Commons Sitting of 13 March 1900

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDERS 62 AND 63 COMPLIED WITH).
  MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Orders Nos. 62 and 63 have been complied with, viz.:—
  Metropolitan Water Companies Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 63 COMPLIED WITH).
  MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 63 has been complied with, viz.:—
  Christchurch, Bournemouth, and Winton Tramways Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

  PONTEFRACT PARK BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY (IRELAND) BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.

  HUNTINGDON CORPORATION BILL (BY ORDER).
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  *MR. KEARLEY:: This Bill is introduced by the Corporation of Huntingdon, and its object is to enclose the whole of the common land surrounding the town, amounting to 356 acres. They also seek to take powers to utilise the land for building purposes, either by sale or by lease, and to dispose of it in any way they may think proper. Now, the population of Huntingdon is a very small one, something under 4,500, and, although the promoters of the Bill claim that the town, being completely surrounded by these lands, is practically strangled, I think that it is a very large order on their part to ask for powers to enclose the whole of these common lands. But the object of my motion is, in the first place, to raise a very important question of principle which this Bill violates. I shall also have a word or two to say upon the merits of the Bill itself. The principles laid down by the Enclosure Acts are being violated by this Bill, which proposes to enclose without enquiry commons, to extinguish all common rights, and to vest the soil of the common lands in the corporation. They claim that they own the soil, but other people deny their title. The persons entitled to the right to use the commons are freemen of the borough and widows of freemen. They number at present thirty-three, and it is proposed by this Bill that their interest shall be extinguished, and that, in compensation, they shall receive an annuity amounting to £748 a year, to be equally divided among them. The principle of that proposal is a bad one. The corporation also propose to appropriate a sum which is at present invested in Consols, amounting to £9,000, representing the proceeds of the sales of certain portions of the lands, made from time to time to railway companies and other public bodies, and to utilise it in paying the annuities. On the merits of the Bill, my objection in the first place is that this small corporation seeks to embark
  704
  on what is really nothing more or less than a land-jobbing scheme, and in order to do this they propose to extinguish the freemen's rights by a most pernicious system of doles. I fancy that this House holds rather strong opinions upon doles generally, and I do not think it is likely to approve a proposal to establish permanently an annuity fund to be distributed in all future years to a class which will certainly increase in numbers when it is discovered that there is some pecuniary advantage attaching to the freedom of the borough. No doubt at the present moment many people who are entitled to claim their freemanship have not done so because they have not thought it worth while, but the moment it is discovered that this annuity is to be distributed they will certainly take up their right of freedom, with the result that their numbers will be largely increased, the doles will be sub-divided again and again, and a system pauperising in character will be set up. The corporation urge that it will be to the benefit of the neighbourhood to pass this scheme, because they will then be able to provide public recreation grounds and parks for the benefit of the people. They also allege that, at the present moment, the public have no right over these commons for recreation. I should like to see them test that point. If I went down there to play a game of cricket on these lands, I should like to see the corporation test their allegation by bringing an action against me. I think they would find that they had a very bad case. What is the quid pro quo they offer for the 356 acres they propose to enclose? They are only going to give the public 10½acres of land, and I say that is a very serious defect in this Bill. Only within the last two or three days, the promoters have revealed another weakness in their scheme. I read in yesterday's Times a letter, signed by the mayor and two councillors of the borough, in which they stated there was an erroneous impression that it was intended to build on the whole of this land, and they added that it was impossible to do that, as such an undertaking would occupy two centuries. Why then have they asked permission to enclose these 356 acres for building purposes, when they know and admit that they have not the slightest intention of covering the whole of the land for two centuries? Surely there must

  705
  be some more moderate course open to them. Now, the rights of freemen differ in many respects from the ordinary rights enjoyed by commoners. Generally speaking, common rights are attached to freehold or copyhold property, and people who have a property in those rights can sell them, and so they may be gradually extinguished. But the freemen's rights are vested in the whole body of freemen, and it is therefore impossible to extinguish them in the same way as ordinary common rights. The result is that these freemen will go on increasing in number, and this annuity will be split up into many sub-divisions. But the main objection I have to this Bill is that it expressly violates the provisions of the Enclosure Acts, which have been passed by this House, and which represent some of the very best work Parliament has ever done. What are the principles of those Acts? They are to be found in the Act of 1845, supplemented by the more important Act of 1876, and the whole of these Acts recognise most emphatically that the public have an interest in these common lands, apart from the interest of the owner of the soil and from the interest of the freeman. It is this public interest which the Enclosure Acts are intended to protect, and it is surely as important as, if not more important, than the interests of the owners of the soil and of the commoners. If this Bill is allowed to proceed the protection afforded by the Enclosure Acts will disappear, Parliament will be stultifying itself, and it will establish a dangerous precedent, of which other corporations will in future years seek to take advantage. What are the safeguards provided by the Enclosure Acts? In the first place there must be a local inquiry at which all individuals and all local bodies concerned have a right to be heard. The corporation tell us that they have the unanimous consent of the borough to their Bill, but that is not sufficient. They ought to have the assent of the whole neighbourhood as represented by the rural district councils, parish councils, and other local bodies. If this Bill is passed, the protection afforded by the local inquiry will be swept on one side. Then again, under the Enclosure Acts, the Board of Agriculture has to satisfy itself that the public interests are duly protected, and that the enclosure will not prejudicially affect the inhabitants of populous places near. The Board has to
  706
  make a report to Parliament on the subject, and that report has to be considered by the Standing Committee of Commons, which has been appointed for the very purpose of protecting the public interest. That safeguard will also disappear under this Bill. I hope that the House will stand by its own legislation, and will not allow again to crop up that dangerous system which prevailed prior to the passing of the Enclosure Acts, a system which led to grave scandals in the loss of public rights. I think it is fair to say that the corporation assert that had they proceeded by way of Provisional Order they could not have got all they want. They certainly would not, for I do not believe the Enclosure Commissioners would have agreed to give them power to utilise the whole of the 356acres for building purposes. Had they applied for a Provisional Order there would have been a local inquiry, and the House would not have been legislating as it were in the dark as to the wishes of the local community. Why do the promoters fear the test of a local inquiry? I think it is pretty evident they know that their proposals would not survive such an inquiry. I have endeavoured to make it clear that the House is being asked to set a dangerous precedent in allowing the principle of the Enclosure Acts to be violated, and I hope we may be able to have a disinterested vote upon this matter, and to decide the question on its merits.
  SIR JOHN BRUNNER: I think everybody will sympathise with the inhabitants of a landlocked town. It matters not whether the land around the town belongs to a large proprietor who wants to preserve the amenities of his estate, or whether it is common land; the effect is the same in each case—it cannot be built upon. As our sympathies, therefore, naturally go with the town of Huntingdon, the question resolves itself into one of degree. We of the Commons Preservation Society have approached the corporation in a very friendly way, and have asked them, not unreasonably, as I think, to limit their demand, and not to take the whole of these 356 acres, with the idea that their population will so increase as to necessitate the use of the land for the extension of the borough. Of course, I know how boroughs do increase

  707
  when the opportunity arises, and I remember watching with great interest, some years ago, the amazing growth and expansion of a town in the north of Spain when its walls and fortifications were removed. The change was immensely for the benefit of the people there, and undoubtedly, if a certain limited amount of freedom were granted to Huntingdon, equally beneficial results would follow. The letter in The Times which my hon. friend has quoted is a repetition of what members of the corporation told the Commons Preservation Society a fortnight or three weeks ago. They then said that the whole of the land could not be utilised for 200 years. In view of that, I do not think the House will listen to a demand from the representatives of 4,000 people to extinguish the public rights of recreation over this enormous area simply to provide for a possible expansion of the town 200 years hence. If the corporation can show to a Committee of the House to what extent they can, by any guess or by the wildest estimate, grow in fifty years, then the House ought to allow them to acquire so much to that extent. To my mind this Bill is very little short of flouting the decisions of this House, and I trust that if the House does give the Bill a Second Reading to-day, it will insist upon its being carefully studied in a Committee of the House, which is the recognised machinery for the protection of public rights. I beg to second the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out from the word 'That,' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, 'This House is not prepared to consider a proposal for the inclosure of common lands except when recommended by the Board of Agriculture, in accordance with the procedure and on the principles laid down by the Enclosure Acts.' "—(Mr. Kearley.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  *MR. SMITH-BARRY: One of the chief objections raised by the opponents of the Bill is that the Corporation of Huntingdon have not proceeded in what they say is the usual and regular manner. They say that the corporation should have proceeded by Provisional Order, which would have been preceded by a local inquiry, instead of coming here to-day with a
  708
  Private Bill to carry out their object When the corporation decided that they would make this proposal, and that they would get rid, if possible, of those rights—for I may say here at once that there has been constant and perpetual litigation as regards the respective rights—the corporation felt it was important once for all that the question should be set at rest. The corporation doubted whether they should proceed by Bill or Provisional Order. They took counsel's opinion, and were advised that it would be impossible for them to proceed by Provisional Order, and that the only course was to proceed by Private Bill. They were advised, and so far as I have been able to make out they were well advised, that the only course open to them to take was that they have taken; but even if they had proceeded by Provisional Order they would, for the purpose of obtaining building powers over those lands, have been compelled to proceed by Bill afterwards, so that if the Second Reading of this Bill is passed now, it goes to a Committee upstairs, and the report of the Board of Agriculture will have to be laid before that Committee. So far as we can understand, this is only the proper and legal way in which we could have proceeded, and it is the simplest and best way in the public interest. If it had been possible to proceed by Provisional Order it would have been a very much cheaper and simpler form, and the Huntingdon Corporation would have been only too glad to adopt that form of procedure; but as it was there was nothing left open for them, as they were advised by competent legal advisers, except to proceed in the manner they are proceeding now. The opposition to this Bill is that of the Commons Preservation Society. I wish to speak with every respect of the Commons Preservation Society. They are an excellent body, and they have done a great deal of valuable work in the public interest. They are the watchful guardians of the public interest in regard to public enclosures, but they are apt, like a great many other good people, to go a little further than they are entitled to do, and they are inclined to think that instead of the commons being made for the public, the public are made for the commons. The public in this case are the people of Huntingdon, and I think they are practically unanimous in wishing

  709
  that the object of this Bill should be carried out. Conservatives and Radicals alike are of one mind, and only last week the Radical local paper had the strongest possible article hoping that this House would consider carefully the merits of this Bill and give it a Second Reading when it came before it. The people who are interested in it are thirty-three. They have in their handwriting agreed to the proposals made in the Bill. The incomes derived out of the rights over those commons are calculated at £17 each. Under the provisions of the Bill they will get something like £22 each, and I really cannot see that that is too much compensation to give them for the rights which are being taken away. The corporation represents the public at large, and the corporation twice unanimously approved of the principle of the Bill. A public meeting of the inhabitants was held, and they also unanimously agreed to it. Hon. Members opposite say that the neighbourhood ought to give the sum. I scarcely know how the neighbourhood is to give the sum. What are the objects of the Bill? The objects of the Bill are that these common lands shall become the absolute property of the corporation, and that they should be empowered to let out small grants not exceeding three acres at a time for building purposes. The ground, as the hon. Member opposite has said, is small, and in a town of 4,316 inhabitants. It is surrounded by open country, with pleasant roads and footpaths going in every direction, and there is a large tract of 250 acres in extent which can never be built over. Therefore there is no question of the light or air of the people. On the contrary, the medical officer of the town itself says that the town is so congested that some of the houses are getting absolutely unhealthy, and that the town cannot increase on account of those commons, but must decrease because of the in sanitary condition of houses which must be pulled down. Other houses holding a smaller number of people will have to be erected in their stead, so that unless some power is given to the corporation to build upon these open spaces it is absolutely impossible that the town can extend, and on the contrary, it will contract. Something has been said about the common lands being places of re creation. Now as regards certain portions of the lands no one has a right to go on
  710
  them at all. Under the Bill which is before the House the corporation will make a recreation ground of ten and a half acres of the land, but the size of it is a matter of detail. If the corporation acquire the rights they seek, the grounds will really become recreation grounds for the public, and it cannot be said they are that at present. I have been authorised by the corporation to say that whereas, of course, they must purchase the rights of the freemen over the whole of the land, as regards the commons, which extend to 146 acres, they are willing to have it provided in the Bill that no buildings should be put upon 82 of those acres. Of the remaining 64 acres they will make a recreation ground of 10½ acres, leaving only 53½ acres for building purposes. Any details as to allotments and so on could be considered by the Committee. After this large concession it would be a monstrous shame that the town should remain cribbed, cabined, and confined, and be strangled for want of building room. I earnestly hope that the House will allow the Bill to be read a second time, in order that it may be considered by a Committee upstairs.
  MR. BRYCEreminded the House that the Commons Act of 1876 provided that whenever an enclosure was proposed to be made the matter should be referred to a body now represented by the Board of Agriculture; that that body should hold a local inquiry; that the report of that inquiry should be embodied in the Provisional Order, and that that Provisional Order should go before the Standing Committee of the House. The inquiries of the Committee were always conducted with the greatest possible care; witnesses representing the neighbourhood were summoned, and every opportunity was given for local opinion to be expressed; and the decisions of that Committee were always acquiesced in with satisfaction. His great objection to the present Bill was that it proposed to set aside that procedure. The Bill was prima facie an Enclosure Bill, and as such should have gone before the Board of Agriculture, and followed the procedure laid down in the Act of 1876. The questions raised could not be properly dealt with by the House as a body; they should be dealt with by a selected body, and the House had provided that selected

