction for Yeomanry officers; and what provision will be made for the Yeomanry in Scotland?

The Cavalry Depot at Dunbar is not open; as soon as it is courses will be held there for Yeomanry officers of the Scottish Command. In the meantime the Cavalry Depot at Dublin will be made use of for the instruction of these officers, but there is no objection to a certain number being instructed at Scarborough, provided the General Officers Commanding-in-Chief concerned can make the necessary arrangements.

asked whether, in the event of a war, in which Great Britain were involved, breaking out on the Continent of Europe, it is contemplated as a possible contingency by the War Office that the Expeditionary Force may be sent oversea before half the period of training of the Territorial Force has been completed?

I cannot undertake within the limits of an answer to a question to deal with a hypothetical point raised on a matter of general policy.

Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with it in the Debate?

Certainly; that is the time that will be most convenient for the House.

asked whether it is the intention of the Army Council that Army horses should be neither clipped nor groomed during the winter months in order to save the expense of horse rugs; whether the refusal of rugs will involve the additional expense of extra forage, instead of the saving of forage usually effected during the winter months, and will therefore be little real economy; and whether the opinion of commanding officers upon this change of policy is fully proved by the fact that in nearly every case the deficiency of rugs is being made up by the officers out of private sources?

I am sorry I am not in a position to add anything to the reply I gave the hon. Gentleman on the 28th February.

Is it not a fact that this new Regulation imposes a heavy burden upon conscientious officers?

I do not think it can be put in that way. The matter is a difficult one, and if the hon. Gentleman raises it in the Debate, I shall be glad to give him full information.

Is this the final decision of the War Office or is it still under consideration?

It is hard to say anything is final in a progressive place like the War Office.

asked if a subscription is paid out of War Office funds to the National Rifle Association; if so, what is the amount of the subscription; and is such subscription given under certain conditions, and if so, what are those conditions?

The hon. and gallant Gentleman is doubtless alluding to the Grant of £50 for the Secretary of State's Prize at Bisley. This is granted subject to approval of the conditions of the competition to which it is attached. No other conditions are imposed on the association in connection with this Grant or in connection with the assistance given to the association, which consists of a staff for range duties, of a certain number of rifles, and a certain quantity of ammunition, and also of camp equipment.

Is there no Grant at all, unconditional or conditional, out of War Office funds?

There is no Grant other than that I have explained. There is the £50 and the Grant in kind to which I have referred.

asked what Votes will bear the expenses connected with providing troops to preserve order in Belfast on the occasion of the recent visit of the First Lord of the Admiralty?

The expenses will be borne on Army Votes, mainly Vote 6.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that in certain districts collectors of Inland Revenue state that they received special instructions to complete the collection of Income Tax by the middle of February, distraining for this purpose if necessary; whether this is a departure from the practice of previous years; and whether, if such instructions have been given, he will consider the advisability of reverting to the practice of previous years, so that hardship may be minimised as far as possible?

The Board of Inland Revenue inform me that they know of no special instructions of the nature mentioned by my hon. Friend. If he will bring to my notice any specific case I will have inquiry made.

Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to adhere to the work of last year, in which the officers were instructed not to collect Income Tax in the year it was due?

There was no instruction not to collect Income Tax.

Does the right hon. Gentleman really adhere to that?

Yes, certainly! I said so already in the House.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman will state what modifications have been introduced into the practice which obtained in the year 1896 as to the remission of Income Tax paid under Schedules A and B by owners farming their own land in cases where such owners have made losses on farming; and what are the instructions to the surveyors now in force in regard to cases of this character?

As the hon. Member is aware, the Legislature has, since the year 1907, conceded a lower rate of Income Tax upon earned income, subject to the fulfilment of certain conditions. In consequence of its being necessary to set off allowances for loss against earned income as far as the earned income admits, repayment of Income Tax cannot be made by remission of the Income Tax charged under Schedule A, which is at the rate of 1s. 2d. in the £, until such part of the claimant's income as might otherwise be chargeable at the 9d. rate or 1s. rate has been exhausted. Consequently, in cases where owners farming their own land and assessed to Income Tax Schedule B at the earned income rate claim allowance on the ground of loss, Surveyors of Taxes have been instructed to insist on a statement of aggregate income in accordance with the provisions of Section 23 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1890.

Will the right hon. Gentleman lay a copy of the instructions on the Table for the information of that large class of persons who farm their own land?

I am not clear which instructions the hon. and learned Member means.

I mean the instructions to the surveyors now in force in regard to cases of this character which are referred to in the question.

I will consider that.

asked whether, except on the occasion of his annual Budget statement, it will in future be impossible for Members of this House to obtain detailed figures as to the yield of the taxes on increment of land, on undeveloped land value, and on reversions, without the inclusion among them of the yield of the duty on mineral rights; and why the Treasury insist upon so concealing the yield of these three taxes?

The position will be just the same in the future as it has been in the past. I have already explained that it is a long-established practice of Chancellors of the Exchequer of both political parties not to anticipate their annual financial statements by announcing before the close of the financial year the yield of individual taxes. So far from this practice being based on a desire to conceal the yield of the Land Values Duties, those duties provide the single instance of a recent departure from it.

Is it not in order to conceal the deficiency of the Land Taxes that the more fruitful Mineral Duty is brought in?

The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well—he was present I think during the Debates on the Budget—I introduced the Mineral Duty as part of the Land Taxes; it was treated as part of the controversy on the Land Taxes.

Did not the right hon. Gentleman estimate separately in his Budget for the Land Taxes and the Mineral Duties?

Certainly! and I have not the faintest doubt the same practice will be followed when I am making my statement for the coming year.

Were these duties not introduced originally as duties on undeveloped minerals?

Yes, certainly! This is an improved method of collecting the same taxes.

Did not the right hon. Gentleman give me information in reply to questions of a different nature?

Really I cannot carry in my memory all the questions of the hon. Member.

When we ask these questions the dates have been given and it is only when it began to be very evident that the—

The hon. Member is now making a statement.

asked whether the picture by Mabuse recently sold by Lady Carlisle to the Trustees of the National Gallery formed part of a collection of pictures, prints, books, manuscripts, works of art, or other things not yielding income bequeathed to her by the late Lord Carlisle, and appearing to the Treasury to be of national, or historic, or artistic interest; and, if so, what was the total principal value of such collection; whether the rate of duty chargeable in respect of the said picture should be calculated at the rate appropriate to the total principal value of the said collection; and whether the duty which was in fact charged in respect of the said picture was at the rate appropriate to the total principal value of the said collection or at the rate appropriate to the value of the said picture?

I have no information that any article of national, scientific, historic or artistic interest, other than the picture by Mabuse, was bequeathed to Lady Carlisle by the late Lord Carlisle. The remainder of the hon. Member's question therefore does not arise.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiry?

Really, that is hardly the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Is it not the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to collect the proper duty and make inquiries to enable him to do so?

Certainly, and that is done. But it is not the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to inquire into the private and personal affairs of anybody.

asked whether any valuation was made by or on behalf of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, under Section 7, Sub-sections (5) and (8), of the Finance Act, 1894, of the picture by Mabuse recently sold to the Trustees of the National Gallery by Lady Carlisle, and, if so, what was the amount of such valuation; whether the value of the picture was between £50,000 and £60,000 more than the sum received for it by Lady Carlisle; and whether he will state how the Death Duty of £2,776 charged in respect of such picture was arrived at, and, in particular, at what rate such duty was charged and what the value of the picture was taken to be for the purpose of calculating such duty?

No valuation of the picture by Mabuse, by or on behalf of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, was made, but their expert was satisfied that its value was substantially over the £40,000 paid for it. In the circumstances Death Duties were charged on this sum only, as representing such part of the total value as was not in the nature of a gift. The £2,776 represents Estate Duty at 6 per cent. upon £40,000—namely, £2,400—and Legacy Duty at 1 per cent. upon £37,600 (being the £40,000, less the amount of the Estate Duty), namely, £376.

Why was not duty charged upon the full value of the picture?

If the hon. Member had listened to the answer, he would have heard the explanation.

asked the President of the Board of Agriculture (1) whether his attention has been called to the development of agricultural light railways in Belgium and other countries since 1886; whether he will be prepared to appoint a small committee to report as to what steps it would be necessary to take to establish in this country an effective system of agricultural light railways; and (2) whether his attention has been called to the small development of agricultural light railways under the Light Railways Act of 1896, and whether the Commissioners appointed under that Act have reported to him as to the causes of the comparative failure of the Act to develop agricultural light railways in this country?

The Board of Trade are fully acquainted with the position of light railways in Belgium, and I do not think that the appointment of a Committee such as that suggested by my hon. Friend would serve any very useful purpose. The Light Railway Commissioners have from time to time in their annual reports referred to the question of the comparatively slow development of agricultural light railways in this country, and I hope that the Light Railways Bill which I introduced last week will facilitate the promotion of light railway undertakings.

asked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he can state what means, if any, are being taken to promote the cultivation and cure of tobacco in England and Scotland?

I understand that the Development Commissioners have set on foot inquiries to enable them to judge to what extent it is desirable that Grants should be made out of the Development Fund for the promotion of experiments in tobacco cultivation, and in the meantime the Treasury have sanctioned the Grant of an allowance equal to one-third of the duty paid on the actual weight of tobacco brought to charge during a period of three years in cases in which authority has been given for the institution of such experiments by private individuals in England and Scotland under Section 83 (4) of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910.

Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence to press on the consideration of this matter?

Yes; I believe the Development Commissioners are making inquiries now.

Is the Board of Agriculture recommending the Development Commissioners to do so?

