MR. COURTNEY WARNER said he was very glad to hear that. He thought, however, that the Clause might be postponed until the Yeomanry part of the Bill was introduced next Session. They did not want to transfer men from one regiment to another against their will; though, of course, if men consented no difficulty would arise. If they compelled men, however, Yeomanry and Militia regiments would lose their esprit de corps, which was the very thing which held them together, and which should not be destroyed because of some imaginary danger. COLONEL LEGGE said he was a very strong advocate of the regimental system, but he did not think there was any reason why, if the exigencies of the service required it, men should not be transferred from one regiment to another. But he would like to press on his right hon. friend that this liability should be clearly friend that this liability should be clearly explained to the men when they enlisted. MR. BRODRICK: Hear, hear! MR. PIRIE said that there was no plea of urgency as regarded the Bill, and if there were, it was a plea damaging to the Government. The Bill would not have been introduced at all were it not for the prolonged debates on the Education Bill. The real reason for the Bill was the fact that the centres of population had shifted, which accounted for the enormous discrepancy in the numbers of the Militia battalions. A great scheme of Imperial defence would be introduced in a few months, and he strongly urged the postponement of the matter until then. MR. FULLER asked whether he was right in understanding that the Yeomanry Reserve was to be raised at the option of the Yeomanry colonels. colonels would have the option of acMR. BRODRICK said Yeomanry cepting men for the Reserve or refusing them if they did not consider them eligible. It was likely that some of the men who had served in South Africa would come forward for the Yeomanry Reserve, and it was his desire to obtain their services in case of mobilisation for the weaker regiments. (6.15.) Question put. The Committee divided:-Ayes, 110; Noes, 41. (Division List, No. 633.) Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Blundell, Colonel Henry AYES. Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Hall, Edward Marshall Clive, Captain Percy A. Cohen, Benjamin Louis Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. Heaton, John Henniker Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh) Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Plummer, Walter R. Amendment proposed Strachey, Sir Edward TELLERS FOR THE NOESMr. Pirie and Colonel Sandys. Amendment agreed to. Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to. Bill reported; as amended, to be considered Tomorrow. OSBORNE ESTATE (RECOMMITTED) (In the Committee.) [Mr. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the Chair.] Clause 1: MR. CALDWELL said he would not move the first Amendment standing in his name, as he thought the discussion he desired to raise could be raised on the second Amendment. As the House was aware, the Osborne estate belonged to her late Majesty as a private estate, and such estates were held in the same manner as if they were private estates of "In page 1, line 18, to leave out sub- any subject of the realm, and her Majesty Section (3)."-(Mr. Brodrick.) paid the rates and taxes on Osborne like any private individual, so that in considering this subject the question of Royalty was eliminated. Any precedent established by this Bill would have enormous force in subsequent dealings by Act of Parliament with regard to the disposition of the property of private individuals. By the will of her late Majesty Osborne estate was left in life-rent to the King. The life-rent interest afterwards went to the Prince of Wales, and the tenants in tail were the children of the Prince of Wales. They could deal with the life-rent interest of the King and of the Prince of Wales by consent. But there arose the question of the tenant in tail. He was the eldest son of the Prince of Wales, and obviously was not of an age to give consent. The King's interest was a life interest, and His Majesty had no power to settle the interest of the tenants in tail under this Bill. The life interest of His Majesty was all that ought to be pressed in a matter of this kind, and the King had a perfect right to dispose of his interest as he thought fit. He did not object to the country saddling itself with the obligation to carry out the wish of the King and to pay £3,000 or £5,000 a year in doing so; but he objected to the Government giving anything to the King that did not belong to His Majesty in full right of property. It might be urged that the Prince of Wales had given his consent. The country had always been very jealous in regard to consents where persons were under any supposed influence, and the Prince of Wales was practically under the influence of the King to such an extent that it would be impossible, even supposing that he wished it, for him to withhold his consent to the King's wish. If His Royal Highness did not do so, his position would be an intolerable one; and, therefore, he could not look upon the consent of the Prince