  711
  body in its Standing Committee. It was now asked that that body should be thrown aside, and the Bill referred to an ordinary Private Bill Committee, which had not the wide power possessed by the Standing Committee, and was not nearly as competent to deal with the matter. The only excuse urged was that the Corporation of Huntingdon desired to get by this Bill something they could not have effected by Provisional Order. That might be a reason for taking some further steps, but it was not a reason for asking the House to do something which the Act of 1876 expressly declared should be done in another way. The hon. Member for Devonport was therefore justified in asking the House to sanction the resolution he had moved as an Amendment, and to adhere to the procedure laid down in the Act of 1876. The men who happened to be members of the corporation or freemen at any particular date were not necessarily the best judges of what would be for the permanent interest of the community. The House had to guard the interests of those yet unborn, and a special procedure had been laid down with the view of protecting the interests of those who were not necessarily properly represented by the corporation or any local authority. He hoped the House would not strike a great blow at a system which had worked well for twenty-four years, but would accede to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Devonport.
  SIR W. HART DYKEasked how far the House was to proceed with the new system of opposing Private Bills on Second Reading. The practice, which was largely increasing, was a very dangerous one. It was perfectly true that some other procedure might have been adopted by the promoters of this Bill, but the best legal advice was taken and followed as to the course to be adopted. So far as the difficulties which had been raised with regard to commons, enclosures, and so on were concerned, it was enough for the House to understand that a report from the Board of Agriculture dealing with the whole of those technicalities and difficulties must be laid before the Committee upstairs. Surely that was sufficient guarantee that all legal obligations would be observed. There were no private interests concerned; and there was a unanimous population, supported by its local authority, making the
  712
  demand that the Bill should be considered by a Private Bill Committee. Considering the liberal manner in which the promoters had met the objectors to the Bill, it would be a cruel injustice to refuse to allow the Bill to be considered by a Committee, and he therefore hoped the Second Reading would be carried.
  MR. HALDANE: The right hon. Gentleman began his speech by saying that the habit had been growing in this House of imposing difficulties in the way of Private Bill legislation, and he went on to say that the Corporation of Huntington had a very great grievance in this matter which required our sympathy and attention. It may be that the case we have before us is one which the House ought to hear; but there is Private Bill legislation and Private Bill legislation. We are dealing here with a case not of an Imperial character, but one coming into a category with which the House is well accustomed to deal under a particular code. It is now nearly a century since the House laid down the principle that it would not sanction an Enclosure Act without good reason, and it laid down a code to which every Bill of this character should conform; and for the last twenty years no promoter has had the audacity to present a Bill to this House without making it conform to the code laid down in 1876. The right hon. Member for Huntingdon said there were legal difficulties in the way of adopting the usual code in this case. He did not say what they were, and I for one should like to know how far they prevented the usual course being taken. I can conceive that there might be some difficulty with respect to Lammas lands, but there can be none at all with regard to common lands, and I can conceive that it was possible in this case to have proceeded by way of Provisional Order. We feel that when these Bills come up we are not perfectly informed of the circumstances, and we are not in a position to judge the merits. Our only safety lies in conforming to procedure under which we know the Government Department is looking after the House and seeing that no injustice is being done. I desire to draw attention to the peculiar way in which this matter stands. The promoters have not approached the Minister of Agriculture and asked him either to allow their Bill to be

  713
  dealt with under the code of procedure laid down and send it to his Department, or, if they are to proceed by Private Bill procedure, to rise in his place and state the reason for that departure from our established rules. We have had no explanation as to why it is that the promoters of this Bill are allowed to proceed in this altogether exceptional form. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman, who I see is in his place, is going to give any explanation, but it would be very satisfactory if he would tell us why it is that this Bill is not going through the usual steps and stages, and I think it would be convenient if I now move the adjournment of this debate in order that we may hear the views of the Government upon the matter. I therefore beg to move that the debate on this Bill be now adjourned.
  MR. WARNER: I beg to second the motion of my hon. and learned friend. I think this matter requires a little more investigation. The case is a very peculiar one. The Bill takes a very unusual course, and I think the House ought to postpone the question, and on future consideration it may throw out the Bill, as it makes a very large encroachment on the common rights of England.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Haldane.)
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. LONG,): My hon. and learned friend opposite asks me to say what is the opinion of the Government upon this Bill, and I can state that in a very few words. I am asked why this Bill is to proceed in this manner instead of following the statute. That question can only be answered by the division now shortly to take place. Whether the promoters of the Bill have been right or wrong in the course of procedure which they have adopted is a matter with which my Department has nothing to do. My Department has the power to proceed on certain lines laid down by Parliament, and they are prepared to exercise those powers when applied to by a local authority. But there may be cases, and I am not prepared to say this is not one, where it may be desirable to proceed in the manner adopted by
  714
  the Corporation of Huntingdon, and it appears to me that it is for Parliament alone to say whether the circumstances are such as to justify a departure from the procedure which Parliament has laid down.
  MR. BRYCE: Do you approve of it?
  *MR. LONG: It is not for me to say whether I approve of it or not. The right hon. Gentleman opposite did not quite accurately describe the procedure. It is clear that the local authority would have to obtain a Provisional Order for the purposes of an enclosure first of all, and to follow that by a Private Bill for acquiring powers. But the Private Bill might be proceeded with pari passu with the Provisional Order. I am very reluctant, from the examination I have been able to make, to throw any opposition in the way of this Bill. I have investigated the facts, and I have reason to believe that there is great necessity for the extension of the borough of Huntingdon. The land in the south is not suitable because it is water-logged, and in the west there is land which ought not to be used for this purpose. The only other land which is suitable is this common land, which runs in the shape of a wedge from the north. On the other hand, I am bound to say that my hon. friend who supports this Bill and the Corporation of Huntingdon would have done better in their own interests if they had adopted the usual procedure, because, assuming that their case is so strong, the result would have been that the Board of Agriculture would have held a local inquiry, heard all the parties, and ascertained the facts of the case, and would have presented their report and shown their approval of the scheme by the issue of a Provisional Order giving the necessary powers, a course which would have strengthened the hands of the promoters of the Bill. The promoters having thought fit to take the course they have, it is entirely a matter for Parliament to say whether this is a case which has justified them in departing from the established rule.
  SIR JOHN BRUNNER: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huntingdon if there is a petitioner against the Bill. If so, there will, of course, be an inquiry; if not there cannot by any possibility be one.
  MR. SMITH-BARRY: I understand that there is a petitioner.
  SIR JOHN BRUNNER: But if the petitioner for any reason whatever withdraws, the House will be absolutely helpless. There will be no machinery whatever for amending the Bill. Under these circumstances I am very sorry not to have obtained some pledge from the Government. I sincerely hope that if not to-day, at any rate in the future, they will be prepared to maintain the procedure laid down by the House and the Government in such cases.
  MR. CHANNING: Would it not be possible for the promoters of the Bill to adopt this session the procedure of applying to the Board of Agriculture, and thus obtain a Provisional Order?
  *MR. LONG: They could not now get a Provisional Order this session.
  SIR W. HART DYKE: Is it not the fact that under the
  Provisional Order the Corporation of Huntingdon could not get building powers, and they must proceed by Bill for that?
  *MR. LONG: Under the Enclosure Acts the Corporation of Huntingdon would apply to the Board of Agriculture for powers to enclose lands. The Provisional Orders giving such power could not apply to building powers, which would have to be obtained by Private Bills.
  M. HALDANE: As the right hon. Gentleman has made it perfectly clear that he does not approve of this departure from the usual course, and that it has not his sanction, I beg leave to withdraw my motion for the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion, by Leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 143; Noes, 149. (Division List No. 64.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt Sir. Alex F.

  Denny, Colonel

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Aird, John

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Kimber, Henry

  Arnold, Alfred

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Lafone, Alfred

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Finch, George H.

  Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'nsea

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Garfit, William

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Bethell, Commander

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Biddulph, Michael

  Godson, Sir Augustus F.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Lowther, Rt. Hn. J. (Kent)

  Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Bowles, T. Gibson(King'sLynn)

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Brassey, Albert

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Brown, Alexander H.

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Carlile, William Walter

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Maclean, James Mackenzie

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Cavendish, V.C.W(Derbyshire

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo.

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Monk, Charles James

  Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r

  Hardy, Laurence

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropsh.

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Heath, James

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd)

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptf'd

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

  Hermon-Hodge, R. Trotter

  Mount, William George

  Cotton-Jodrell, Col. Edw. T. D.

  Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H.

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Myers, William Henry

  Cox, Irwin E. Bainbridge

  Howard, Joseph

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Howell, William Tudor

  O'Neill, Hon. Robt. Torrens

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd(Bolton)

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry C.

  Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Penn, John

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Jackson, Rt. Hn. Wm. Lawies

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Plunkett, Rt. Hn. H. Curzon

  Pollock, Harry Frederick

  Savory, Sir Joseph

  Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E (Taunt'n

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Seely, Charles Hilton

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Purvis, Robert

  Shaw-Stewart, M.H.(Renfrew)

  Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Sidebottom, T. H. (Stalybrdg.)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

  Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Rothschild, Hon. L. Walter

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Younger, William

  Round, James

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenham)

  Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. H.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Rutherford, John

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Mr. Smith-Barry and Sir

  Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

  Webster, Sir Richard E.

  William Hart Dyke.

  NOES.

  Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N.E.)

  Gold, Charles

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Allhusen, Augustus H. Eden

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

  Allison, Robert Andrew

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  Pilkington, R. (Lancs. Newton

  Arrol, Sir William

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Pilkington. Sir G. A. (Lancs SW

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm.

  Price, Robert John

  Baker, Sir John

  Harwood, George

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Balcarres, Lord

  Hayne, Rt. Hn. C. Seale-

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Billson, Alfred

  Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Blake, Edward

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Reid, Sir Robert Threshie

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead)

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Richardson, J. (Durham, S.E.)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Burt, Thomas

  Jenkins, Sir John Jones

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Caldwell, James

  Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez E.

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Cameron, Sir Chas. (Glasgow)

  Joicey, Sir James

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Cameron, Robert (Durham)

  Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

  Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.

  Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson-

  Kay-Shuttle worth, Rt Hn. Sir U

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Kilbride, Denis

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Cawley, Frederick

  Knowles, Lees

  Souttar, Robinson

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Leng, Sir John

  Stanley, Sir Henry M. (Lambeth

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Lloyd-George, David

  Strachey, Edward

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Lough, Thomas

  Stuart, James (Shoreditch)

  Colville, John

  Lowe, Francis William

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Crilly, Daniel

  Lowther, Rt Hn JW(Cumb'land

  Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Ox. Un.))

  Crombie, John William

  Lyell, Sir Leonard

  Tennant, Harold John

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  M'Crae, George

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Donelan, Captain A.

  M'Ewan, William

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W.

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

  Ure, Alexander

  Doxford, Sir Wm, Theodore

  Maddison, Fred.

  Wallace, Robert

  Drage, Geoffrey

  Mellor, Rt. Hon. J. W.(Yorks.)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Duckworth, James

  Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

  Wason, Eugene

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Milner, Sir Fred. George

  Weir, James Galloway

  Ellis, John Edward

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Emmott, Alfred

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Moore, Arthur (Londonderry)

  Williams, John Carvell (Notts.