It has not arisen in that form. The Commissioners are making inquiries now, and when they have completed their inquiries the Board of Agriculture will take the matter up.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the hardship imposed upon Mr. Dodson, of Sprot-borough, near Doncaster, by the action of the Board in imposing eight months' quarantine upon his pigs owing to suspicion of swine fever; whether he is aware that during the whole of the eight months not one single case of swine fever occurred among them; and whether, in view of the doubt as to whether any swine fever had ever existed on the premises, any compensation can be made to Mr. Dodson for his pecuniary loss owing to a possible mistake of the Board's officials?

The hon. Member has not been correctly informed as to the facts of this case. The restrictions referred to were imposed on the 9th February, 1911, and removed on the 9th October last. A post-mortem examination made on the 15th February of a pig which had died on the premises revealed incontestable evidence of the existence of swine fever, and the police reports show that thirteen pigs died on the infected place between the 16th February and the 15th May. These pigs were not examined; but it is at least probable that their death was attributable to the same cause. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the greatest veterinary expert in Europe will not admit the latency of this disease beyond three months? It is admitted that these pigs were under suspicion for five months at least.

As I have already pointed out, thirteen pigs died at various dates between February and May.

But none between May and October.

Is it not a fact that swine fever was not actually verified, and there was only the opinion of the local medical officer? Under these circumstances, and in view of the fact that this man has lost something like £300, will the right hon. Gentleman grant an inquiry into the whole case?

I have inquired into the case very fully, and I do not think Mr. Dodson has any cause for complaint.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the Mullah in Somaliland is preparing an attack on Berbera or on the friendly natives; and what troops have been sent to assure the safety of our zone of occupation in that country?

I have no reason for supposing that the Mullah is preparing an attack on Berbera, but one of the periodic skirmishes between him and the Friendlies has recently taken place. These skirmishes, as the hon. Member may be aware, are sometimes a success for the dervishes and sometimes for the Friendlies. On the present occasion, however, the dervishes have been more than usually successful, and it has been considered advisable, as a measure of precaution, to strengthen the garrison at Berbera by some 300 men from Aden.

Is there any proposal to extend our present zone of occupation of these operations?

Certainly not.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Mullah has recovered from his last "death"?

I believe the report was grossly exaggerated.

asked if the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been called to the colony of Somalis established in Central London; if they left Aden with his permission; what is the object of their visit; and are they to be sent back shortly?

I presume that the question refers to an exhibition of Somalis which has, I understand, recently been opened in London. I have no knowledge of the arrangements which have been made, but I will make inquiry on the subject.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the consequences of the hire-purchase system, particularly among the poorer classes of the population; and whether he will consider the introduction of legislation making the sale of goods under that system illegal?

I do not think that it would be feasible to prohibit the sale of goods on the hire-purchase system. It is often a most convenient arrangement for people who have not been able to save money, and I understand that advantage is taken of it by purchasers of well-known literary works. The system, if harshly administered, may no doubt become oppressive to poor people, but few complaints have reached the police.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the large colliery and iron companies use this system for the purchase of railway waggons?

I was not aware of it. It is a very interesting fact.

asked if the right hon. Gentleman will state whether Circular A 52,150 of 23rd March. 1891, holds good, which states that where a fine inflicted does not exceed 5s. an order cannot be made for costs in the case of non-attendance at school?

The circular in question drew attention to Section 8 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, which prohibits costs being imposed in cases where the fine does not exceed 5s. unless the Court thinks fit expressly to order otherwise. The law on this point remains the same as in 1891. That circular did not, however, refer to cases of non-attendance at school, because in these cases the penalty, including costs, was then limited by law to a maximum of 5s. This provision was amended by the Elementary Education Act of 1900 which raised the maximum to 20s.

Are we to understand that it is in the discretion of the bench whether they inflict a fine or costs or not?

I think so.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been called to the recent closing, under The Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910, of a beerhouse, the Burton Arms, situate at 432, Attercliffe Road, Sheffield, and to the announcement that the same premises are to be opened on 12th March as a non-political working men's club; and whether he is prepared to support the Control and Supervision of Clubs Bill now before the House, which would prevent the closing of public-houses being rendered nugatory in this way?

The case in question is an instance of the occurrences with which certain provisions which found a place in the Government Licensing Bill of 1908 and now appear in the hon. Member's Bill were designed to deal—I mean, those conferring on justices power to refuse the registration of a club. I am in favour of those provisions, but cannot undertake in answer to a question to express any general opinion on the hon. Member's Bill.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether there are at present at Osborne College two cases of typhoid fever, two of bronchitis, one of pneumonia, and one of diphtheria; whether there are in the college altogether seventy people on the sick list; and, if so, what steps are being taken to prevent the various diseases from spreading?

There were thirty-two cases of boys under medical treatment at Osborne College on 3rd March, 1912. Of these, one was a case of enteric fever, now convalescing; three cases of pneumonia; one of chicken-pox. The remaining twenty-seven are minor diseases and injuries. There were no cases of diphtheria or bronchitis.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether port admiral yachts have been abolished and in future the admirals are to have an allowance; whether, on the recent occasion when the Admiralty yacht "Enchantress" was in commission, the Lords of the Admiralty sent the ship round to the different ports visited, travelling themselves by train to meet her; whether he is aware that the Admiralty yacht mainly serves the purposes of an hotel; and whether, in the interests of public economy, he can see his way to deal with the Admiralty yacht in the same manner as with the yachts of the port admirals?

I have carefully considered the general question of the Admiralty yacht, and have come to the conclusion that it should be retained. It is desirable, in the public interest, that the visits of the Board of Admiralty to the ports and to the Fleets should be frequent, and that members of the Board, particularly the First Lord himself as the Parliamentary head, should have opportunities of seeing things with their own eyes, and of getting to know and keeping in touch with officers in the dockyards and the seagoing Fleets. Such an association is of real value, and the facilities afforded by the Admiralty yacht play an important part in it. It stands on a wholly different footing from the yachts of the port admirals, which have been abolished, for the port admirals reside at the centre of their local commands, while the Board of Admiralty have the whole of the establishments of the Navy to inspect. The Admiralty yacht becomes a hospital ship in time of war, and her crew join the Fleet on mobilisation. In these circumstances, therefore, I do not recommend that any change should be made. I know nothing of the other matters referred to by the hon. Member and set out so fully in his question, and they do not appear to me to be of public importance even if they were true.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is the cost of the yacht annually to the State?

Frequent returns have been made, but I cannot answer that question off-hand.

Is it not a fact that port admirals also have to visit the Fleet at sea?

No, Sir; I think it will be found the yacht is hardly ever used for that purpose.

asked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) who has been appointed to succeed the late Arthur Owen as the Department's inspector of fairs in the Queen's County; what qualifications has the person appointed for the position; what are the nature of his duties; and the amount of his salary?

The late Mr. Arthur Owen was Reporter (not Inspector) of Prices for Fairs held in the counties of Carlow, Kildare, Kilkenny, Queen's, Wexford, and Wicklow. On his death the district was allotted amongst four new Reporters, and the reports of prices at the fairs in Queen's County, with others, have since been furnished by one of these—Mr. John Mahon, Ardnahue, Carlow. Before appointing the four Reporters referred to, the Department satisfied themselves, by careful inquiries and by personal interviews, that from training and experience these gentlemen were fully competent to perform the duties of Reporters. The Reporters have to attend selected fairs held at various centres in the counties mentioned above and to supply to the Department a report for each fair, stating the main features as regards supplies and prices, the numbers of live stock at different ages and classes offered for sale and sold, and also the lowest, highest, and average prices obtained. Each of these Reporters is paid a fee of £20 a year, and is allowed second-class travelling expenses.

asked the hon. Member for the East Dorset Division, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether anything has been decided as to a site for the King Edward VII. memorial; and when will an opportunity be given for a full discussion in this House before anything is definitely settled?

As has already been stated the Committee has recommended that the statue of King Edward VII. should be placed in the grass vista which leads from Piccadilly to the Queen Victoria Memorial. A model will be exhibited in the Tea Room as soon as it is completed. The question of discussion may perhaps be allowed to stand over until the model has been shown.

Are we to understand a definite decision has been made in this matter?

I would ask for notice of that question.

Shall we have a chance in this House of discussing the matter before the Committee's decision is binding upon the country?

I will answer that question. Yes.

asked the hon. Member for the East Dorset Division, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he can indicate the position of the sites for the King Edward Memorial statue that have recently been under the consideration of the King Edward Memorial Committee?

This seems to be a question which should be addressed to Sir Thomas Vezey Strong, the chairman of the Mansion House Committee, who will no doubt be able to give the hon. Member the information desired.

Would the hon. Gentleman kindly tell me how I can address this question to Sir Thomas Vezey Strong?

Will the hon. Gentleman be so good as to say if Sir Thomas Vezey Strong has any right to recommend this statue to be placed in a Royal Park without the assent of the Office of Works?

The answer is in the negative.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that it has been found impossible to recruit the Territorial Force up to the numbers laid down by the Government and that even the insufficient numbers of the Force could not be relied on in a sudden emergency till after several months of training, he could see his way to agree with the Leader of the Opposition to make universal compulsory military training a non-party question?

The answer is in the negative.

Are we to understand that, although the Secretary of State for War told the Territorials they would be prepared to die for their country, the Government is not even willing to give the country a chance of deciding whether they will adopt the only plan—

This is not the occasion for the hon. Member to make a speech.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the congestion, of school curriculum and the dissatisfaction and friction which exist at the present time between the local and central authorities on the question of education, His Majesty's Government will consider the advisability of appointing a Commission to report on the present position of State-aided education and to make recommendations?

I am not prepared to admit that there exists any such dissatisfaction and friction as the hon. Member suggests, and I see no occasion for the appointment of a Commission.

asked the Postmaster-General whether he can explain his reasons for discontinuing the mail car service between Ballymote and Tubbercurry, and substituting therefor the services of an ordinary rural postman; whether he is aware that the traders of Tubbercurry and the general public are inconvenienced by the change; and whether, seeing that Tubbercurry is one of the most important trading towns of the West of Ireland, he will consider the advisability of reverting to the old mail car service?