of Wales as a matter of full and free consent which should operate in a transaction of this kind. He thought that the Bill went too far, and that it would establish two unfortunate principles. In the first place, it would overturn the will of the late Queen Victoria, and within two years of her death it would upset the arrangement that Osborne should remain one of the private estates of the Crown. A great deal had been heard in recent debates about the sanctity of the will of the founder. But here they were setting aside the will of the founder by Act of Parliament within two years and without any change of circumstances. Parliament was asked to pass a Bill to confiscate the rights of the tenants in tail without compensation; and if it could do this, it could as easily take away the rights of the tenants in tail of every Member of the House of Lords without compensation. It was really a very serious matter, and might form a precedent for dealing with the rights of private individuals. Amendment moved "In page 1, line 24, after 'shall' to insert 'during His Majesty's life.'"-(Mr. Caldwell.) Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted." THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon) said he was astonished that if there was any foundation in the arguments of the hon. Member he was so scantily supported by his friends on the Benches opposite. He did not think that the hon. Member was correct in saying that there was any chance of this Bill forming a precedent with reference to the disposal of private property. The hon. Member had expressed various beliefs as to the late Queen's wishes. He did not feel that he was in a position to enter into that question. He was certain, however, that Her Majesty the late Queen would have desired no better scheme for the occupation of this estate than that which was proposed in this Bill, bearing in mind her strong feelings for her Army and Navy. So far from Osborne being a "white elephant," the country had good reason to be deeply grateful to His Majesty for the consideration which had led him to make such a magnificent gift to the nation. Osborne was an estate of very great value, and still greater prospective value. Of course, the hon. Member would hold that that fact only strengthened his argument, but all he could say was that if the Amendment were carried it would mean the end of the Bill. It would be impossible to ask the nation to make the necessary expenditure of money if the gift was to be limited to His Amendment, as it would completely Majesty's lifetime, and that was the alter the scheme of the Bill. The light in which His Majesty regarded the public would have such use of the matter. It was quite true that they grounds as the Commissioners of Works were taking away the right of the young might think it proper to give under the Prince in the estate, but the King felt, general powers of management conferred and the House would feel, that to make on them by the Acts of Parliament under this a real gift it was essential that all which they operate, but to say that the interests should be dealt with. Of course, grounds would be kept exclusively for the young Prince's interest was a remote a particular purpose, and not to allow one; if he were of age his consent would any discretion to the Commissioners, no doubt have been asked and no doubt would be to render the working of the given. It was acknowledged that they Bill absolutely impossible. It would be were taking away from an infant a right entirely for the Board of Works to make he now possessed; but that such rules and regulations as might be necessary part of the scheme, and, that necessary for convenience in carrying being so, he was satisfied that the Com- out the whole scope of the Bill, and that mittee would not consent to accept the was a matter which might safely be left Amendment. to their discretion. was a An Asterisk (*) at the commencement of 17 Speech indicates revision by the Member. HOUSE OF LORDS. Friday, 12th December, 1902. PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS. GLASGOW CORPORATION (WATER Brought from the Commons; read The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with: London Water. MAIL SHIPS BILL. Read 2 (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House tomorrow. CASE OF ALBERT TUCKER, MILITIA VOLUNTEER. arm LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War under what circumstances Albert Tucker, a Militia volunteer, who served in South Africa, lost an during the war, and has been discharged as unfit for service with a good character, was deprived by a Court of Inquiry of a provisional pension of eighteenpence a day; and of appearing before the Court, and on whether he was given an opportunity what evidence the decision of the Court was based; and whether Albert Tucker is not now, and has not been for more than a year, an inmate of the workhouse at Whiston. I regret extremely that I should consider it my duty to ask this question, because, of all things in the The same was ordered to lie on the world, I do not wish to advertise the fact Table. that a volunteer who served in South to know what the evidence was on |