  Faber, George Denison

  Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Woods, Samuel

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

  Flower, Ernest

  O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)

  Mr. Kearley and Mr.

  Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis

  O'Malley, William

  Hobhouse.

  Resolutions agreed to.

  Words added.
  Resolved, That this House is not prepared to consider a proposal for the enclosure of common lands except when recommended by the Board of Agriculture,

  719
  in accordance with the procedure and on the principles laid down by the Enclosure Acts.

  EAST LONDON WATER BILL (BY ORDER).
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. STUART: I do not rise to make any motion on this Bill, but I should like to put two questions to the President of the Local Government Board on points affecting this and the Lambeth Water Bill. The Royal Commission which has recently sat reported in favour of the purchase of water undertakings by some public authority. There is a clear and unanimous decision on that point. It has also reported in connection with the East London District that a public authority could deal with the future supply for that district better and more cheaply than the East London Water Company itself. I am quite prepared to leave these questions for the decision of the Committee, for I think it reasonable they should have these matters placed before them. But I observe that in the Act passed by the Government inter-connecting the water supply of the companies, a clause has been introduced which bars the companies from bringing forward that Act as a "valuable asset" in case of purchase. I should like to hear the opinion of the President of the Local Government Board with reference to this clause in connection with the present Bill. The other question more particularly affects the Lambeth Bill. In proposing purchase the Royal Commission has taken into account the existence of the sinking fund as part of their financial estimate. The importance of this question may be gauged by the fact that ultimately this sinking fund will amount to £150,000 a year. It is therefore necessary to safeguard the existence of this fund, but nothing is done in that direction in this Bill. I think, however, we may safely leave that to the Committee. I should like to know whether the Government intended to support intact the principle of the sinking fund in this Bill as well as in the case of the Lambeth Water Bill.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. CHAPLIN,): The hon. Mem-
  720
  ber has addressed to me one or two questions in connection with the Bill before the House, but my reply to them cannot be altogether confined to that measure, and if, therefore, I appear somewhat out of order in any of the observations I may make, I hope the House will grant me its indulgence. The Bill we are now discussing is one for increasing the storage of water to meet the wants of the water consumers of London, and upon that ground alone, if upon no other, I should feel it my duty, as representing the Local Government Board, to support the Second Reading of the Bill. With regard to the first of the other matters raised by the hon. Member—the inter-connection between the water companies of London—I may say that the Government Act applies both to this Bill and to the Bill promoted by Lambeth, which we are to consider later on. Then the hon. Member referred to the question of the sinking fund. That does not apply to the East London Bill, because there is a clause in that Bill at the present moment providing for a sinking fund. But it does apply to the Bill of the Lambeth Company. That is my answer to the two questions of the hon. Member. I can only add that personally I think there is a great deal to be said for both of the propositions dealt with in the hon. Member's questions, and I am also of opinion that they are matters which ought to be referred to and dealt with by a Select Committee. I do not think I need say anything more. Indeed, the hon. Member must be aware that if the Committee does not deal with these matters in the way he desires there will be another opportunity upon which he can take the opinion of the House in regard to them.

  LAMBETH WATER BILL (BY ORDER).
  Read a second time, and committed.
  METROPOLITAN COMMON SCHEME (PETERSHAM) PROVISIONAL ORDER.
  Bill to confirm a Scheme relating to Petersham Common, in the parish of Petersham and borough of Richmond, in the county of Surrey, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Long and Mr. Hanbury.
  METROPOLITAN COMMON SCHEME (PETERSHAM) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  "To confirm a Scheme relating to Petersham Common, in the parish of Petersham and borough of Richmond, in the county of Surrey," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 122.]
  PLYMOUTH, STONEHOUSE, AND DEVONPORT TRAMWAYS BILL.
  "To confer further powers upon the Plymouth, Stonehouse, and Devonport Tramways Company; to amend the Acts relating to that company; and for other purposes," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  BRIGHTON CORPORATION BILL.
  Ordered, That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee on the Brighton Corporation (Water) Bill, in the Session of 1896, be referred to the Committee on the Brighton Corporation Bill.—(Dr. Farquharson.)

  STANDING ORDERS.
  Resolutions reported from the Committee:—

  1. That, in the case of the Barnsley Corporation Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill, provided that Clauses 17–47, relating to Tramways, be struck out of the Bill:—That the Committee on the Bill do report how far such Order has been complied with."

  2. "That, in the case of the Bray and Enniskerry Railway Bill, Petition of the 'Wicklow County Council' for dispensing with Standing Order 129 in the case of their Petition against the Bill, the said Standing Order ought to be dispensed with."

  3. "That, in the case of the London and South-Western Railway Bill, Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to introduce their additional Provision, if the Committee on the Bill think fit."

  4. "That, in the case of the St. David's Railway (Abandonment) Petition, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed
  722
  with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

  STANDING ORDERS.
  MR. HALSEYreported from the Select Committee on Standing Orders, That they had agreed to the following Resolution:—
  "That, in the case of the Special Report of the Examiner on the Great Grimsby Street Tramways Bill [Lords], referred to them by Order of the House of the 26th February, 1900, they are of opinion that the Standing Orders have been complied with."
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to explain, vary, or alter the Deed of Settlement of the Universal Life Assurance Society; and for other purposes." Universal Life Assurance Society Bill [Lords].
  And, also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers on the Scottish Widows' Fund and Life Assurance Society and the directors thereof; to amend the Acts relating to the Society; and for other purposes." Scottish Widows' Fund and Life Assurance Society Bill [Lords]

UNIVERSAL LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY BILL [Lords].
  SCOTTISH WIDOWS' FUND AND LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY BILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
PETITIONS.
  ECCLESIASTICAL ASSESSMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions against, from Aberdeen; and Kirkcaldy; to lie upon the Table.
  GOVERNMENT PROPERTY (EXEMPTION FROM RATES).
  Petition from Poplar, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Dundee, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  Petitions, in favour; from Great Crosby; Llandaff; and Dinas Powis; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT (1894) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Dundee, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Garforth; Shireoaks; Halton; Micklefield; and Bowers; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petition in favour, from Hertford; and Leeds; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Great Dalby; Pollokshaws (two);Sunday School Union; Birmingham; Glasgow; and Dundee; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (No. 2) BILL.
  Petition from Streatham Hill, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SUNDAY CLOSING (MONMOUTHSHIRE) BILL AND SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Newton Abbot; Ashburton; and Teignmouth; to lie upon the Table.

  SUNDAY CLOSING (MONMOUTHSHIRE) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Uxbridge; Norwich; Ryde; Heanor; Bath; Rushden; John Duncan; Walkley; Kettering; London (three); Marlpool; Langley; Malton; Hertfordshire; Darlington; Fulham (two); Deptford; Strand; Stratford; West London; Kennington; Clacton-on-Sea; Colchester; Sheffield; Langley Mill; Kilburn; Ossett; Morley; Abergavenny; Cwmbran (two); Gloucester; Llanhilleth (two); Woodford Green; Oldham Lightcliffe; Darwen (two); Hyde; Risca; Edinburgh; Upper Cwmbran; Llanvrechva Upper; Silvertown; Canning Town; Plaistow; Bedwellty; Darlington; Abercarn (two); Limehouse; South Monmouth; New-
  724
  bridge; Rogerstone; Crosskeys; Penmain; and Abersychan; to lie upon the Table.

  TOWN COUNCILS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Nairn; and Newport; to lie upon the Table.
  WATER SUPPLY (METROPOLIS) (RECOMMENDATIONS OF ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Petition from West Ham, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS.
  Return [presented 12th March] to be printed. [No. 94.]
  LONDON GOVERNMENT ACT, 1899 (METROPOLITAN BOROUGHS).
  Copy presented, of Drafts of Orders in Council for the establishment of each of the undermentioned Metropolitan Boroughs, and incorporating the Council thereof, and for other purposes connected therewith:—Battersea, Bermondsey, Bethnal Green, Deptford, Fulham, Greenwich, Hackney, Hammersmith, Hampstead, Islington, Lambeth, Lewisham, Poplar, St. Marylebone, Shoreditch, Southwark, Stoke Newington, Wandsworth, and Woolwich [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  FINANCE ACT, 1894.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, date 24th October, 1899, appointing a Committee to examine into the operation of Section 4 of the Finance Act, 1894, and other matters, and of the Report of the Committee dated February, 1900 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  AFRICA (No. 2, 1900).
  Copy presented, of Correspondence with the Presidents of the South African Republic and of the Orange Free State respecting the war [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  TAXES AND IMPOSTS.
  Return ordered, "Showing (1) the Rates of Duties, Taxes, or Imposts collected by Imperial Officers; (2) the Quantities or Amounts taxed; (3) the

  725
  Gross Receipts derived from each Duty; and (4) the net Receipts and Appropriation thereof in the year ending the 31st day of March, 1900; and (1) the aggregate Gross Receipts derived from all such Duties, Taxes, or Imposts under the principal heads of revenue; (2) the aggregate net Receipts; (3) the Charges of Collection; and (4) the Produce, after deducting these Charges, in each of the ten years ending the 31st day of March, 1900."
  "And, Notes to show any changes in the Taxes, Duties, and Imposts consequent upon the acceptance of the Budget Proposals of 1900 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 321, of Session 1899)."—(Mr. Goddard.)

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  MR. HALSEYreported from the Committee of Selection, That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Law and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure:—Sir Charles Dilke; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Lloyd-George.
  MR. HALSEYfurther reported from the Committee, That they had added to the Standing Committee on Law and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure, the following Fifteen Members in respect of the Midwives Bill:—Dr. Ambrose, Mr. Bonsor, Mr. Flower, Mr. Vicary Gibbs, Mr. Hazell, Mr. Howard, Mr. Humphreys-Owen, Mr. Heywood Johnstone, Sir Powlett Milbank, Mr. T. P. O'Connor, Sir George Pilkington, Mr. Schwann, Mr. Tennant, Mr. Thornton, and Mr. Tritton.
  MR. HALSEYfurther reported from the Committee of Selection, That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures:—Mr. Lloyd-George; and had appointed in substitution: Sir Charles Dilke.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

  STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORreported from the Chairmen's Panel, That they had appointed Mr. Laurence Hardy to act as Chairman of the Standing Committee for the consideration of Bills relating to Law
  726
  and Courts of Justice and Legal Procedure.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—OVERTURES BY THE REPUBLICS FOR PEACE.
  *MR. CHANNING: In putting to the First Lord of the Treasury the question on the paper, namely, on what day the House may expect to receive the Papers promised in relation to the proposals of Presidents Kruger and Steyn asking for conditions of peace; and whether the Papers will be restricted to those communications and the replies of Her Majesty's Government, or will include other correspondence and documents of later date than the last South African Blue-book, I should like to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is able to make to the House the communication which I understand has been made in another place.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I understand that the correspondence, which will be immediately laid, has been read publicly to the House of Lords this afternoon by the Prime Minister. If the House desires it I will read it here.
  [Mr. BALFOUR then read the telegrams which appear on page 700 of this volume.]

  STORMBERG AND MAGERSFONTEIN ENGAGEMENTS—OFFICIAL DESPATCHES.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can lay the despatches on the action at Magersfontein upon the Table.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg at the same time to ask the Secretary of State for War when he will communicate to the public the despatches of Sir W. Gatacre dealing with the reverse of Stormberg, and those of Lord Methuen dealing with Magersfontein, fought 10th and 11th December, three months since.
  *THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS,) (for Mr. Wyndham): In reply to these two ques-

  727
  tions, the despatches referred to are now being printed, and will shortly be gazetted.

  ALLEGED OFFER OF SURRENDER BY 3,000 BOERS.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he has any information to the effect that a commando of 3,000 Boers offered to surrender on terms to Lord Roberts, but that their offer was rejected because the conditions were impossible; and whether he can inform the House what those conditions were.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. WYNDHAM): Nothing is known at the War Office of this matter.

  WIRE-CUTTERS.
  MR. NUSSEY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he is in a position to make any further statement as to how many additional wire-cutters have been sent to the army in South Africa since 1st February.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. WYNDHAM): One thousand six hundred and eighty wire-cutters have been sent out since 1st February, in addition to those which have gone out with units.