The mail car by which the day mails were conveyed between Tubbercurry and Ballymote was discontinued in order to improve the postal services of the district. Tubbercurry obtains better postal communication with Sligo, the chief town of the district, and as the day mail dispatch is now at 1.0 p.m. instead of 8.30 a.m., there is ample time for replying to letters received by the first delivery.

asked the President of the Board of Education whether the whole of the £100,000 voted in the Appropriation Act of 1907 for the provision of new schools in single-school areas has been spent; if not, what part of it; and whether he will state the places in which the schools have been built?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. With reference to the second part of the question, payments amounting to £58,482 16s. 6d. have been made in respect of special Grants for the building of new public elementary schools. With reference to the last part of the question, there is nothing to add to a statement published by the Board of Education in 1910 (Cd. 5, 155), and to an answer given to the hon. Member for the Wilton Division on the 17th August last, copies of which I am sending the hon. Member.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if the Port of London Authority has refused to insert a Fair-Wages Clause in its contracts; and whether he can take any steps in the matter with the object of inducing the authority to insert such a Clause in all future contracts?

I am informed by the Port of London Authority that the statement that they have refused to insert a Fair-Wages Clause in their contracts is not correct, and that they propose to discuss the subject at an early date.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether a Census of seamen serving on British ships was taken by the Board of Trade on 1st April, 1911; and, if so, whether a Return of the particulars has yet been completed; and, if not, whether he will expedite the preparation of the Return?

The next Census Return to be published will relate to 3rd April, 1911, but owing to the continued absence of many vessels under agreements opened before that date, it is considered desirable to continue enumeration for at least one year. The actual preparation of the Return cannot therefore be begun until next month, and it is not anticipated that it can be published before July or August next.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have considered the application of Bridget Robinson for reinstatement in the holding from which she was evicted on the Adam White estate, Dromahair, county Leitrim; and, if so, what decision has been arrived at?

The Estates Commissioners received an application from Miss Bridget Robinson for reinstatement in a holding of about one acre on the White estate, county Leitrim. Her application does not come within the provisions of the Evicted Tenants Act, and the Commissioners have not taken any action in the matter.

asked whether the Estates Commissioners have considered the applications of John Croal, of Ardagh, and Patrick Meehan, of Shasgar, evicted tenants on the Johnston estate, Kinlough, county Leitrim, for a Grant to enable them to stock their farms and rebuild their houses; and, if not, will they soon be considered, as these tenants require a start?

The Estates Commissioners have not received any applications for reinstatement from John Croal and Patrick Meehan, who have signed agreements for the purchase under the Land Purchase Acts of their holdings, of which they are in occupation, on the Johnston estate, county Leitrim, direct from the owner. The Commissioners do not propose to sanction free Grants to these tenants.

asked what progress, if any, the Congested Districts Board have made with regard to the purchase of the Marsham, West, and Benison estates, Ballinaglera, county Leitrim?

The Congested Districts Board inform me that the estates of George Marsham and W. H. West in the Union of Carrick-on-Shannon, county Leitrim, have been inspected and the question of making offers for purchase will probably be considered by the Board at their meeting next week. In May, 1911, the Board gave their consent to a direct sale from the landlord to the tenants of the estate of J. J. Benison, county Leitrim.

asked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, in order to obviate the possibility that matters of grave importance to the future of those employed in the sea-fishing industry may be discussed without their cognisance, he will consider the desirability of varying Regulation 4 of the Sea Fisheries Regulations with respect to the making of bylaws, so that in future notice of the intention of the Sea Fisheries Committees to consider any new by-law shall be locally advertised prior to such consideration by the committees, instead of local advertisement being deferred, in accordance with the present regulations, until after the bylaw has been passed by the Sea Fisheries Committees, and confirmation of the same by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries is about to be sought; and whether, in addition to advertisement in the local newspapers, he will, by regulation, require notice of such intention to consider new by-laws to be posted with Board of Trade notices in the fishing centres?

Under the existing Regulations notice of the intention to propose a new by-law must be sent to each member of the Fisheries Committee concerned, on which the fishermen are represented. The advertisement of every such proposal would involve considerable cost, and, having regard to the fact that a considerable proportion of them may prove abortive and that the by-law, if made, may assume a different shape from that originally proposed, I doubt whether it would serve any useful purpose. Notice of the intention to apply for the confirmation of a new by-law when made must be advertised in two consecutive weeks, and the notice must include a description of the purport of the by-law. I have received no evidence to show that these requirements do not sufficiently safeguard the interests of all concerned.

Has the right hon. Gentleman received information lately that a particular by-law largely affecting fishermen was discussed without their knowledge at all?

I have no means of knowing if it was discussed without the knowledge of the people concerned, but there is no power of passing a by-law without full inquiry, and that, of course, will be held.

I am much obliged to (Earl Winterton) for having ceded to me the place in the Debate which he obtained by moving the Adjournment of the House last night. I should like as one who has had to attempt the task on several occasions in years gone by to congratulate the right hon. and gallant Gentleman on the way in which he introduced the Army Estimates for the first time. Having said that I must pass to criticism, and I must pass on rapidly, because many of my hon. Friends wish, and are fully entitled, to take part in this general Debate. When I speak of criticism I am not thinking so much of criticism of the statement which the right hon. Gentleman made as of criticism of the case which he had perforce to put forward in the absence of a better one. The right hon. Gentleman, in common with his predecessors—and no doubt his successors—had to state this case. He had to show the House that the Government which he represents is making good progress with their plan for national security in so far as our land forces are concerned, and, if he could, to hold out reasonable hope that that process would soon be completed. That was his case, which we all know in the present year of grace was not a very easy one to substantiate. I was not, therefore, surprised to find that he adorned the main body of his speech with two accretions: he appended a long—not too long—and interesting passage on aviation, or mechanical flying. On that point I do not propose to say anything. My hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Lee) is far more competent than I am to speak about that, and it is a subject on which none but experts should speak. I may, perhaps, make this brief comment: that apparently we are not now in a position to spend profitably more than half what Germany or a third of what France is spending. That is the assumption I make. I cannot assume if the Government could spend more money profitably they would restrict the amount to the relatively small sum which appears in the Estimates.

The right hon. Gentleman prefixed to the main body of his speech a reply to a passage from the speech which the Leader of the Opposition delivered recently in the Albert Hall. That part of his speech was conceived in a more controversial tone than we detected in the main body of his speech. As the Oriental writer said, "He made the horse of his eloquence caper upon the plain of reproach." We have heard the reply of the Leader of the Opposition and we are well content to leave it at that. Our complacency was undisturbed by the interesting contribution of the hon. Member for Sunderland. Indeed, I thought the hon. Member's suggestion of automatic artillery somewhat enhanced it.

I asked the question whether the Leader of the Opposition or Lord Roberts suggested that the Artillery should be automatic. I did not state that there was such a thing as automatic artillery in this country, and I think the right hon. Gentleman does me less than the usual justice he does to an opponent when he says I suggested anything about automatic artillery.

I was perhaps drawn too far, but I hope the hon. Member, who has shot with me in a team, will agree I am the last person to do an injustice to an opponent. His intervention will not however lure me into elaborating a case in which we claim absolute victory by reason of the replies we have got from the right hon. Gentleman. The scientific contribution of the right hon. Gentleman, if measured by the OFFICIAL REPORT, exceeded enormously the whole amount of the speech which he devoted to the case in which we as a nation are interested—the progress that has been made with their plan for security, or our national safety. We do not complain of the additions and we do not complain of the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman treated the substantive part of his case, but I think we may say he did work some of his materials very hard. I will illustrate that by the way in which he worked the Army Reserve. Speaking on Friday on the Expeditionary Force, he said:—

"There has been steady progress made."

He then made a comparison with four years ago—in order to avoid any political complexion, and he said:—

"The numbers available for the Expeditionary Force with the Reserves are 50,000 greater than was the case four years ago."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 1912, col. 62.]

So he brings in the Army Reserve in aid of the Expeditionary Force. When he came to the Special Reserve, he said:—

"In the Special Reserve there is a real shortage."

Again the Army Reserve is brought in aid. He said:—

"I would ask the House not to think that this is a very dangerous matter, for, as I have shown, the Expeditionary Force has got a reserve adequate to its need for a long time to come."

He has to use the same material over and over again, and that shows he is very hard put to it. How can he seriously tell the House that the Army Reserve is going to be available for every purpose for a long time to come? The point is that, by an automatic process, the Army Reserve in the very near future is going to drop by 30,000 or more below its present strength and 10,000 below the normal strength which the Government think necessary in order that it should do its part in the whole of the machine. I think I am entitled to say that the comparisons of the right hon. Gentleman and the consolations which he asks us to derive from the Army Reserve are not very illuminating.

In this we have to look a little bit further ahead, and in doing so we must realise that the lowest point in the decline of the Army Reserve will coincide, or nearly coincide, with the moment of greatest anxiety for the Territorial Forces. He has himself said that the engagement of 80,000 of the men in the Territorial Forces will come to an end in the near future. Let us hope they will be re-engaged. We do not know whether they will or not. Looking ahead, I find that the Reserves must go down and at the same time the Territorial Force may lose many of its existing numbers. I think he has a very difficult case to make, and here again is an illustration. I do not mean to indulge in any polemical comparison between the Army as it is and the Army as it was when my right hon. Friend and my Friends behind me were responsible for it, but these comparisons are necessary when we see a steady decrease of many thousands in a portion of our Army, and when in front of us there is a gradual decrease in the numbers we shall possess. For my part I forego, and deliberately forego, any polemical advantage I could make, and I think I could make some, from comparing what we may call "our Army" with "the Government's Army," for in the speculative region concerning such matters as where our Army may have to fight and what are the troops against which it may have to fight one thing is certain, the Territorial Forces will never have to fight the old Volunteers, the Special Reserve will never have to fight the old Militia, the Expeditionary Force will never have to fight the 150,000 Regular soldiers whom we sent out of this country to South Africa to fight there. I waive all that, and I say that the gravity of the prospective decline in some branches of the forces for which the Government are responsible is a matter which we have to consider, and in attempting to consider that we have one subject of regret, of very great regret—I regret that the Army Estimates have been introduced before the Navy Estimates. I thought it had become a matter of agreement between both political parties that it was impossible adequately to discuss the policy of the Government in respect to the land forces unless we were in full possession of the policy of the Government in respect to the Navy, and I think that to fall back into what I may call the slovenly habit of introducing the Army Estimates before the Navy Estimates comes with a worse grace from a Government many of whose supporters tell us that the Navy is all in all, and that those who urge that something more is needed for our Army are not legitimately entitled to criticise the provision they make in respect to our land forces.