  LONDON SCOTTISH VOLUNTEER CORPS' ACCOUNTS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether it is the practice of Volunteer corps to make out a statement of accounts annually and to issue a balance sheet to members; and, if so, will he explain why the London Scottish Volunteer corps has failed to issue a balance sheet for many years.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. WYNDHAM): A Volunteer corps is required to render to the War Office an annual account of its public funds and to exhibit a copy in the orderly room. The communication to the members of any statement of accounts of the private funds of the corps is not a matter within the jurisdiction of the War Office.

  LEE-ENFIELD RIFLES.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he will state the result of the inquiries which have been instituted into the inaccurate sighting
  728
  of the Lee-Enfield rifles which were issued to the troops in the early part of the year; and will he say what steps have been taken to ensure satisfactory tests and prevent faulty rifles being again issued, and what officers are now responsible for the testing.
  *MR. J. POWELL WILLIAMS (for Mr. Wyndham): The question has been referred to an expert committee. The officers of the inspection branch of the Army Ordnance Department carry out the testing.

  VOLUNTEER MOUNTED INFANTRY—CAPITATION GRANT.
  MR. MCCRAE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War when the War Office will be able to announce the amount of the capitation grant to be given to Volunteer mounted infantry companies; whether permission will be given for companies of, say, fifty strong going into camp and receiving free transport and daily ration allowances; and whether such permission would preclude the mounted infantry attending their brigade or regimental camps in the same year.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: This matter was dealt with in the statement of my hon. friend the Under Secretary of State last night. I am not yet able to announce the amount of the capitation grant which will be given in the few cases in which Volunteer corps will be allowed to form mounted companies.
  MR. MCCRAE: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question?
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: That is one of the conditions not at present settled. I cannot answer the question more fully.

  REPORT OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR RECRUITING.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War when the report of the Inspector General for Recruiting will be issued.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: The report will be issued very shortly.

  VACCINATION IN THE ARMY—CASE OF JOSEPH DONOVAN, KING'S OWN YORKSHIRE LIGHT INFANTRY.
  MR. BAYLEY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary

  729
  of State for War whether his attention has been called to the death of Joseph Donovan, a private in the King's Own Yorkshire Light Infantry, who, according to the findings of a coroner's inquest at Derby on 3rd March, died on 11th February from pneumonia, secondary to pemphigus following vaccination; whether, in view of the fact that another soldier at Pontefract suffered during the same month from this rare disease supervening on vaccination, he will cause a strict investigation to be made into the source of the lymph used, in accordance with the recommendation of the jury; and whether he will advise that compensation be paid to the deceased's widowed mother on account of the loss of her son.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. Wyndham): Yes, Sir. There were three cases in all, two of which proved fatal. A careful inquiry is being made into these cases. The lymph used was from three different calves, and from these same calves lymph was used in the vaccination of over 16,000 cases without any other unfavourable reports. No award from Army funds can be granted as compensation; but if the man's mother was dependent on him for support, the Patriotic Fund will be able to help her.

  ESTIMATED MILITARY AND NAVAL EXPENDITURE FOR 1900.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what is now the estimate of expenditure in the present financial year, and what the estimate for the next financial year, of the expenditure on capital account by the Admiralty and the War Office under the Naval Works Acts, the Military Works Acts, or otherwise, in addition to any sums repaid by annuities charged on Estimates.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,):The estimate of expenditure, exclusive of annuities charged on Estimates, is as follows:—

  —

  Present Financial Year.

  Next Financial Year.

  Naval Works Acts

  £1,460,479

  £2,541,521

  Barracks Act, 1890

  186,000

  76,500

  Military Works Acts

  866,000

  1,085,000

  POLITICAL PENSIONS.
  MR. BAYLEY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state how many political pensions of £2,000 a year, £1,200 a year, and £800 a year, respectively, have been granted for life under the 32 and 33 Vic, c. 60, and the 4 and 5 Will. IV., c. 24, to persons still living; whether he will give the names of the present pensioners, and the date of the grant of their pensions; and whether, having regard to the terms of the statute under which these pensions are granted, it is the practice of the Treasury to require a pensioner to renounce his pension when his income from private or official sources ceases to be inadequate to maintain his station in life.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The hon. Member will find all the particulars he desires in the Return presented to the House on June 13, 1898, No. 235 of 1898, and in the last Finance Accounts, Paper No. 258 of last session. It has been the practice for the last fifteen years to require the recipient of a political pension to give an undertaking that if subsequent to the grant of the pension he receives an accession of fortune he should resign his pension.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: May I ask why the name of Lord Cross appears as the recipient of a pension, seeing that he continues to hold office?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: For the obvious reason that it is an office without pay.

  SOLDIERS' ESTATES AND THE DEATH DUTIES.
  GENERAL RUSSELL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the intention of the Board of Inland Revenue to exclude from the exemption from estate duty, conferred under Section 8 (1) of the Finance Act, 1894, estates of non-commissioned officers above the rank of corporal, dying in Her Majesty's service during the present war; and, it so, is such exclusion in accordance with any legal decision; and what is the ground for making a distinction between one kind of non-commissioned officer and another.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Section 8 (1) of the Finance Act, 1894, makes applicable to estate duty the 'existing

  731
  law and practice" with respect to "the exemption of the property of common seamen, marines, or soldiers who are slain or die in the service of Her Majesty." The practice in the past, dating from the beginning of the century, has been to exclude from such exemption the property of non-commissioned officers in the Army above the rank of corporal, and the Act of 1894 confers no power to alter the practice.

  ADMIRALTY CONTRACTS—SHIPBUILDING.
  MR. H. S. FOSTER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether firms tendering for the construction of battleships and cruisers have had their tenders accepted by the Admiralty on condition that they extended the required period for construction.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. Goschen,): I need scarcely say that the whole policy of the Board of Admiralty is in exactly the opposite direction to the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman's question. We have, of course, been anxious for the quickest possible construction of ships. I have puzzled over the possible genesis of the delusion that we accepted tenders on condition that firms extended the period required for construction, and the only thing that I have been able to hunt up which could be twisted into supporting it has been the circumstance that one firm offered on one occasion earlier delivery of a cruiser than the contract date in the form of tender, if we could guarantee the earlier delivery of armour than stated in the invitation to tender. This guarantee we were unable to give. At the same time we informed the firm that any earlier delivery of the vessel they might find it possible to realise would be fully appreciated by the Board.

  PORTSMOUTH DOCKYARD LABOURERS—BACK PAY.
  SIR JOHN BAKER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty when the whole of the men entitled to back payment in Portsmouth Dockyard will be paid, consequent upon an order of the Admiralty, dated 10th August, 1899, which directed that the new scheme for payment of skilled labourers was to
  732
  date as from 1st July, and not deferred till 1st November, and, if payment is deferred beyond the present financial year, will the men be deprived of their, back pay.
  MR. GOSCHEN: The men will in no case be deprived of the back pay to which they may be found to be entitled under the order in question.

  INDIAN SIEGE BATTERIES.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether it is proposed to horse the 5·4 howitzer siege batteries now in India; and whether these siege guns are taken on manœuvres and to camps of exercises, and in what way they differ essentially from the 5-inch howitzer, which is not a siege gun.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): It is proposed to substitute horses for elephants and bullocks in the equipment of 5·4-inch howitzer batteries in India. These howitzers are taken to manœuvres and camps of exercise. They differ from the 5-inch howitzer in throwing a 60lb. instead of a 50lb. shell, while their total weight behind team is about 6 cwt. greater.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Indian War Department continue to insist upon the manufacture of a 5·4 howitzer, carrying a 60lb. projectile, in view of the fact that there is no other gun of this calibre in Her Majesty's service by sea or land; and that the guns adopted by the War Office for service out of India are a 5-inch gun with a 50lb. projectile, and a 6-inch gun with 100lb. projectile; and will he explain what public advantage attaches to the retention of this weapon.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I cannot say whether the manufacture of the 5·4 inch howitzer will be continued. It is not intended that more than two heavy batteries in India shall be armed with this weapon, and there are already in India a sufficient number of these howitzers for that purpose. I fully recognise the importance of seeming uniformity of pattern between the Indian and home services; but as has been stated more than once in this House, there were

  733
  special grounds for the introduction of this particular howitzer. It has, according to the latest official report from India, proved itself a simple and powerful weapon, calculated to form a valuable addition to a field army; and its withdrawal from service would involve a serious sacrifice of public money.

  CHIEF PRESIDENCY MAGISTRATE OF MADRAS.
  MR. LLOYD MORGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, when the post of Chief Presidency Magistrate of Madras recently became vacant, it was given to an officer of the Madras police who had no judicial experience; whether similar posts in Bombay and Calcutta are always filled by lawyers of experience; and whether Mr. W. E. Clarke had invariably acted as Chief Presidency Magistrate of Madras whenever a temporary vacancy occurred within the last few years; whether he was so acting within a short time of the last vacancy occurring; and whether, in the event of any such vacancy occurring in future in Madras, he will adopt the same course as that followed in filling the similar posts in Bombay and Calcutta.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I have no knowledge of the appointment referred to in the hon. Member's question. The power to make it rests entirely with the Government of Madras, and I am not aware of any sufficient reason for interfering with their discretion and responsibility in the matter. I believe that in Madras there are recent precedents for appointing to this post officers whose experience has been confined to police business, and that the results have been quite satisfactory.

  PACIFIC CABLE SCHEME—CONCESSIONS TO THE EASTERN TELEGRAPH COMPANY.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the rights now on the point of being ceded to the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company by the Australian Governments materially alter and affect the conditions upon which the Pacific Cable scheme, to which these Governments are signatories, has been based; and that the Canadian Government regard these concessions as likely to defeat and probably
  734
  to lead to the abandonment of the enterprise; and whether Her Majesty's Government have intimated their acquiescence to the grant of these concessions; and, if not, whether they have addressed any remonstrances to the Australian Governments with the object of inducing them to renounce their intention of infringing the terms of the Pacific Cable scheme.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): The question how the proposed concession to the Eastern Extension Company of the right to open its own offices in the Australian capitals when the Pacific Cable has been laid will affect that scheme has been referred to the Pacific Cable Committee for consideration and report. The hon. Member will see from the correspondence recently laid before the House that Her Majesty's Government have stated that the question of these concessions is one for the Colonial Governments concerned, but they have asked the Governments of New South Wales and Victoria, to defer concluding any agreement with the company until the Cable Committee has reported on the question.

  BRITISH HONDURAS RAILWAY.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the draft agreement and specification for the construction of the British Honduras Railway which was being drawn up in January is ready, or whether there is likely to be further delay.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The draft is in print, and will be ready very shortly.

  CORPORATION AND DISTRICT COUNCIL STOCKS.
  MR. NUSSEY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the difference which exists between the stocks of corporations and those of district councils—the former where the population is over 50,000 being trust securities; whereas the latter, whatever the population or the rateable value, are not; and whether he will consider the advisability of bringing in a Bill to remove this difference.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I am in communication with the Lord Chancellor on the subject of amending the law re-

  735
  lating to trust investments, and will bear in mind the stocks of district councils, the position of which has already been brought to my attention.

  DELAGOA BAY ARBITRATION.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the remuneration to the jurists on the Delagoa Bay Arbitration amounts to £5,000 a year; whether they have been sitting for about nine years; and whether, in answer to questions put to Ministers in 1894, 1896, and 1898* by the hon. Member for Canterbury, it was stated that there was good reason for believing that the award would not be much longer delayed, or that the final award was expected in the autumn of 1898; and whether the information to this effect given in the House of Commons on the 28th March, 1898, to the hon. Member for Canterbury, was supplied to Her Majesty's Government by the President of the Berne Tribunal.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BRODRICK,):: No sum has been named for the remuneration of the arbitrators. The answer to the second paragraph is in the affirmative. Her Majesty's Minister has not been in communication with the President of the Berne Tribunal. The information given to the House was obtained from other sources.

  UNIVERSITY EDUCATION ABROAD.
  MR. ARTHUR MOORE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can now state when the Papers relative to university education abroad will be laid upon the Table; and if he will endeavour to produce them before the debate on the Irish University question.
  MR. BRODRICK: These Papers will be distributed at the end of the present week.

  FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE REGULATIONS.
  MR. SOAMES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture
  *See The Parliamentary Debates (Fourth Series], 5th April, 1894, Vol. xxii., page 1451; 21st February, 1896, Vol. xxxvii., page 824; 28th March, 1898, Vol. lv., page 1066.
  736
  what period has elapsed since the last outbreak of foot and mouth disease in the county of Norfolk; and whether he can now withdraw all restrictions from the petty sessional districts of Diss, Earsham, Swainsthorpe, and Loddon and Clavering, or from any of those districts.
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. LONG,): The last outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Norfolk was discovered by one of our inspectors on the 20th February. By an order issued yesterday, which is to come into operation to-morrow, the restrictions have been withdrawn from the petty sessional divisions of Diss and Earsham, and they have been somewhat modified in Swainsthorpe and Loddon and Clavering, with a view to meet the more urgent necessities of the stock owners concerned.
  MR. H. S. FOSTER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that the outbreak of foot and mouth disease took place at Fritton, in a place locally called the Island, naturally isolated by the sea, Lake Lothing, the River Waveney, and Breydon Water, with a tract of marshes following the course of the river with a width of from one to four miles, and at this time of the year entirely bare of stock; whether he can see his way to open for the sale of all stock, under a declaration and licence, all Suffolk south of the Waveney; and, in any case, whether he is now able to considerably reduce the scheduled area, having regard to the consequences to the farmers of any continued prolongation of the present restrictions. I beg also to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware of the loss which is being inflicted upon farmers, graziers, and other agriculturists by the restrictions imposed by his Department in Norfolk and Suffolk in connection with the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in North Suffolk some time ago, and particularly by the wide area over which these restrictions prevail, extending for thirty miles and upwards from the infected area; whether the time has now arrived for largely modifying these restrictions; and, in particular, whether he will consider the advisability of limiting the infected area to five miles from the point where the outbreak occurred, and of authorising holders of stock in the

  737
  scheduled area but outside the infected area to send their cattle to markets such as Ipswich, Colchester, or London, the cattle being marked with the broad arrow and slaughtered within four days.
  *Mr. LONG: In reply to my hon. friend, I would say that it is the case that an outbreak of foot and mouth disease occurred at Fritton, the geographical features of which are doubtless correctly described in the question; but my hon. friend will remember that five other outbreaks have since occurred in other parts of the scheduled district, and one in Bedfordshire. By an Order to come into operation to-morrow, the petty sessional divisions of Beccles and Bungay, with the borough of Bungay, have been withdrawn from the scheduled district, and the restrictions have been somewhat modified in that portion of Suffolk still included therein. At the moment no further relief can be afforded with safety.

  ETON UNION WORKHOUSE— FATALITY TO A CHILD.
  SIR JOSEPH SAVORY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to the case of a child, aged three years, who was scalded to death in the Eton Union Workhouse, on 18th February, through being placed in a bath of boiling water by a girl, aged fifteen years, who herself had been a pauper inmate of the union for five weeks, and was the only attendant in charge; and what steps it is proposed to take to prevent a recurrence of such a fatality.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Chaplin,: My attention has been called to the unfortunate case referred to, and at my request the medical officer has made a report on the subject. I am in communication with the guardians with regard to the matter, and especially as to the steps to be taken to prevent any similar occurrence in future.

  FRASERBURGH AND ST. COMBS LIGHT RAILWAY.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in the case of the Light Railway Order for the Fraserburgh and St. Combs Railway, the Great North
  738
  of Scotland Company has made application for the Treasury grant for the scheme; and whether he will be able to take steps to urge on the commencement of the undertaking, which has been long delayed.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,): I understand that the answer to the first paragraph is in the negative. The Board of Trade will communicate with the company and endeavour to ascertain their intentions.

  SMALL HOLDINGS IN ROSS-SHIRE.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether any scheme is yet in progress for the purpose of providing small holdings on the mainland of Ross-shire suitable for occupation by cottars and others who may be prepared to migrate from congested districts; and, if not, will he say whether any efforts have been made to acquire land, and the cause of the delay in the preparation of a suitable scheme.
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): No scheme is yet in progress on the mainland of Ross, and it is impossible within the scope of an answer to a question to deal adequately with all the considerations involved; but they will be referred to in the second report of the Congested Districts Board which the Secretary for Scotland hopes will be in the hands of Members next month.

  LIGHTHOUSES ON THE SCOTTISH COAST.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, in view of a statement contained in the Appropriation Accounts, 1898–9, under Class 7, Vote 3, to the effect that the account of the Congested Districts (Scotland) Fund includes a charge of £403 13s. 2d. for the erection of minor lighthouses erected on the coasts of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, will he state the names of these lighthouses, and where they are respectively situated.
  *Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: If the hon. Member will refer again to the Appropriation Accounts 1898–9 from which he quotes, he will find that the sum he mentions was not expended for the erection, but for the maintenance of minor

  739
  lighthouses, as explained in paragraph 4 of the Controller and Auditor General's Report attached thereto. The names of the lighthouses so maintained are given at page 10 of the Appendix to the first Report of the Congested Districts Board.

  SCOTTISH CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD EXPENDITURE.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, in view of the fact that the sum of £2,114 12s. 4d. was spent by the Congested Districts Board for Scotland during the year ended 31st March, 1899, in administering an expenditure of £8,973 17s. 8d., will he state what steps the Secretary for Scotland proposes to take in order to prevent one year's administrative charges of the Board amounting to as much as 25 per cent. of the total amount expended.
  *Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: It is obvious that the figures for the first full year of the administration of the Board in which the working staff had to be organised and in which the various schemes of expenditure had necessarily not advanced to maturity, cannot form a normal standard of comparison; and the percentages given in the hon. Member's question are in the circumstances meaningless figures. I may add that the Secretary for Scotland considers that the Board has, up to the present time, been very economically administered, and that a curtailment of its expenses would interfere with the proper execution of its important duties.
  MR WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, having regard to the fact that free postage has now been granted to the head office of the Fishery Board, will he consider the expediency of communicating with the Postmaster General with a view to a similar concession being secured for the Congested Districts Board for Scotland.
  *SIR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I am informed by the Congested Districts Board that the question of free postage was considered by them; but, as Section 8 (2) of the Act of 1897 makes the administrative expenses of the Board payable from the sums voted by Parliament, it was decided by the Treasury that postage must be paid and charged against the Vote.

  PUBLIC TELEPHONE EXCHANGES.
  MR. CRILLY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether any licences to form public telephone exchanges under the Act of last session have been applied for to the Post Office; if so, how many; and how many such licences have been granted; how many of them have been granted to public corporations, and how many to incorporated companies; how many licences are in force in opposition to the existing licences held by the National Telephone Company; and in what districts are such competing licences operating.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY,): Three actual applications for licences for telephone business have been made by local authorities. In one case a licence has been granted—namely, to the Corporation of Glasgow, for an area co-extensive with the Glasgow area of the National Telephone Company. The Postmaster General has also been in correspondence with twenty-two other local authorities, who are considering whether they shall apply for licences. Two applications for licences have been made by companies. A licence has been granted to the Mutual Telephone Company of Manchester for the borough of Salford and certain adjacent urban districts. The other application has been referred for approval to the corporation concerned, in accordance with Section 3 of the Telegraph Act, 1899. There is, of course, a telephone system worked by the local authority in the island of Guernsey.

  POSTMEN'S PENSIONS—CASE OF R. PRIDDLE.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he will inquire into the case of R. Priddle, postman, S.E.D.O., who applied for a pension on 9th November, 1899, having met with an accident when on duty in April of the same year, after over twenty-eight years service, and who has been left without pay, half-pay, or pension since the above-mentioned date; and whether he can state the cause of the delay in this and similar cases, which presses upon those in the postal service who become incapacitated.
  MR. HANBURY: A statement of Priddle's service was submitted to the Treasury with the view to the award of a pension on the 7th inst., and the award when made would, in the ordinary course, take effect from the date of the cessation of his pay—that is to say, from the 9th November last. The unusual delay which took place in this case is regretted, and was due to the numerous inquiries which it was found necessary to make before the statement of the man's service could be put forward. An advance has been made to him pending an award of pension.

  FLOGGING IN PRISONS.
  *Mr. LLOYD MORGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there are any cases within the last five years where prisoners have been sentenced to be flogged, and where the Home Secretary has either remitted the flogging or ordered a reduction of the number of lashes; and, if so, whether he will state the number of such cases.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY,): There was no interference with any of the sentences of flogging in the years 1895, 1896, and 1898, except that in the latter year there was one remission on medical grounds. In 1897 one such sentence was remitted. In 1899 two sentences were remitted altogether; in two other cases where the sentence ordered a second flogging the second flogging was remitted, and in another case where it ordered a third flogging the third flogging was remitted.
  MR. LLOYD MORGAN: Were all the remissions of punishment on the ground of ill-health?
  *SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: No, Sir.

  LADYSMITH REJOICINGS AT CAMBRIDGE.
  COLONEL PRYCE-JONES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the conviction of certain undergraduates of the University of Cambridge by the local magistrates for the offence of burning some pro-
  742
  perty on the night of the national celebration of the relief of Ladysmith; and whether, as the effect of this conviction is to incapacitate these undergraduates from entering any of the learned professions, he will consider whether a free pardon might be granted to these young offenders.
  *SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: My attention has been called to this case, and I am at present making inquiry into it. I cannot answer the question to-day, but I may remind my hon. and gallant friend that the offence of which these undergraduates were convicted was not wilful damage, but larceny.

  PRECAUTIONS AGAINST FIRE IN NATIONAL MUSEUMS.
  MR. EMMOTT: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether, in view of the value of the works of art which will be stored in the national museums shortly to be built, every effort will be made to reduce the danger of fire; and whether all the casings and wood fittings will be made of the non-inflammable wood now specified for all the wood fittings in ships of war.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): Every effort will be made to reduce the danger of fire in the new buildings about to be erected at South Kensington. The wood fittings and casings in those buildings will be reduced to a minimum; and the architects have been instructed to consider the desirability of applying the non-inflammable process to those fittings.

  SALE OF DRINK AT THE HOUSE.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Hammersmith whether the Kitchen Committee are still carrying on the sale of drink in the House and its precincts, in the same way as it was carried on when the Attorney General gave his opinion in the House of Commons that such sale was illegal.
  GENERAL GOLDSWORTHY: The Kitchen Committee sell drink in the precincts of the House of Commons. As regards the second part of the question, I do not know.

  MARLBOROUGH STREET TRAINING COLLEGE, DUBLIN.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether four teachers were recently rusticated from the Marlborough Street Training College, Dublin; what were the grounds of complaint against them; were these complaints investigated by the Board or by the college authorities, and were the teachers in question given any opportunity of meeting the charges made against them or being heard in their own defence; and if he has any objection to lay upon the Table of the House the report on which the Commissioners acted.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,) (for Mr. G. W. Balfour): Four Queen's Scholars were sent home from the training college in February last, owing to frequent absences from duty through ill-health. This was the only ground of complaint against them. The absences were reported by the principals of the college, and the cause of the absence was certified in each case by the medical officer. The duration of the absence was considered to preclude their proper completion of the current training course, but they may be admitted to a succeeding one. The matter is not of sufficient importance to justify the laying of the report in question on the Table of the House, as suggested.

  MURDER OF HUGH THOMPSON, IN FERMANAGH.
  MR. AHCHDALE: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether any particulars are to hand as to the murder last week in Fermanagh of a man named Hugh Thompson; and whether Gilmartin, the man whose hay had been burned and on whose behalf Thompson was to give evidence, had been denounced at meetings in Belcoo of the United Irish League for taking an evicted farm.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is the United Irish League to be made responsible for every crime committed in Ireland?
  MR. ATKINSON: A man named Gilmartin, in May last, took a farm from which the previous tenant had been evicted. A meeting was held in June,
  744
  under the auspices of the United Irish League, close to the evicted farm, at which Gilmartin was denounced by reference, though not by name, and it was suggested by several of the speakers that he should be boycotted. He was subsequently rigorously boycotted. His hay having been burnt in October, he claimed compensation for malicious injury. This claim was to have been heard at the assizes at Enniskillen. Thompson, the murdered man, was a friend of Gilmartin, and, although of a different religion, supported him, and aided him in resisting the boycott, and was about to be examined as a witness to sustain Gilmartin's claim. Three men have been arrested charged with the crime, the motive and cause of which will be investigated at the trial. At this stage I do not think it proper to express any opinion on the subject.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Can the Attorney General say why Irish transgressions are so eagerly advertised by Ulster Members?
  [No answer was given.]

  LOAN FUND BANKS.
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland if he could see his way to add to his Loan Fund Bill a clause to provide a compassionate grant to save debenture holders from losing money which in good faith they invested in loan fund banks.
  MR. ATKINSON: The suggestion of the hon. Member cannot be adopted, for reasons that I hope to state on the Second Reading of the Bill.

  RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH—DISTURBANCES DIRECTED AGAINST OPPONENTS OF THE WAR.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury a question of which I have given him private notice. It is whether, in view of the numerous recent instances of violent disturbances connected with peaceable meetings called for the discussion of South African affairs, or directed against the personal property of individuals, owing to their supposed opinions upon the present war, Her Majesty's Government will cause inquiry to be made, how far and by whom those disturbances were organised, and will consider what steps are necessary to

  745
  prevent a repetition of these discreditable occurrences, and to punish the offenders.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I received the light hon. Gentleman's notice not very long ago. I shall consult with my right hon. friend the Home Secretary upon the subject, and if the right hon. Gentleman will put the question on Thursday, either to me or to the Home Secretary, we will endeavour to reply to it.

NEW BILLS.
  COLONIAL SOLICITORS.
  Bill to provide for the admission of Solicitors of Courts of British Possessions to the Supreme Courts in the United Kingdom, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hedderwick, Sir James Woodhouse, Sir Albert Rollit, Mr. Warr, Mr. Helder, Mr. Lloyd-George, and Mr. Schwann.
  COLONIAL SOLICITORS BILL.
  "To provide for the admission of Solicitors of Courts of British Possessions to the Supreme Courts in the United Kingdom," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 123.]
  RIVERS POLLUTION PREVENTION.
  Bill to make more effectual provision for preventing the pollution of rivers and streams, ordered to be brought in by Sir Francis Powell, Mr. Wilson-Todd, Mr. Hobhouse, Sir John Dorington, Sir Henry Howorth, Dr. Farquharson, Mr. Brigg, Sir John Brunner, and Sir Walter Foster.
  RIVERS POLLUTION PREVENTION BILL.
  "To make more effectual provision for preventing the pollution of rivers and streams," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday, 2nd April, and to be printed. [Bill 124.]
WAR LOAN BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now road a second time."
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time this day six months. One of my objections to this Bill is that I do not think it is a proper way to raise money for carrying on the present war. At the time of the Crimean War a great deal of the necessary cost was raised by direct taxation, whereas only something like £12,000,000 is now to be raised by taxation on articles of consumption. The balance is to be raised by way of loan repayable in ten years. I think that is not a candid way of meeting the expense of the war. Sooner or later this loan will have to be repaid, and the burden will then fall on the taxpayers. By means of it you are deceiving and deluding the people as to what the war is actually costing. I think it would be more candid and fairer to impose additional taxation to a greater extent, especially as we are told that the war fever is so strong in England that there would be no objection to fresh taxation. So much from that point of view. But I object to participating in the slightest degree in the passage of this loan from an Irish point of view. I consider, quite sincerely and honestly, that it would be little short of a crime if Irish Members in the present financial condition of their country sat silent while this additional burden is put upon it, and if they failed to protest by their votes against this fresh imposition. I calculate that, at the very least, three millions if not four millions of this loan will fall upon the shoulders of the Irish taxpayers. At any time that would be a serious cause of complaint in Ireland, but at the present time, when the whole country is agitated from end to end on the question as to the capability of the Irish people to bear the taxation now upon them, to impose a fresh burden is in my opinion little short of monstrous. The incapacity of the Irish people to bear the burden of taxation already upon them is not a matter of complaint by Irish Nationalists alone. The Chancellor of the Exchequer knows perfectly well that the agitation in Ireland during the last few years on the question of Imperial taxation has been maintained not merely by Nationalist Members, but by a large number of Unionist Members as well. The Royal Commission which inquired into the condition of Irish finance and into the question of the ability of the people to pay the Imperial burden already upon them

  747
  reported practically unanimously that considering all the circumstances of the case the Irish people were called upon to pay something between two and a half and three millions more every year than they ought to pay, having regard to the different conditions of Ireland and England, and above all having regard to the Act of Union at the commencement of the century, which specifically stated that the Irish people should only be taxed in proportion to their relative taxable capacity, and that abatements and exemptions should be made in their case. That Report was not drawn up by mere partisan Nationalists, but it was a Report presented by a Royal Commission composed of the principal experts of the day on financial matters, and they laid down the conclusion that Ireland was paying at least 2½ millions more towards Imperial taxation than she ought to pay. That is beyond dispute and cannot be denied. No attempt has, however, been made to enforce the conclusion of that Royal Commission. Under ordinary circumstances a Report of that kind would have been followed by legislation, and the defects which the Royal Commission had pointed out would have been remedied if an English question were concerned. But no action was taken with regard to Ireland.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now discussing the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I do not intend to go at length into the question, because it would not be strictly à propos of the matter under discussion, but I wish to point out that the Irish Members object to this Bill not only on its merits but because it has been shown that, independent of this fresh war taxation, Ireland is already paying several millions a year more than she should. No attempt has been made to remedy that injustice. On the contrary the Chancellor of the Exchequer, instead of endeavouring to equalise Irish taxation and to remove the grievances of which many of his supporters in Ireland complain, asks the representatives of the Irish people, overtaxed and overburdened as Ireland is, to sanction this loan for the purpose of carrying on the war. I have no doubt English Members sometimes feel irritated at the constancy with which Irish
  748
  Members refer to these financial proposals, but I say deliberately that not during the whole of this century has there been a more monstrous and more infamous proposition than that the Irish people should be called upon, in the present condition of their country, to pledge themselves to millions of fresh taxation for the purposes of the war. The stock of this loan is to be known as "war stock," and the bonds as "war bonds;" therefore, I assume I am entitled to go into the policy of the war. I have no desire to do so except very briefly; but this I will say, that whatever objection I had to the policy of this war, which has entailed this enormous cost, before this evening, within the last hour my objection has been doubled and trebled, and never since the commencement of these war discussions have I been so opposed to it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer calculated that the war would cost £60,000,000, but it will really cost between £65,000,000 and £66,000,000, because the right hon. Gentleman has not taken into account the surplus which would have been to the good had there been no war. We were told first of all—and a very plausible statement it was—that this war should be continued at all cost because certain dominions of Her Majesty had been invaded by the forces of the two Republics. That is quite true, though I hold my own opinion as to what led to that invasion. I was not at all surprised that Natal was invaded under the circumstances. At the same time, I was not surprised at the attitude of the English Members, who maintained that this money should be spent, and more if necessary, in order to clear Natal and every inch of Her Majesty's territory in South Africa from the invading Boers. I can understand that; but what I cannot understand, and what I protest against, is that when by an overwhelming force you have cleared the invaders out of Her Majesty's territory, you are not satisfied with that, and you refuse to consider terms of honourable peace with a brave and gallant people. Now we are told for the first time what we all along suspected, that this war is not a war to right the wrongs of British subjects in South Africa, not a war merely to clear Her Majesty's territory of invading forces, but a war waged against the independence of the two Republics. The Prime Minister stated in a speech not long ago that the

  749
  war was forced upon them to right the wrongs of British subjects in the Transvaal, and that they sought neither territory nor goldfields. The Duke of Devonshire said something of the same kind, and denied that there was any intention on the part of the Government to annex either the Transvaal or the Orange Free State. Now we are told by the First Lord of the Treasury that this war—this horrible carnival of bloodshed and misery and wretchedness—is to be carried on until the independence of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State is overthrown and swept away. After that declaration I object to this loan all the more strongly, and I shall vote more readily than I have ever yet voted against a single penny being granted. I venture to say that there was no Member in this House who listened altogether unmoved to the communication from the Presidents of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State. You may disagree with them; you think, no doubt, they commenced this war without provocation; you think they were wrong from start to finish; but is there any Member in this House who, in his own breast, can withhold from these two States some tribute of admiration for the extraordinary valour and almost superhuman courage with which they have endeavoured to preserve what they consider to be their rights? And now these two men, having won some victories; when it seems that they are about to be overwhelmed; when they are about to be cleared out of the Queen's dominions; when they are considering any terms of peace which they could possibly, with an atom of self-respect, accept—when they make this offer, the answer of the Prime Minister to that offer will fill liberty-loving people throughout the world with despair, if not with disgust at the policy of Her Majesty's Government. No; no terms are to be considered. This war is to go on to its bloody end. Nothing is to satisfy the Government or the Colonial Secretary until Pretoria has been reached, and until the list of 15,000 killed, wounded and maimed British troops has been increased a thousand fold. This war is to go on with all its misery, all its bloodshed, all its terrible torture to those who fight, and those who are left behind, because, having got the power of enforcing every right that you could possibly claim for your British subjects
  750
  in the Transvaal, having got the power of dictating the terms on which your people should live in the future in the Transvaal, no terms will satisfy you except those which strike at the existence and self-respect of those Dutch farmers—terms which you know perfectly well make it absolutely certain that these men, after to-day, will continue to fight to the last ditch, and that they will not surrender as long as a shot is left in the locker. Where is the wise statesmanship which we are told governs the policy of this Government at the present time? I wish to goodness that Mr. Gladstone were alive. I wish to goodness that Mr. Gladstone were directing the affairs of this country, and I believe the necessity for this money we are asked for to-night would not have arisen. Mr. Gladstone would have offered the same fair and honourable terms which commanded the respect and the admiration of the world when the Boers inflicted a small defeat on the British forces at Majuba. If he were alive, directing the affairs of this country, what terms would he not have made when appealed to by the Presidents of these two Republics in the hour of British victory? He would have behaved with humanity, and would have said to these people, "Now we have demonstrated our strength; now that we have got 205,000 British troops in South Africa—more than one for each of your population; now that you see our power, and that it is only a question of money when we can subdue you, admit you cannot withstand our overwhelming forces and ask for peace." Mr. Gladstone would have given them peace on terms which would have secured for every British subject the fullest fair play for the future, and would have given them peace upon the only terms on which you can have any abiding peace in South Africa, and on terms also of consideration for the self-respect and the bravery of the Dutch population throughout the length and breadth of South Africa. It is all very well to ask for this thirty millions to carry on the war, and enable you to march to Pretoria and hoist your flag there, and to destroy the independence of these two countries. That is easy enough to do. You may destroy their independence; you may raze Pretoria to the ground; you may kill every soldier in the armies of the two Republics; but will that guarantee the permanent peace of South Africa? Will

  751
  that guarantee for the future to bring contentment or satisfaction to the minds of the vast concourse of Dutchmen in Cape Colony and Natal, and the majority of the whole population in South Africa, who are Dutch at the present time? I say, now is your time to make terms of peace regarding which the Dutch in the Cape and Natal will be able to say, "Well, after all, these English people have shown us their enormous power and strength, and when we acknowledged that and asked for peace they were magnanimous and generous enough to give us terms of peace which we could accept with self-respect." I say that is the policy which ought to actuate Her Majesty's Government, and which would win for England the respect of Europe and of the whole world. It is the only policy which will prevent the necessity for fresh military operations in South Africa. But if you go on with the policy that the blood of the British lion is up, and that you will be satisfied with nothing but to destroy the independence of these two small countries, you will earn the contempt of every liberty-loving people in every part of the world. That policy will perpetuate disaffection throughout every part of South Africa, and will make the Dutch in Cape Colony and Natal dissatisfied with your rule and wait for a chance of striking a blow for that independence which they so dearly prize. There is one point which always appeals to me in this matter, and which is always overlooked not only in this House but in the country, and that is that no matter what settlement you make you cannot help the whole of South Africa from Cape Town to the Zambesi being populated by Dutch people and English. These people will have to live for the future in South Africa. Are they to live together in peace, respecting each other; or are they to be obliged to live, as we have been forced to do in Ireland, not loving your rule? I say that, Dutch and English having to live together, you should pursue a policy which should commend itself to them in the hour of defeat—a policy of generosity and wisdom, and unless you do that you will only be breeding fresh trouble for this country. As for us in Ireland, we object to this war as being unjust; and, therefore, what is more natural than that we should come here and object to pay any portion of the money asked for these military opera-
  752
  tions? Why, it is hard to understand the feeling which is afloat in England at the present time. It is hard to understand that this is what is called free England at all. The only place, so far as I can see where any man in this free country can say a word against this war and this enormous taxation is the House of Commons. [Hon. Members: Hear, hear!] Hon. Gentlemen opposite rapturously cheer that statement of mine, that the House of Commons is the only place where a word can be said against this iniquitous war and this enormous war expenditure, by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin, the late Member for Plymouth, and many others. If they attempt to exercise the right of public meeting or free speech in free England to-day, what is the result?
  *Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot discuss the right of public meeting on the motion before the House.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I have no desire, Mr. Speaker, to do anything, but obey your ruling in this matter. I have stated that these meetings were interfered with, for the purpose of showing that the only place where our protests can be made without having our persons injured, our property destroyed, and the houses of our families invaded by a war-like mob, is the House of Commons. Therefore we take this and every opportunity of entering our protest against this war. I say the time will come, and it is not very far distant, when there maybe scenes of excitement outside this House amongst the taxpayers and the working people of this country. These scenes of excitement will not be created by pouring out the millions of the taxes wrung from the people for warlike preparations; but they will be caused in years to come, when this policy of crushing the independence of the South African Republics bears its fruit in continual disturbances in the Continent of Africa, and when the people find that the only return they get for this enormous expenditure of money, is to create in South Africa a larger and a more stubborn Ireland than you have here. I conclude by saying that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer—impatient as he may be, and impatient as his friends may be to vote this money—cannot complain if we pro-