But there is one matter for congratulation. No difference, I believe, in principle divides the Government and the Opposition in respect to the objects which we have as a nation to achieve if we wish as a nation to be safe and to preserve our place amongst the great Powers of the world. That is a matter for congratulation if it be so, and I think it is so. In order to prove that it is so I hope the House will boar with me whilst I quote a succinct passage from the words of the Secretary of State for War (Lord Haldane). I am not going to quote from one of his speeches. The right hon. Gentleman (the Under-Secretary for War) modestly disclaimed any power on his part to emulate the voluminous lucidity of his chief. I am going to quote from the considered, written, printed words of Lord Haldane, which are to be found on page 11 of his introduction to the book on "Compulsory Service":—

"It is that, first in the order of importance comes sea power, backed up not only by adequate oversea garrisons but by an expeditionary Army, kept at home in time of peace, but so organised that it is ready for immediate transport by the fleet to distant scenes of action, and is capable of there maintaining long campaigns with the least possible dislocation of the social life of the nation."

I think I may say that the Opposition do not differ from the Government in principle as to that being a succinct and accurate account of the objects which we as a nation have got to achieve if we as a nation are to contemplate the future with any sense of security. The Navy first, and then the oversea garrisons. I make no complaint that in his speech yesterday the right hon. Gentleman never mentioned the oversea garrisons, and yet they have an importance, a grave importance.

On page 24 of the Estimates anyone can see the present distribution of our over- sea garrisons, and, with some exceptions, there has been no reason in the past to criticise that distribution, because I freely admit that this party is largely responsible for it. But we cannot live in the past. Look at the East. We have—for good reasons at the time—withdrawn our Fleet from the Pacific Ocean, and apart from political considerations, although they have a great bearing upon it, and quite apart from the growth of Japan as a mighty Power, quite apart from the recent and somewhat more rude awakening of China, apart from the views entertained by our fellow-countrymen in Australasia on the question of Asiatic immigration, the mere fact that the fleet is not now in the Pacific does raise the question whether one battalion in Hong Kong, one battalion in Singapore, and one battalion in Ceylon is a sufficient garrison in respect to the East. Turning from the East we look to the South, and perhaps I may remind the House that we have in recent years questioned the adequacy of four battalions, with a detachment at Cyprus, to garrison Egypt. We questioned that and here we cannot dismiss politics from our minds. After the period of acute diplomatic tension which arose from the question of Morocco, in the presence of a war between a European country and a Moslem Power in Tripoli, it is impossible to dismiss from our minds political considerations when we look at the South and are considering the garrisons in the Mediterranean; and we do not know, because the Naval Estimates have not been introduced, whether there is or is not going to be any modification of naval policy in respect to the Mediterranean. We have seen already a great withdrawal of naval power from the Mediterranean. There is a rumour abroad that concentration is going to be made greater at Gibraltar. It may or may not be so, but whether it is so or not two battalions at Gibraltar, five at Malta, and only four in Egypt is a distribution of our oversea garrison which demands further consideration, and careful and cautious consideration, by this House. Nor does that exhaust the situation. If we look to the West and anticipate the future, we know that the Panama Canal will soon be a fact, and a world-changing fact, in all questions of trade. It may have been right to reduce the West Indian garrison, for which we were responsible, before the Panama Canal was a fact. Is it wise to have one battalion at Bermuda only, after the Panama Canal has become a fact of world-wide importance? I do not want to labour that part of the case, but it is a part of the case which has to be considered.

In this matter of oversea garrisons, history repeats itself. The balance of power changes, and sometimes modern changes reveal that the great strategists of the past, like Oliver Cromwell and the sailors and soldiers of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, knew very well what they were about, and the need arises not only to strengthen the garrisons you have, but sometimes to replace garrisons that you have withdrawn under conditions which no longer continue. The other observation which I must make, and to which I should like to have the assent of the whole House, is that, whatever happens, seventy-four battalions of Infantry, is the very minimum total garrison for this oversea work. That is all there are—seventy-four at home and seventy-four abroad, and of these fifty-two are in India, and only twenty-two remain for all this work of oversea garrison. If I may give an example, it is with our Empire very much as in the case of a beleagured city like Ladysmith; if the perimeter is very large, a small garrison can go to one part if pressure comes there, and to another part if pressure comes there, but you cannot reduce that garrison. So it is with us. The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues may contemplate, and I do not see why they should not, the possibility in the near future of withdrawing some of the six battalions of Infantry now in South Africa and one at Mauritius. It depends a great deal upon the progress made in South Africa with the patriotic intention of adopting national service there, but this is certain, that any one of these battalions which may be borrowed from South Africa in the future is wanted elsewhere, and that the total of seventy-four may not in the near future be adequate to the requirements of the perimeter of our worldwide oceanic Empire. And what of Simonstown? I do not believe you will be able to withdraw the whole of your South African garrison or any large part of it while Simonstown continues to be what it is, an important Imperial Naval base. However, that by the way.

I now come to the next portion of our defence, the Expeditionary Force. I hope and believe that there is no difference in principle between the Government and the Opposition in respect to the objects which this Expeditionary Force has to achieve—a very different question from whether it can achieve them—but if we are agreed as to the objects it has to achieve, then there is so much common ground between us, and, I hope, between all patriotic men in this country. The Expeditionary Force is the pivot of the whole plan of our defence in so far as the land forces are concerned. Everything else turns upon it. The Navy cannot be an effective weapon unless the Expeditionary Force is ready to start. That is the proposition which I lay down, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to support it by quoting once more a considered utterance of his chief. This is Lord Haldane:—

"To make the Navy an effective weapon we require a military instrument capable of being used in conjunction with it. This must not be a mere force for home defence. The true strategical foundation of all adequate defensive preparations is the power of rapidly assuming the offensive, of striking wherever the blow will be most effective—it may he at some distant point in the enemy's organisation."

Again, no difference of opinion in principle divides the Government and the Opposition. But have we got that effective instrument, and how do we get it? We are prepared to accept that definition of objects. Do the supporters of the Government accept it, because if they do it is no longer open to them to meet legitimate criticism on our part of any portion of their plan in respect of the land forces by saying after all it is the Navy that matters. If the Navy is big enough, nothing else need concern us, and if it is not big enough we shall soon be starved into surrender. That argument must be abandoned in the House, and I hope ultimately on the platform. The Expeditionary Force is a weapon which is necessary if the Navy is to be effective for the defence of this, country. I think the supporters of the Government must abandon the plea that, in view of the many calls which have to be met, £28,000,000 is the outside sum which can, under any circumstances, be devoted to our land forces. For the sake of argument, though only for the sake of argument, I will grant that under the admirable advice which the Government can obtain from eminent soldiers, they are spending that money in the very best way. If by that expenditure they cannot make every part of their plan complete for its purpose, and adjust the plans inter se in the relationship which secures success for the whole, they will have to spend more money, and to come frankly to the House and say that more money is required if the nation is to be safe. It is the duty of the Opposition to criticise, and I, for one, respectfully but firmly demur to the suggestion that the scope of our criticism is to be limited either by a sum like £28,000,000 or by the fear of being charged with a partisan spirit or a lack of patriotism if we point out, what everyone knows, that our plan is not perfect and is not complete in many of its most important branches.

4.0 P.M.

The Opposition are more free to criticise than the supporters of the Government. In us revives that ancient liberty which used to characterise the whole House, and, if we abandon it, it is gone from the whole House. Again, the Opposition are less responsible. We can point out defects which exist and which the Government are almost bound to gloss over, because our words over the cable will not carry that commotion into Europe which might attach to similar words if they were used by the Government, and whether they say they have the best rifle in the world, or whether they say the Special Reserve is exactly the kind of force with which you could make good the wastage of a war within a fortnight of its declaration, I claim that the Opposition are not only entitled to discount remarks of that incurable optimism of the Secretary of State for War, but they are entitled to assert for their part what they believe to be true in these matters without being charged with a lack of patriotism. Above all, I say now is the time. Last summer we went through what I described, in the most colourless words I could find, as an acute period of diplomatic tension. Well that tension is relaxed, but it may become acute again. Is it not better to look into this matter now instead of waiting until it may become acute. We have still a naval superiority which is relatively greater than some of us think it will be in the near future, when the pre-"Dreadnought" type of ship has become obsolete. At any rate, we cannot count in four or five years' time, after what has happened in the abandonment of the two-Power standard, that our naval superiority will be relatively as incontestable as it is at the present moment.

Why not?

We cannot count upon it because of the experience of the past. We cannot say that our naval superiority will be as great in four or five years' time just as we know that it is not so great now as it was four years ago. It is obvious that if a great and rich Power is building against you for the supremacy of the sea, unless you share the incurable optimism of the Secretary of State for War, you will think it better to take stock of your land forces now than at a time when you are no longer in the enjoyment of that naval superiority.