  753
  test, as Irishmen, against having anything to do with this Vote—in the first place because we object to the war, and in the second place because Ireland is not entitled in any way to be asked to bear a share of its cost. They can hardly complain of us doing that, for over since the session commenced we have opposed this war. As the representative of one of the Irish Nationalist constituencies I enter my protest, and I care very little whether the supporters of the Government complain of my doing so or not. I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time this day six months.
  MR. POWER: I rise to second the motion of my hon. friend. We were told when this war was entered into that it was only going to be a short war, costing something like £20,000,000. Those of us who knew something about the Dutch knew that it was not going to be such a short war, and I thought that the Dutch would not give up their independence without making a struggle to fight for it. We all know with what a light heart this war was entered upon, and we were told that our troops would be in Pretoria by Christmas. But what has been the result? My hon. friend has shown how this system of loan bamboozles the British public, and they are not made aware by it of what this iniquitous war is costing. It becomes our duty—objecting as we do to this war, to its origin, its continuance, and the spirit in which it is waged—as Nationalists to enter our protest at every stage and upon every occasion against this war. We have little or no interest in the expansion of your Empire, for it can bring to us nothing but taxation. As my hon. friend has proved, the very least that this Bill will put upon Ireland will be a burden of £3,000,000. When we consider that the people of Ireland have been starving for ten years in the west of Ireland, and we cannot get a wretched pittance to keep the life in our people, then it is our stern duty to say that Ireland is hostile to this country, and that we object to any taxation which includes any payment which falls upon the already overtaxed people of Ireland. I think we should be false to ourselves and to those who sent us here if we did not enter our protest. Although our numbers may be small owing to some of our supporters having to go elsewhere, it
  754
  will be the duty of those who are here to protest against this proposal, and show that we have no hand or part in continuing a war which will bring nothing but misery in South Africa, and which will cost our own people an enormous sum of money.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.' "—(Mr. William Redmond.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  *SIR HENRY FOWLER: I should like to say a word or two upon the Bill itself, and to invite the Chancellor of the Exchequer's attention to one or two points in connection with it. I must, in the first instance, congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon the success of this financial operation; but I am bound to qualify that congratulation with the expression of a doubt, that a loan which is so popular, not only with the public of this kingdom but with the public of other countries, must be a remarkably favourable loan to those who may be fortunate enough to obtain a share, and that suggests whether the Treasury in settling the terms of the loan have done in the matter the best they could for the public Exchequer. I congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the mode in which he has issued this loan. I approve, and I think the House and the country approve, of the mode in which he has issued the loan, for he has appealed to the mass of the people and they have responded, and the loan is not weighted by any heavy intermediate commission. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will, I am sure, contrast his experience on this occasion with the not very satisfactory mode in which the last money obtained on Government credit was raised—I mean the Local Loans Loan which was raised in the month of January. Within a very few days of that loan being issued at £99 12s. 6d., I think, it was sold in the public market at something like £2 or £3 premium, and it stands pretty much at that figure now.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. Hicks Beach,: It was issued by tender.
  *SIR HENRY FOWLER: Yes, by tender, I know; but there is no doubt a limited number of persons formed, to use a common expression, the ring by which that loan was manipulated. At all events, this is a great improvement upon that mode of procedure. But I should like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give us his reasons why he has not adopted on this occasion, in any shape or form, the principle of the terminable annuity. In the second clause of the Bill he has provided, as far as Parliament can enact, that at the expiration of ten years from the present time, this loan shall be redeemed on the payment of £100 sterling and the payment of all arrears of interest. He has also provided that the cost, both the principal and interest, of this loan should not be a charge on the sum of £23,000,000 which is the permanent annual charge for the National Debt, but that the interest and the principal will have to be met outside the debt charge. I should like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say if I am right in that, namely, that the £23,000,000 will be raised and applied outside this debt which will have to be provided for outside that sum. I think that is a satisfactory provision. At the same time, I think it would have been better if the principle of annuity could have been introduced into this loan. I know the Treasury has a very strong objection to terminable annuities, but I should like the Treasury to appeal to the public. I have always held the opinion that if the general public had a chance of tendering for those annuities there is a class of persons who would come to the aid of the Treasury and avail themselves of securing a fixed sum annually for a limited period. That I know is not a popular view in the Treasury, and I should like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say whether anything outside the sentiment and prejudice of the Treasury has induced him to abandon the principle of annuity on this occasion, because the principle of annuity would secure the annual liquidation of a portion of the debt. Now, I should like to say a word upon our position with reference to this loan. I do not think that until the war expenditure has come to an end we are able to say exactly what proportion will have to be met by loan and what proportion will have to be met by taxation. I think that the general opinion of the House and
  756
  of the country is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has, at all events, so far as this operation is concerned, very fairly combined the two principles of taxing the taxpayer of to-day and also of charging the general finance of the country with a portion of this expenditure by way of loan. I think my right hon. friend the Member for West Monmouth said that this was the largest borrowing that has been made, certainly for purposes of this description, for something like forty years.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Since 1815.
  *SIR HENRY FOWLER: I think we are entitled, in passing such a measure, to look at what really is the financial position of the country. Of course we are cautioned against optimism or pessimism with respect to our military operations. The feeling of the country to-day is that the moment that anything very successful happens the people are in a very optimistic frame of mind, and the moment that anything not very successful takes place they are plunged in the depths of despair. [Cries of "No, no!"] Well, perhaps that is too strong a word; I will say the depths of gloom. But so far as finance is concerned we must look at the matter from another point of view altogether. We must deal with the matter really from the point of view of the position of the country; and I desire to quote a figure or two to the House upon that point. My right hon. friend the Member for West Monmouth contrasted the present proposals with those which were made in 1857 when Sir George Cornewall Lewis wound up the expenditure on the Crimean War. But in contrasting that position with the position to-day we ought also to look at the financial position of the country to-day and its financial position then, and we must remember that the expenditure of this country and the amount raised in taxation has enormously increased in the last thirty, forty, or fifty years. Going back only twenty-five years—to 1874 or 1875—the gross revenue of the country was something like £75,000,000. The other night the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke of the receipts of last year, receipts which had nothing to do with the war, as £125,000,000. Therefore, we have an increased revenue and an increased expenditure of something like £40,000,000

  757
  or £50,000,000 in that period, coming out of the taxation of the country. But there is another item in the account. Since the Crimean War, and since a much later period, there is a class of taxation and a class of expenditure which has arisen in this country, and year by year until it has approached a gigantic amount. I refer to local rates. It has already a national debt of its own, and contrasts not most favourably with the National Debt of the country. It must be remembered that the ratepayers and the taxpayers are the same people, and this year the ratepayers of England and Wales are called upon to pay in rates upwards of 40 millions sterling. That is in addition to the subventions from the Treasury, to the share in Imperial taxation, which are given to local bodies. I find no fault with that expenditure. In fact, I am a strong advocate of it. I think it is an expenditure that will increase, and ought to increase. But, when you are regarding the burdens of the present taxpayers and ratepayers, you must look all round, and you must remember that the 125 millions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is between forty and fifty millions short of the real amount to be paid by the taxpayers of this country. Now I take the figures so far as the National Debt is concerned, and that perhaps is more germane to the present Bill. In 1837, the year the Queen came to the Throne, the National Debt was £843,000,000, and if the local loans then outstanding for a small amount and the balances at the Exchequer are deducted from that amount the real net National Debt at that date was £843,000,000. I take another date. At the close of the Crimean War the National Debt was £842,000,000. Against that there were assets amounting to £23,000,000, and, therefore, the real National Debt was under £820,000,000. What was the National Debt last year? On the 5th of April, 1899, the gross liabilities of the State amounted to £635,000,000. The generation that has been taxpaying between 1857 and now has borne the burden of that large reduction of taxation; taxpayers have discharged their share of the debt, so far as paying it off is concerned, within that period. We have now assets amounting in round figures to £27,000,000, and, therefore, our financial position at the present time
  758
  is that the real net liability of the State is something over £600,000,000. When we are asked by Her Majesty's Government to sanction for the purpose of this war an addition to that debt of £30,000,000, the financial authorities of the country are entitled to take up the position that, having regard to the financial position of the country as a whole, and to the fact that the burden of taxation is now so fairly adjusted between all classes of taxpayers and so wisely levied in the manner in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Member for West Monmouthshire explained to the House the pressure of that taxation is very slightly felt; and as this debt of £30,000,000 is to be paid off in ten years—a promise which I hope will be faithfully redeemed, and it will be redeemed if Chancellors of the Exchequer only stand firm and do not give way to the criticisms of either friends or opponents—I think the House is assenting to a financial arrangement to which there is no just ground of complaint, and work will meet with the general approval of the people.
  MR. COHEN: I do not think the raising of a loan of £30,000,000 will be a very difficult operation to art Empire with such resources as our own. I think my right hon. friend is to be congratulated on the success which has attended the issue of the loan. I only hope he will be able so to influence those who probably now have the direction of the operation that as far as possible the loan may be placed in the hands of small investors, and I was going to say the British public as distinguished from the more powerful and wealthy financiers, but I believe I ought to say the British and Irish public. We have been told that from every part of Her Majesty's dominions applications have poured in, and notwithstanding what the hon. Member for East Clare says, if we were allowed to inquire into the sources of the applications I believe a great many of the applications would be found to have emanated from Ireland. In congratulating my right hon. friend on the success and skill of this operation, I would only say, with regard to the extremely interesting figures which have been read out by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that I think there is one moral and one lesson which ought to be deeply taken to heart

  759
  by Chancellors of the Exchequer, from whatever quarter of the House hey happen to come. I mean the matter to which the right hon. Gentleman referred when he pointed out that, although now we were more wealthy, we had less debt to bear. It is true that we are more wealthy, but if we had the same debt to bear our greater expenditure would cause a great deal more pressure on the taxpayers of this country. Therefore, while I am the first to recognise that when the nation is at war the greater part, if not the whole, cost of the war may legitimately be raised by borrowing, and by suspending the Sinking Fund, still, I earnestly pray that, except on these occasions, the policy of reducing the Debt of the country will go on in the future, and be religiously and diligently carried out.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I see from the newspapers that the loan which was issued at 98½ is already at 2½ per cent. premium. Therefore the right hon. Gentleman is in the position of being able to distribute to those who get the loan the comfortable little sum of £750,000. Well, I am not complaining of the Chancellor of the Exchequer bringing it out at the issue price. I am perfectly aware that it is always necessary to bring out what is intended for a popular loan below what the actual price would be, because, naturally, financiers are not anxious at any particular moment to buy Consols. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he was making a speech on this loan, said he would have special consideration for the smaller applicants. Well, I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will thoroughly carry out that view, for certainly if this £750,000 is to distributed among the public of this country, it is more desirable that it should go into a great many pockets than into a very few. Therefore I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will tell us that he will proceed on this system: that he will first allot in full to all who have applied for, say, £100 worth of the stock; that he will then take those who have applied for £200, and that he will distribute it in this way among the greatest number of people he possibly can. I think that would only be fair and in accordance with the expression the Chancellor of the Exchequer used. One of the troubles of these loans has been that some great plutocrats in the
  760
  City who are able to take up a large amount of stock get allotments. If the money is to be distributed let it be among the poor instead of among wealthy gentlemen in the City. I am not going into the policy of this war at the present moment—I have done so before; but we have had a document presented to us today—the despatch which has been sent by Her Majesty's Government to the Presidents of the two Republics—which may certainly alter the views of a great many persons in regard to this war. It must clearly be understood that, while a great many of us on this side of the House do not assent for one moment either to the grounds which the Government have given for going into this war or to the scope which they intend at present to give to the war, at the present moment these two Republics are fighting, rightly or wrongly, for their independence, and we are carrying on the war in order to destroy the independence of those two Republics. I have never heard in modern times of such an intention avowed in regard to a war. The last time an independent country was blotted out of existence was the case of Poland, and surely we ought not to take the case of Poland as an example. There have been many wars since then, and I do not remember one single instance in which a foreign and independent country was destroyed by the victorious belligerent. We had a case a little while ago with respect to Greece. I am not one of those who have so high an opinion of the Sultan of Turkey that I would have objected if you had sent an ultimatum, and if you had caused us to spend money and blood to prevent Turkey from absorbing Greece if it had been the intention of the Sultan to do so; but that was not proposed. We have to take the opinion not only of Europe but of a large majority of Americans—we have to take the opinion of the whole civilised world, and you will find that they will protest against this attack on the rights of independent countries. I have been against this war all along, but I perfectly understood the position of Gentlemen opposite—it was a most difficult position—when, whether the war was just or unjust, whether it was our fault or the fault of the Boers, they were in our territory, and it was absolutely necessary to drive them out. I also understood those—though I cannot say I quite shared in it—who thought that