I must not be taken as assenting to that doctrine in the least. It is in direct contradiction of the doctrine of the First Lord of the Admiralty.

I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman to agree with anything from which he dissents, but he cannot contradict the statement I have made. We now claim to have a naval superiority which I say cannot be relatively so great in respect of the Fleets of other Powers in the future as it has been in the past.

I deny that.

I will ride the other horse. You do not deny that the period of diplomatic tension is relaxed, and that that not only affords an opportunity but ample justification for scrupulously investigating every part of the plan of your land defence, carefully examining it, and candidly admitting its defects, if defects can be discovered. Is the plan complete? I would like to quote what the right hon. Gentleman said yesterday in respect of the Expeditionary Force. His remarks as to the Expeditionary Force were almost cryptic in their obscurity. He said:—

"I have made a comparison with the year 1908, so as to avoid any idea that I was comparing it with the Expeditionary Force of the late Government, I find that the numbers available without Reserves are over 10,000 greater than they were four years ago, and that the numbers available for the Expeditionary Force with the Reserves are 50,000 greater than was the case four years ago."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 19l2, col. 62.]

I do not know what he means. There is no mystery about the Expeditionary Force. It is supposed to consist of a Cavalry division of twelve regiments, six divisions of Infantry, Artillery, and auxiliary arms. We know that there are enough Cavalry regiments in the country to send twelve. We know that there are enough Infantry battalions to send from seventy-two to seventy-four Line battalions and eight battalions of Guards. But what is the use of telling us that the numbers available are 10,000 more than four years ago. Do you mean to say that four years ago you could not have sent an Expeditionary Force, or are you stating succinctly the argument of the Secretary of State for War that unless you have ammunition columns and all the last new inventions you could not send away your soldiers at all? Our contention is that new subjects of expense must be added and not substituted for having the men ready to go who were ready to go in the past. Really we ought to know whether, when the Government speak, as Lord Haldane has written, they mean that six divisions and a Cavalry division could go, or that four divisions and part of a Cavalry division could go. We want to know which they mean. It is very important. Throughout the whole country there has been a great deal of rumour and discussion as to what, I will not say would have happened, but what would happen if diplomatic tension went beyond the point indicated by the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer last summer. Could six divisions go and a Cavalry division? We do not think so. If they cannot, then your plan is not complete. I do not say on this point that your plan cannot be made complete. These are the two questions we have to consider. Is the plan complete? and if not, can it be made complete? If not, what then is the duty of patriotic men? I say their duty is to make the plan complete. It can be done by increased cost. In respect of the Expeditionary Force it is not complete, but I think that, perhaps, it might be possible to complete it.

I may say a word in passing on the Cavalry division. I will come to the question of horses later on. The military correspondent of the "Times" and many others, have suggested that we could make our Expeditionary Force more effective if instead of an unwieldy Cavalry division of twelve regiments we could get back some regiments from South Africa where there are four, and have two Cavalry divisions of nine regiments each. I do not go into the other suggestions. All those who have studied the question will agree with me that to send eighteen regiments of Cavalry, relieve the Infantry who give some of their best officers and men to the Mounted Infantry, would be an effective contribution in a campaign. I would ask the Government to consider whether the plan cannot be made more complete by some such device as that, and particularly I would ask them to reflect, if it is within their power, that the four Cavalry Regiments have little opportunity of being what they ought to be and could be if they are marooned indefinitely in South Africa. The Expeditionary Force cannot start without the Army Reserve. I have pointed out that the Army Reserve will fall automatically to about 106,000 in the very near future. That is a grave matter. I know that the reply of the Secretary of State for War is that he has arranged a pool to have a few more men for this or that battalion which is specially short. Again, he urges, it is "as broad as it is long" in view of the number of nine years' service men in the battalions. I reject that argument when the number of trained men is so import ant. It is doubly untrue if we consider, as I shall show shortly, what would happen when the Expeditionary Force has gone abroad. There is a way of remedying this which has often been brought to the notice of the Government, and I wish it had received more attention at their hands. At present, in the seventy-four Infantry battalions at home, the establishment is 720. In the twenty-two Infantry battalions abroad, exclusive of India, it is 840, and in the fifty-two Indian battalions it is 1,000. We ask now, as we have asked before, that the Government will increase the establishment of the Infantry battalions at home. We ask it on the ground that a battalion of 840 is a larger reserve-making machine than a battalion of 720 when you are face to face with the fact that you are dropping about 30,000 men in the Army Reserve. Is it not common prudence to increase the establishment of the seventy-four machines out of which you are going to make the Reserve? We believe that on the mobilisation of an Expeditionary Force, which starts with Infantry battalions on a peace establishment of 720, in order to have battalions of 1,000 for war you would have to take in 500 Reservists, and that untrained and immature men would be left at home. We think that 500 new faces are too many when you go to war. A greater proportion of the men ought to have been trained under the officers who are to lead them on Service. The right hon. Gentleman and his chief rely on the advice they get. I would suggest that they should ask their military advisers to advise them as to what is the best proportion—five to five, or six to four. I hope they will obtain guidance on that point and give the House the benefit of it. I submit that you must increase the Reserve, and that that is perhaps the best way to do it. The Expeditionary Force cannot start without an ample Army Reserve, and it cannot start without a sufficient number of horses. The right hon. Gentleman told us yesterday that the Regular Army required 44,000, and the Territorial Force over 84,000. The Government has not done all it might have done in the matter of making adequate provision of horses. The right hon. Gentleman told us yesterday, as if it was a discovery, that omnibus horses do not exist in the same number as some years ago. Four years ago, Member after Member told the Government that the motor car had been invented. We told the Government that the county associations could not perform the work in regard to the registration of horses, because they had already more to do than they could manage. Now the commanding officer is to do the work with the assistance of the adjutant, who is the only person to give any military semblance to the Territorial Force. I say that these are dilatory proceedings, and that the plan is not complete and cannot be complete unless you have horses. The Government have been told to follow the example of other countries and have officers to certify if the horses are sound, and other officers to see if they are suitable. We have now three rifles, and apparently we are to have a fourth.

There will be two rifles—the short and the long. Both of the rifles will be re-lighted as soon as possible.

I am not going into the controversy. I say that you have got three rifles between which substantial differences can be shown. Do not let us quarrel about that. If there are not three, why do you say that the adapted rifle is so much better than the unadapted rifle? What is it all about? Do you say that what I call the short rifle of 1903 is the same thing as that rifle is when you have altered the sight, put blocks of wood in the stock, and changed the bullet and the ammunition? What, in the name of common sense and the rapid conduct of Debate, is all the bother about? There are three weapons going, and there is a fourth weapon in the offing. Before another period of acute diplomatic tension comes the Government of the day should have prepared in every respect, in sights, missile, charge, and ammunition, enough for the old weapon to the day before it is discarded, and at the same time enough for the new weapon on the day on which it is adopted. And that should hold good of the whole Army. I know I am making a big demand. By the whole Army I do not mean the Expeditionary Force. I do not mean four divisions armed with one kind and two divisions and the Special Reserve and the Cavalry Division with another, and the Territorials with the third. I mean that on that day when you change your armament you should have a complete armament for the whole of your land forces in this country. You never know the exact moment when diplomatic tension may come to the brink of war, if not to war itself. I know that this will cost money. I know that the right hon. Gentleman will say that in the past we handed on discarded armaments to the Volunteers; but I thought that there was a new heaven and a new earth. I thought when the Territorial Force came that we were going to look upon our Army as one. We must look upon it as one in that respect if those who enter the Territorial Forces are to take their services as a serious contribution of patriotism. Although the cost is great, I do not believe that it is as great to this country relatively as to other countries. We have wide territories throughout the world. We have a huge military police throughout the world, and coloured troops in Africa, and therefore we can turn to useful account many armaments more readily than other Powers, so that we need not chuck them on the market if we can arm the Colonial troops with them. It will cost money, but the money will be well expended.

The Expeditionary Force cannot go abroad unless it is adequately officered. There the plan is not completed. Can it be completed as in the case of the rifle and the horse? Year after year the Government discuss this or that project for getting more officers of the right type, but they never do anything. They hold examinations and sometimes make them hard and sometimes make them ludicrously easy. Still the officers do not come. It has never occurred to them that you cannot get the article which you require for the wage which secured it in the days of the Battle of Waterloo. If we are in earnest, and we are in earnest, something must be done to get the right type of officer in sufficient numbers if your Expeditionary Force is to be a reality. I believe that with goodwill you can complete that portion of the plan, the pivot on which it all turns. I pass to what will be required when the Expeditionary Force has gone. You have to leave behind troops for two purposes. First, to make good what is called the waste of the war, and also for home defence. Having troops to make good the waste of the war would mean that probably within a fortnight of hostilities breaking out you would require to draft out further troops. We know what the waste of war is, that it is due not only to the killed and wounded, but to the ravages of dysentery and sickness of all kinds and the breakdown of men. The result is that drafts are required. What do the Government specify in this all-important respect? They have made a Special Reserve with a certain establishment, and they have said that that Reserve, if it came up to that establishment, would supply the waste of war for six months. It never has come up to that establishment. I will quote a few figures, which I will confine to Infantry, and for a reason. When we ask the Secretary of State for War about the Special Reserve we often find that he is talking about other things, which are necessary and admirable, but which are not Infantry. Therefore, in order to know whether the Special Reserve can fulfil the purpose for which it is created, let me give the figures for the Infantry. According to the General Annual Report, in 1909 it was 3,724 below the Infantry establishment. On 1st October, 1910, it was 9,577 below the establishment, and on 1st October last year it was 15,851 below the establishment.

I am not comparing the Special Reserve with the Militia of old days: it would be ludicrous to do so. On 1st January, 1906, the strength of Infantry was 72,374, of whom 66,453 were present at training. In the Special Reserve, on 1st January this year, there was a strength of Infantry of 50,000, of whom only 46,000 men are trained. Forty-six thousand Infantry trained in the Special Reserve is not enough to fulfil the purposes of repairing the waste of war if the Expeditionary Force is to be maintained. Then take the quality. Again I am drawing no comparison between the Special Reserve of the day and the Militia of the past, but I do invite the House to attend to the comparison between the number of the men in the Infantry battalion of the Special Reserve and the number of men—220 per battalion—who are left behind from the Regular battalion because they are not good enough to go into the furnace of war. That applies to the seventy-four Infantry battalions of the Special Reserve. Your Regular battalions go abroad, and out of each battalion 220 are left behind because they are not old enough, strong enough, or trained enough to bear the rigours and hardship of war. Yet, within a fortnight, you are going to make up the wastage of war with what? With the Special Reserve. Who go into the Special Reserve? The men who were too young or too untrained to go into the regular battalion had to be left behind. That is a crucial point. The scheme breaks down at that point. It breaks in two. It is incapable of logical defence. It could not be recommended to an audience of school children if the proposition is stated plainly.

I know that the proportion of those who join the regular Army from the Special Reserve is very large. Last year it was 50 per cent. The year before it was more, and we have been told that in some battalions it was as much as 62 per cent. More than half the men or boys who go into the Special Reserve go in in order to get into the Army. Those who do not come up to a high standard are to take the place1 of those who are rejected because they are not good enough to go out to war. That is the position. It is a grave one. In order to meet it we have the incurable optimism of the Noble Lord, who told us last year that in order to strengthen the Special Reserve he was going to turn from youth to maturity and to invite a number of soldiers who had finished with the Army or the Army Reserve between the ages of thirty-six and forty, in order to give a stiffening to these Infantry battalions and make up the number. He hoped to get over 9,000 of them. He was going to add seventy-five to each of the seventy-four battalions and 200 to these twenty-seven extra battalions of the Special Reserve who are to go abroad to the Mediterranean to liberate troops who are to go to war. He whistled for them. On reading his memorandum they have not come. He still hopes. He believes that next year something will turn up, just as in the case of the rifles and the horses, and as in the case of the subalterns who cannot be induced to enter the Army. The whole plan breaks in two unless you make the Infantry and your Special Reserve a reality. If you do not, that specification of Lord Haldane is a thing that is not complete. In this respect a very grave question arises, and I do not know how you are going to meet it. So much for the quality of the Special Reserve.

I pass now to say a word about the training. The seventy-four battalions which are to send men into the furnace of war within a fortnight used to have training for six months, but in order to make another readjustment of this creaking machine that has been reduced to five months' initial training. I do not think that that is enough, but how can the Secretary of State for War and the Under-Secretary think that five months' initial training is enough for these men who are going to the front in a fortnight when they pour the vials of scorn upon four months' training as being insufficient for secondary purposes? They say that four months is useless; and I say that it is intolerable that the same authority which says that five months is enough for the Infantry Special Reserve, for the seventy-four battalions, should say that in the case of the twenty-seven extra battalions of the Special Reserve who may be sent to the Mediterranean—no light task, it may be owing to changes in our Naval policy—there is only to be three months' initial training, which is much less than what Lord Roberts proposed for troops who were ready to undertake duties of a less immediate character. I do not think that that portion of the plan can be completed. With all submission, I say that you can do something and something valuable if you will increase the establishment of the seventy-four Regular battalions to a strength of 840, so as to give a large reserve of mature-trained men at the moment that you want them?

Now with regard to garrisons at home. We have very few Regular soldiers in Scotland. We have some naval bases there of enormous importance. Who is going to garrison them when war breaks out? Observe that the Special Reserve are inadequate in numbers, quality, and training; yet they have got to make good the wastage of war and find the garrisons. I do not know whether it is intended to use the Territorial Force. I want to ask what provision has been made for garrisoning such important points as those we have at home. One other point, are you sure that you could move the Expeditionary Force at the right moment, according to Lord Haldane's demands? Can you be sure that if you sent an Expeditionary Force to Europe that you would not have to send reinforcements to Egypt and perhaps also to India? Is it not the case that during the South African war, when all the world was alarmed, and Asia knew we were carrying a great burden, that the mere fact that we were sending out a handful of troops to Pekin in conjunction with other Powers created a great impression. I believe that if ever you had to send an Expeditionary Force to Europe you cannot wipe that out as a contingency that you need not take into contemplation, but that you might also have not only to provide garrisons at home, but in Egypt, and it may be in India. I come to the Territorial Force. Are we to be told that it is so numerous, so good in quality, so well trained, so admirably officered, so well horsed, that we can leave the Territorial Force to resolve all the doubts which grow up in our minds when we look at the Expeditionary Force and the Special Reserve. When we listened to the admirable speech of the hon. Member for Hull last night, the Under-Secretary shook his head as though my hon. Friend was going too far, but I noticed that a question was asked to-day by my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay.

The right hon. Gentleman was asked how many men were rejected on medical grounds in 1909–10–11. No figures were available. The right hon. Gentleman was also asked how many officers and men were absent without leave from training in 1911. The answer was that there were forty-one officers and 6,700 men absent without leave. If that is the case, you cannot look to the Territorial Force to do all the jobs that are relegated to them. What are they going to do? They are to maintain confidence if the Expeditionary Force is sent abroad. That is admitted. They are to supply the garrison if the Special Reserve cannot supply them. That is admitted. They have to deter the enemy from thinking of invasion. Is that admitted? They are to defeat invasion if it is attempted. Is that admitted? I say that is a lot for such a force to accomplish. It is all very well to admit these things theoretically, and then go about the country and say, "Well, we do say that, but you would not get the men to join otherwise." You are committing those duties to the Territorial Force. They are to deter the enemy from thinking of invasion, and they are to defeat invasion. When the troops did not flock to our standard, the Secretary of State for War at the beginning of 1909, referring to the late months of 1908, drew a terrible picture of what invasion might mean:—

"No cause touched the well-being of the nation more closely than the defence of its hearths and homes. A nation at war with them would attempt invasion as the deadliest blow it could inflict, and so a stroke at the very heart of the British Empire, and if we are not prepared to meet they might be broken up and disintegrated."

The optimist, speaking in this House in the March following, said he saw with great delight that the numbers of the Territorial Force had increased since October, and he then thought numbered as many as 240,000 men. I take Infantry alone, and I take the general Annual Report which deals with the period of October before the recruits began to come in. Take the Infantry of all ranks: On the 1st October, 1908, the Territorial Infantry, taking all ranks, numbered 122,322. After the "Daily Mail" boom, and all the other theatrical devices, it had increased in October, 1909, to 171,923, October, 1910, 170,009, and this year the figures help my argument, because they are now 167,199. I ask whether the difference between 122,000 and 167,000 of the Territorial Infantry changes the whole position from what it was in October, 1908, when the Secretary of State for War pointed out to the House that owing to the weakness of the Auxiliary Force, the nation was never nearer thinking of compulsory service, whereas now, with these 30,000 or 40,000 more Territorials they find the plan of the Government for the national security is as much as any man who is not a poltroon could wish for. The crucial point of the whole matter is this: In the near future the Army Reserve is going to be 30,000 less than now. In the near future the Territorial Force may, if men do not re-engage, go back to what it was at the time the Secretary of State for War uttered those jeremiads in 1908. Meanwhile the Special Reserve is 15,088 below what you say is necessary, and will probably fall to a lower figure. The position is this: We accept the definition given by the Government of the objects which we as a nation must achieve if we as a nation are to be safe. But we say that their plan for achieving those objects is not complete. We doubt if it can be completed. We assert our right to point out the defects, the more so that in the near future it is certain that those defects in some branches will increase. Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that our relative naval superiority may decline, or that it is also possible a period of acute diplomatic tension may be renewed? We ask the House and the country to consider these facts and these contingencies; and on these grounds we appeal in no party spirit to all patriotic men to take up what we conceive to be the national duty of studying imparitally, and if need be generously, the problem of national safety, for which as yet no solution has been found.

We have listened to one of those speeches with which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover so frequently delights the House, and I think his speech of to-day is no exception to those to which we have listened on previous occasions. There was about it all that picturesque imagery and power of imagination which, if I may say so without impertinence, are rarely absent from the speeches of those who have the sentimental instinct. I admired the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman stated his case without, as far as was possible for anyone to do so, betraying any traces of party spirit. In beginning my observations I should like to start with those in which I feel myself most closely in accord with the right hon. Gentleman, because in expressing my sentimental sympathy I do so not only speaking from experience as a soldier, but I think I also express the view of other Members on this side of the House who are in sympathy with what the right hon. Gentleman said when he deplored the fact that the Army Estimates had been brought in before the Navy Estimates. But whether or not I complain of their having been brought in before the Navy Estimates, I look to the time when we shall have something in the nature of Defence Estimates covering the whole area of defence questions submitted to this House, so that we can freely discuss these interdependent matters of Naval and Army administration, which are inseparable from thorough organisation for war. Until we reach some condition of that kind I think our state will continue to be interesting, but certainly will be devoid of much practical effect. With regard to the very interesting survey which the right hon. Gentleman made of our military position outside these islands, I think he did not give sufficient importance to the fact that we still expect—I expect it all the more strongly now my right hon. and gallant Friend is sitting on that bench—that we shall see at a very early date a considerable reduction in the garrison of South Africa, thus making more troops available for taking up those duties, ever-changing duties I admit, and as the right lion. Gentleman pointed out, in other parts of the world. With regard to the position and the numbers of the Expeditionary Force, I must confess that I think the right hon. Gentleman was practising one of those strategies of ancient and savage warfare which consisted in creating a great amount of smoke in order to conceal the operations of the attacking force. I really fail to quite follow the figures that have been put forward, though even there I find myself in agreement in regard to one point, which I will deal with later when I touch upon the Cavalry. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman did not feel himself in a position to take a flight upon the question of aviation, because I feel that he has the special qualification to deal with a science of that kind, which has not reached the region of exact sciences. But he did himself less than justice when he confined himself to making a mere comparison of the amounts to be expended as announced by my right hon. Friend, with the amounts to be spent in other countries. Such comparisons are, I think, futile. Happily for this country we still possess, in addition to other conditions into which I need not enter, a manufacturing power which other countries do not possess. We possess also special aptitude for seizing the ideas which are collected by nations who, perhaps, have a keener power of dealing with new questions than we have, but who are less happy in the way they apply them. I have no doubt whatever that my right hon. Friend and Lord Haldane have been well advised to limit their expenditure in this particular sphere, and to watch the developments which are taking place in other countries—and nowhere as yet can it be said that aviation has become a powerful arm of the military Service—and keep a watch upon them with the certainty that we shall be able to overtake other nations in that as we have done in many other modern developments.

The right hon. Gentleman touched upon the question of Reserve. It is impossible for me to look up any reference at the moment, but I have a distinct recollection of having heard my right hon. Friend (Colonel Seely) give, in answer to a question, an explanation of the manner in which the flow of Reserve will equalise itself owing to the measures taken recently by the War Office. I have no doubt my right hon. Friend has a method of recalling these facts, and will perhaps be able to give the information. On the question of the Special Reserve and the organisation of the Territorial Force generally I hold much the same opinion now that I did at the time when the new organisation was introduced. I then stated in the House, and I hold the opinion now, that the general scheme of the Territorial Force was marked rather too much by a pedantic symmetry, by adherence to dogmatic accuracy, in the preparations of the Army and the distribution of the units. I think it has lost very considerably in that way. In regard to the Special Reserve, I pointed out, I think, at that time what appeared to me to be a really sound system of development, and to which I will refer presently. There is in all European countries what is called the organisation of reserve battalions. It has always appeared to me that the object to be aimed at in the change that was made at the time of the introduction of the Territorial system into this country was the gradual transformation of the Home Army into a force organised on a similar basis to those reserve battalions that we see in foreign countries—that is to say, all battalions with a considerably larger permanent cadre than exists in the Territorials, to be completed with enough men who are putting in a smaller number of days' service in the course of the year. I have put that system into force myself with considerable success, and I believe it is the soundest system that could be adopted in the case of a Home Army recruited on the voluntary system.

I never had any great belief in the two divisions that were made at the time of the introduction of the Territorial system, of the Special Reserve and the Territorial Force, but, together with the other points to which I took exception at the time, they were possibly inevitable, because we had to take over the old Volunteer Force, and you could not sweep the whole thing away. You had your cadres and you had to transform them. It was a difficult thing to do, and I think it has been done with extraordinary success, and I think it is most unfortunate for hon. Gentlemen to take the line of perpetually examining it and complaining that it is not developing fast enough. They pull up the plant to see if it is growing, and that is fatal to any organisation. The most fatal effect it has is that it makes those who are engaged in the work a deal uncertain as to their position and a deal discouraged with the work they are doing. I believe myself that whatever party is in office they will have gradually to transform the home military system from what exists at present. I do not think you will ever in any country lay down a cut-and-dried system, and say it is going to work. It has got to be gradually developed and fitted in, and I believe that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wyndham), if he ever does come over to this side while I am here, and I hope he will be in the War Office, will find that it will have to be an adaptation and gradual evolution to a newer type. My belief is that it will be something on the lines I have already pointed out. The right hon. Gentleman was pleasantly sarcastic about the incurable optimists who sit on this side. Incurable optimism is better than youthful pessimism.

I cannot sit down without doing that which I made an endeavour to do last evening, when my right hon. Friend intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Mark Sykes). I must allude to some of the statements which were made by the hon. Gentleman. I saw him in the House to-day, and I am sorry that he has now left. The hon. Gentleman opened his speech by informing us that he intended to point out the deplorable condition of the Territorial Force. That may possibly have been the patriotic object he had in view. He said he was going to stick close to that point. Whether it was his natural sense of humour or the desire to please the sense of humour of those sitting near him, he found himself drawn away to what, I think, was a most unfortunate line of argument, and one which certainly cannot be allowed to pass unnoticed. I pass over the personal reference that he made to a very distinguished officer highly placed in His Majesty's Army, because I feel sure that it was made perhaps without consideration, and that he himself would be the first on consideration to regret it, because he must know that officers in that position are not in a position to reply. They are not here, and their very position prevents them from taking any notice of those personal references. But there is another reason, which I am sure would commend itself to the hon. Gentleman if he will consider for a moment, and that is that the reputation of an officer is not his own personal property: it is an asset of the nation, it belongs to the nation. An officer who has made a great name in the Army no doubt may in the course of his career have made, I will not say enemies, but at any rate have found persons who were not of the same opinion as himself; but he has in his career accumulated no doubt titles and honours and decorations and all the baubles that ought to reflect glory on his reputation. They belong to him, but the reputation of the officer himself is national property, and anyone who tries to belittle that reputation is belittling that which is most valuable to the nation. I feel sure that the hon. Gentleman spoke, in making those personal references, without thinking, I daresay, but I think he will admit that it would not be becoming to allow such a slip to pass by. But there was another statement which he made which I view with even greater gravity, and that is when he used these words:—

"You will never find generals criticising if criticism has an unpleasant effect on their future. It is not to their interest to say that the thing is not a working, success."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 1912, col. 143]

5.0 P.M.

Such a monstrous attack as that I think has never been made upon a body of deserving officers. To say that any British officer would, for his own personal advancement, neglect to do that which he considered it his duty to do, is to cast a slur upon the whole of the officer class of this nation. There may be different opinions as to the value of the Territorial Force. The hon. Gentleman is at liberty to have his opinion as to what is the best way to raise the Force, but I do not think, from what he told us yesterday, that his method, if applied to either the Territorials or the Regulars, would be calculated to raise their feeling of pride in them solves or in their Service.

rose to speak—

If the hon. Gentleman rises to a point of Order I will give way, but I think I am entitled to reply to what was said. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to have his opinion as to the method and the tone that may be adopted in criticising the Force, but it is not right to say that any officer who holds His Majesty's Commission and has His Majesty's confidence, in that he holds an important command, would derogate from his office by failing to make that criticism which he thought was deserved. I pass from these unpleasant topics to look upon the deplorable picture of the Territorial Force which the hon. Gentleman attempted to draw. He told us what a soldier must be able to do. I venture to think that some of us know that better than he does. He told us that soldiers must be able to walk, to carry weights, to shoot straight, and to obey orders.

Which the Territorials cannot do.

I do not know what experience the hon. Member who interrupts mo may have.

Fourteen years.

I have had nearly forty years' experience of Territorials and Regulars, and my connection with the Territorials continues to this day. Let us examine these criticisms. If, in the very wet season of the year before last, the hon. Gentleman had been taking in Wales that amusement and pleasure which, I am happy to hear he enjoys with the Territorials, he would have seen Territorial divisions performing marches which I have rarely seen equalled in the Regular Service at manœuvres, and under exceptionally severe conditions owing to the exceptional weather. It so happened that I received a letter from a kind person, not a Territorial officer, and not engaged in the Territorial Force at all, endeavouring to enlist my influence, as he expressed it, to obtain a remission of the weights that these men had been ordered to carry when they went into camp, because, as he said, they had received instructions to go in full marching order. My answer was that I knew nothing about, what the orders might be, but that I hoped he would use his influence with any Territorials in whom he might be interested, to see that they obeyed the orders which were given, as I was perfectly certain they would find that they were not so difficult as he anticipated.

There has been so much said about shooting and the rifle that I will not dwell on the subject at great length. I believe, however, that the Territorial Army to-day is far more efficient in that particular than many of the masses of foreign troops with which I have had the honour to be associated on more than one occasion. A near relation of mine, if I may be permitted to touch a personal note, was engaged in the 1870 war in raising and organising that part of the French Army which was afterwards known as the Army of the Loire, and the description which I have had from him and from officers who served as to the utter ignorance of the mobile which formed that army when they joined as to the use of their weapons would certainly astonish anybody who had seen our Territorials; yet nevertheless those troops did extraordinarily good service, and wrote a page that will rank among the brightest pages of French military history. I am perfectly satisfied that our Territorials will do the same if ever it comes to their turn. As to obeying orders, I am satisfied that that is the last part of the soldier's duty the hon. Member ever learnt. Incidentally the hon. Member touched up his picture with some lurid colours representing the diseases from which the Territorial soldier was supposed to suffer. I have never heard anything like it except once in this House when I heard an hon. Member declaiming against the evils which might possibly arise from vaccination. No doubt in any great aggregation of men there will be malformations and diseases, but I deny absolutely that there is any excessive development of malformation amongst the men who serve in this particular branch of His Majesty's Service. In that part of the Territorial Force with which I am connected, I find men who are the brothers, cousins, and other relations of the men who used to serve with me, and of men who are now in the Grenadier Guards, because a large number of the men from that district go to that regiment. They are precisely the same material, and the same spirit exists in these men that has made the Grenadiers what they are. There is one disease which the hon. Gentleman might possibly have added to his list, though I do not think he will find it among the rank and file of the Territorials, namely, swelled head. One thing that officers who make these criticisms would do well to remember is that it is not only physical qualities that make an army; it is that great motive power which we know as esprit de corps. If you insult a body of troops, whatever it may be, by speaking of them in the way in which he spoke of the Territorials yesterday, you are not likely to enhance that esprit de corps. It is sympathy that the men want, and I believe that is the quality which so many of our generals, who are now commanding units of the Territorial Force, have so satisfactorily shown. They have shown sympathy for men who are endeavouring to do their duty under circumstances of considerable difficulty—under difficulties which I should be the first to join with hon. Gentlemen opposite in bringing pressure upon the Government to alleviate. No one has a right to use such language as would lower, in the eyes of the people of the country, the position of men who are doing their best to do their duty.

I will dismiss the rest of this unpleasant incident and return to what is far more pleasant to me, namely, the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover, and the remarks that I promised to make on the question, of horses. I was very glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman's speech on our Mounted Forces. Personally I should like to see His Majesty's Government direct their attention, in the first place, to keeping our Mounted establishments at a much higher figure than at present, and, secondly, to taking some of those practical steps which we on both sides have been urging upon them for some years for the provision of horses. It is no use at this time of day telling us that the 'bus horse no longer exists. What is much more serious is that we who live in the rural districts know that the breeding of horses is becoming less. That is a very serious question indeed. We have been passed off for several years in this House from one Department to another in reference to this matter. If we addressed the right hon. Gentleman's Chief when he was in this House we were told that the question of horses was a matter for the Department of Agriculture, while if we attacked the hon. Gentleman who represented the Board of Agriculture we were told that the matter was under the consideration of a military committee. So it has gone on, and nothing has been done. Meanwhile the farmers of the country are giving up breeding horses. I know it, because I belong to a country where they used to breed a large number of horses, and horses of the kind that are required for Cavalry purposes. What is required in this country is a system of remount depots to which horses are brought at two years old. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to hear hon. Members on the opposite side cheer that statement. I shall be most happy if they will co-operate to try to bring pressure to bear upon my right hon. Friend. I think it is a door that is easy to force, because I believe his sympathies are with us in the attainment of some system by which we shall maintain not only the efficiency of our Cavalry, but also that superiority as a horse-breeding nation which we have so long held.

Perhaps, in the first place, I may be allowed to say that I cordially agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down in his idea of depots for the provision of horses for the Army. It is a question that I have often considered, mainly from my experience in India. There we bought horses from Australia, put them into depots, and used men of the Cavalry and Artillery to break them in and turn them out in condition. In this country it is a different thing, because here, instead of having older horses you have to buy them young. I maintain, however, that by buying horses, as the last speaker said, two years old, you would get them very much cheaper. That being so, they would cost very little more before they came to be four or five years old, and were fit for service in the Army. You have a large number of Reserve men, both of the Artillery and the Cavalry, and they could very well be used to look after and train the horses, and so be prevented from walking about the street out-of-elbows. I want to make one remark on the heavy taking to task, if I may call it so, of my hon. Friend, the Member for Hull (Mr. Mark Sykes) inflicted upon him by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite. I appreciate the feelings of the hon. and gallant Gentleman; at the same time I wish to point out that, if there is a fault, the fault does not lie with my hon. Friend. It lies with the Members of the present Cabinet. When they use expedients to which we are now accustomed to bolster up their malpractices, and their poor schemes; when they one year have a book and the next year a speech; and when they take the opportunity of advertising the book and the speech, I confess I think it gives Gentlemen reason to think that the officers who are responsible for the book and for the speech have been put up for the purpose of helping the Cabinet.

We heard something yesterday from the hon Member for Sutherland (Mr. Hamar Greenwood), who is not now in his place, about the military correspondent of the "Times." This gentleman, we were told, was an officer of more war experience than anybody in this House. We were challenged to produce anybody who had seen more fighting than that gentleman, who is also employed at the War Office. I happen to know the military correspondent of the "Times" very well. I happen to have been on campaigns with him. I have a very great respect for his military knowledge. I am not able to write as he can. Possibly, however, I have had as much experience of fighting as he has had. And I do say this: When a man who has been an officer becomes the military correspondent of the "Times," and is immediately taken up by the Radical Government, or by any Government, and given a room and access to papers in the War Office, it leads one to think that that gentleman does not always write what he really thinks to be true, but that which may happen to suit the Government that employs him. There, again, I say that the fault undoubtedly lies with the Members of the present Cabinet.

I want to come now to the observations of my right lion. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Wyndham). In his excellent and instructive speech he told us that we are spending £28,000,000 on the land Forces of the Empire at the present moment. He took up, as a matter of argument, that that £28,000,000 was being properly spent. I must confess that personally I shall try to show that I do not agree with him. I find, compared with 1905, that we spend, roughly speaking, just £1,000,000 less. How has that million reduction been brought about? By a very large reduction in the fighting strength of our Regular Army; not only a large reduction in the ranks and in the Reserves, but also in the cadres by which rapid expansion is prevented; and this, as we all know, is most important in time of war. I see also that the Government have reduced that branch of the Service which is the most difficult to create, the most technical, and that which requires the longest training—I refer to the Artillery. I think I am right in stating that the Government have reduced by £2,000,000 the pay of the Army. What do we find on the other side? They have saved £2,000,000 on the Regular Army, and they have put an extra million pounds upon what we used to call the Auxiliary Forces. This makes the total expenditure on these Forces something rather over £3,000,000.

The last speaker has a very high opinion of the Territorial Forces. I personally prefer to believe what members of that Force tell me themselves to anything that General French may say, or anybody in General French's position, or, in fact, any general officer. I hold that a man commanding a battalion, or the men in the battalion, either officers or men, are more likely to know what they are really fit for than any general officer in the kingdom. I do not blame the Territorials in any way whatsoever. I have the greatest respect for them. I have the greatest respect for anybody who does his best for the country. But I say again that the fault lies with the Cabinet. If words could do it we should have an Army countless in numbers and probably invincible in the field. But the volubility of the War Secretary or even the plausibility of the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary, will not ensure the training of the Territorial Force. If you spend the money on inefficiency, which you are now doing, you are doing worse than throwing the money away. You are spending public money and causing, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hull said yesterday, a public danger. If you cannot train the Territorial Forces why keep them? In my humble opinion you should put back that £2,000,000 to the Regular Forces, and reduce that spent on the Auxiliary Forces to £1,000,000.

I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary, a question that I think is somewhat important, and that is whether his military advisers have ever yet decided in their own minds, and whether they have ever yet advised him or the Secretary of State for War, for what purpose we maintain an Army at all? For what purpose do we maintain our land forces? Is it to provide our garrisons in India, at our coaling stations, in the Colonies overseas? Is it to provide drafts for those garrisons, to reinforce those garrisons, if necessary, in time of war? Is it to provide as well that Expeditionary Force about which we have heard so much? In my humble experience, our present organisation is moderately well adapted for the former, but for the latter it is ridiculously inadequate, almost impossible. How are we to tell if we go to war to-morrow that we should not have at once to reinforce our troops in India, Egypt, and probably the greater part of our coaling stations as well? My right hon. Friend mentioned the very small garrisons that we keep at Hong Kong, Singapore, and Ceylon. I think he was wrong on one point. I was at Ceylon two years ago, and at that time there was not a single British battalion in that island. Whether the War Office have seen the error of their ways, and whether they have since then put a British battalion into that island, I do not know, and I should like the right hon. Gentleman opposite to tell the House. Meanwhile we have reduced our Naval force in those seas. Is it right we should leave these very important positions so inadequately guarded?

Now as to the Expeditionary Force. We were told last year that six divisions were ready to start at a moment's notice. Rumour often plays us false, but rumour has it—and I am going to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether rumour is correct—that this year six divisions were not forthcoming, that only four were available. I shall be very glad to know if that is right. On the other hand, it is very doubtful whether 100,000 men or thereabouts would be of any particular use if thrown on to the Continent at a moment's notice. In any case it would be well if the right hon. Gentleman would inform us as to what will be the composition of this force of 100,000 men. I asked him to-day a question with regard to the Reserves. I asked him what I consider a very fair question. I asked him:—

"If any mobilisation took place in the country, how many men of the Reserves would be found in the ranks of the Guards and in the Infantry of the Line?"

I asked him for a purpose. We have found in South Africa and in other places that good as a Reserve man may be, good as he is when he has had time to settle down, he cannot be, and is not, as good when he first joins the ranks as the man already serving in those ranks. The least you can do, if you are going to put into the field a force so ridiculously small compared with those of our neighbours, is to see that it is perfectly equipped, perfectly turned out, perfectly ready for active service, and, more important than all, perfectly disciplined. If you put a large majority of Reserve men into these ranks when they sail from this country they must fail in discipline.

The right hon. Gentleman refused to tell me how many Reserve men there would be in the ranks. I am going to tell him, and if I am wrong perhaps he will correct me. I am going to tell him that in the Brigade of Guards alone at one time there were something like six to four, and in the line, owing to our system of treating every battalion in this country like a nursery, making it a feeding-bottle for our battalions abroad in time of peace, I tell him by that system of sucking them dry like a squeezed lemon he would probably have 70 to 80 per cent. of Reserve men in the ranks if he were going to war to-morrow. If I am wrong, I hope the right hon. Gentlemen will correct me. I say, then, if you are going, beside finding those drafts for our forces in India, finding drafts for our forces in the China Sea, and other portions of the British Empire, to reinforce these troops in time of war, and if we are to have an Expeditionary Force worthy of the name we must alter our present system. Our present system is an organisation for peace, combined with a few small black wars in which we have been indulging for several years now, and not for war. What happened in South Africa? It is perfectly true that eventually we had a very large force there—but what happened? It was not a case of 100,000 men fighting, perhaps, 200,000 of the best-trained troops of Europe—it was a case of 180,000 men fighting 60,000 farmers, and it took us all our time to do it. That was the effect of our system. Our system is wrong. It is not fit for war, and if you continue in the present way, and if you are going, with the forces you now have, to carry out the scheme put before us by the Secretary of State for War, I say you are courting disaster.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman will no doubt forgive me if I do not follow him in detail in his very interesting speech. I am very willing to agree with him that some of the defects that made themselves apparent in the South African War were due to a particular system, but it was the system in force at that time, and not this system.

I did not say it was.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman might have laid more stress upon the fact that it was the system in force when the late Unionist Government was in power.