  761
  our arms had suffered in prestige. I did not think so myself. I had a higher opinion of the valour of Englishmen than perhaps hon. Gentlemen opposite. Still, my respect and my belief in the prestige of English arms was not in any way destroyed. I can understand that military gentlemen in some sort of way wished to have an opportunity before the war was over of re-establishing that prestige. The Boers have been driven out of our territory. [Cries of "No!"] Well, perhaps there may be half a dozen Boers hanging about, but for all practical purposes they have been driven out, and the British Army is now invading their territories. If you will take the trouble to read the despatch of the Presidents of the two Republics you will seethe terms on which they are willing to see peace restored. It will be admitted that we have practically driven them out of our territory. Under these circumstances I cannot, for myself, understand what ground you have for continuing this war. Can you tell me of any war in which the vanquished side asked for terms, and were told that the victors would only grant terms in the capital of the defeated country, and on condition of their surrendering their independence? I call this thing an iniquity. I call this a positive iniquity. [Cries of "Oh!"] Well, hon. Gentlemen may say "Oh!" if they like, but I regard it as an iniquity and a disgrace to this country to propose such terms. Perhaps the question of iniquity does not appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite. It is not only a crime, it is also a blunder. I do not believe this is the way to establish peace and harmony and good feeling in South Africa. I cannot forget that the majority in our own colonies are of Dutch extraction. Although they have been loyal for nearly a century to this country, and are prepared to remain loyal, their sympathies are entirely with their kith and kin, and if you wipe out the independence of these two Republics, you will create a state of things in South Africa under which you will have to maintain your rule by the sword not for a short time, but for a long time. In these circumstances I cannot help rising to register my protest at the earliest opportunity against the despatch sent by Lord Salisbury to the Presidents of the two Republics. There are many who share with you the belief that this is a
  762
  just and necessary war, there are many who were with you in driving these people out of our territories, and who wished to establish our prestige; but I very much doubt whether the country, who are called upon to pay this enormous taxation and to sacrifice the blood of the soldiers, will be with you in the further prosecution of this war. I do wish a better spirit existed among hon. Gentlemen opposite and the Government of the country. You are at present appealing to the lowest passions outside of this House. I do not believe you will succeed in the long run. It may be that the people will be carried away by the feeling which at present exists among Englishmen, but in the long run they will see that they have been fooled into this war by the vilest body of financiers that ever existed in this world, and that the opportunity had been taken to lay hold of the territory and gold, which Lord Salisbury himself boasted we did not wish for.
  MR. VICARY GIBBS: On this side of the House we are not prepared to accept the hon. Member for Northampton either as a moralist or a prophet. I quite agreed with the concluding part of his speech, and it was the only part I did agree with, that this is not the proper time for such a speech. The purpose for which I rose was to answer the criticisms of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton. In complimenting the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the success of the loan, he said that its very success pointed to the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not altogether safeguarded the interests entrusted to him, and that he might have issued the loan a little higher. It is very easy for my right hon. friend or anyone else to be wise after the event. I wish to point out that in loans of this kind it is quite impossible to hit the happy mean, the exact point which will make a successful issue, and yet not waste a penny which might have been saved, No one who comes from that part of the City I come from will say that what I say is not true. The hon. Gentleman himself objects to the tender system, but I know perfectly well if he had been where the Chancellor of the Exchequer is he would have done exactly what the right hon. Gentleman has done. There was only one

  763
  part of the speech of the hon. Member for Northampton germane to the subject. That was in regard to the giving of full allotments to the small investors. I quite recognise the propriety and the desirability of the small investors having this loan if they can take it, but anyone who has studied financial matters knows perfectly well that neither this nor any other Government can rely for their success on the small investors alone. If they were to take the step of giving £100, £200, £300, and so on to everyone who applied for these sums, and then issuing letters of regret to everybody else they would give the impression that those who applied for a large amount would not get an allotment. They would thus discourage those capitalists and plutocrats—"bloated," I think, is the term generally applied to them—who, though they may be a most unpleasant feature of modern civilisation, are a painful and disagreeable necessity to any Chancellor of the Exchequer if you are to carry on the financial business of the country. It would not be fair to them, it would be monstrous, not to give them allotments. I have heard pro rata allotments advocated. It would be equally unfair to shut out big men altogether—those who cover the loan over and over again. When people see an enormous amount of applications they must remember that these applicants know they will receive only part of what they apply for, I hope the House will excuse me if I have taken up their time, for I have some means of knowing something about these matters.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: The Member for Northampton owes a debt of gratitude to his constituents, because they have enabled him to make speeches in this House which they would not listen to themselves. How long they will enable him to make such speeches is a question which will shortly be decided between him and them. In referring to the position of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State, the hon. Member used misleading analogies, which demand a short word in reply Poland was divided by Austria, Russia, and Prussia, but did Poland invade Austria, Russia, and Prussia? There was a conspiracy against Poland by which they secretly partitioned that country. The case was very different here. It is the Boers who have invaded our territory.
  764
  It is we who, up to the present moment, have been repelling invasion. The last message from the Presidents seems to be not less insulting than the ultimatum by which they began this war, and certainly it is a deal more hypo-critical. Nobody can say that that message is a reason for taking a more favourable view of the Republics than we previously entertained. With regard to this loan, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton understated his case when he added only £40,000,000 to the local expenditure. I obtained the figures last year for not only England, Scotland, and Wales, but also Ireland, and after deducting a contribution of £12,000,000 for the central Government, I made the total local expenditure £85,000,000. Some part of that is what is called reproductive expenditure, but it does not always reproduce. The total gross expenditure I reckoned to be—
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: I did not say expenditure; I said rates.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: There are other kinds, we know, raised by toll and so on. I wish to make only one remark about the local debt. For years past, as the National Debt has been increasing, the local debt has been increasing in a larger proportion. Undoubtedly that must be taken into account, although possibly the National Debt may soon outstrip in rapidity of movements even the local debt. It is important that the House should remember that this £30,000,000 is not the whole of the indebtedness which will be added by this war. In addition to the £30,000,000 War Loan, there are £5,000,000 which the right hon. Gentleman has diverted from the repayment of the National Debt in the shape of the saving realised last year.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: There were £8,000,000 more last year.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: £5,000,000 saving. There were £10,000,000 voted last year; but I am dealing with the present year. It is true the right hon. Gentleman does not intend these £30,000,000 to be a permanent addition to the Debt, though, I take it, the interest will act that way. The interest will be something like £825,000 a year, and he

  765
  must get that £825,000 out of taxation, I presumes. As to this £30,000,000, the the right, hon. Gentleman proposes to repay it within ten years. How is he going to do it? First of all he trusts in the goldmines of the Transvaal. If they will not find the money he trusts in Providence and the taxpayers. But finally it comes to this—he will have to add it to the National Debt, What he will finally fall back upon will be terminable annuities, the renewal of which will mean practically an addition to the National Debt. We hope it will not come to that, and possibly it may not. There is another point. The House must not run away with the idea that we are getting this money at 2¾ per cent. The loan is for £30,000,000, but we are getting only £29,500,000, because the loan is issued at 98½ That would return £29,550,000, but the broker's percentage and the advertising and other expenses, which would certainly amount to £50,000, are to be paid by the State. Ten years hence for that £29,500,000 we shall have to repay £30,000,000. Consequently the interest is really more than 2¾ per cent. No doubt this loan might have been offered at a premium, but that would have been a mistake. No doubt also the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have issued Consols instead of a separate loan, but that, too, would have been a mistake. My belief is that, on the whole, although it does appear as if we were paying a little more than the public actually would demand, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken the right course, and he and the country are to be congratulated upon the readiness with which the loan has been subscribed.
  MR. DAVID MACIVER: The hon. Gentleman opposite said that the Boers had been fooled into this war. There is a great deal of truth in that statement. They have been fooled into the war largely by the speeches of Gentlemen sitting on the other side of the House, and they are fooled at present to continue the war by the same means. It is the old case over again of the telegram to the King of Greece. If those Gentle men, instead of speaking as they have done, were plainly to tell their friends the Boers that the sooner they submit and throw themselves upon the mercy of this country the better, they would be doing something practical towards bringing this
  766
  war to a close. If such a course were taken this nation would be generous as well as just; but it does seem to me, as representing a businesslike constituency, that it is the duty of this country to be just before one speaks of generosity. I do not altogether like the financial proposals of the Government in so far as they relate to increased taxation, but as regards this particular measure I heartily and cordially concur, and would add my congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman for the admirable way in which he has managed to make the loan a success. Whatever difference of view there may be on the question of taxation, there can be no question that the Government have done the best that was possible in the circumstances. But there are many people in this country who sympathise with the motion I ventured a little while ago to put on the Paper, which stated that it was not desirable that any portion of the expenditure upon the war should be cast upon the British taxpayer, and suggested that sooner or later the whole of the war expenditure should be met by a loan, of which the interest and sinking fund should be paid from the resources of those territories which have hitherto been known as the Transvaal Republic and the Orange Free State. That is my view today, and I do not see anything in this Bill which is inconsistent with such a view. This is not the moment, however, to urge that question by dividing the House upon it, as such a course would be misconstrued. But I think the Government will make a mistake if they do not take into account the large body of public opinion which is really at the back of the suggestion I made. I have received from many parts of the country, quite unsolicited and unexpected, expressions of accord with the views I have ventured to express, and I simply leave the matter with the Government as one which should be considered at the proper time.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. Hicks Beach,): I do not intend at all to outer into the question of the war or the question of taxation. I simply rise for the purpose of thanking hon. Members for the approval which they have been good enough to accord to my efforts in this matter, and of referring to one or two points raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolver-

  767
  hampton. He asked me why I did not endeavour to deal with this question by means of terminable annuities. He seemed to think that there was a rooted objection at the Treasury to terminable annuities, and that, therefore, that was the reason why I did not endeavour to raise this loan in that way. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is no such objection, either at the Treasury or in my own mind. If I could have raised this loan by terminable annuities, if I could have converted a large portion of the existing funded debt into terminable—annuities, I should have been delighted to do so, provided those terminable annuities were taken up by the public at large; but that is precisely what the public will never do. It is absolutely impossible to induce the public to any large extent to take terminable annuities, and it would have been a terrible mistake to attempt to obtain 30 millions in that way. The right hon. Gentleman has suggested in a very good-natured way that we have paid too much for this loan. Well, that is perfectly true. I was informed to-day by the Government broker that the loan as it stands is at a premium of 1¾ on the results of the applications, and of course everyone knows that the amount asked for has been subscribed ten times over. But I am not at all ashamed—and after what has been said this evening I think I have no cause to be ashamed—of the price at which the loan was issued. What was the position with which I had to deal? I had to provide £30,000,000. That is a very large sum—the largest loan which has ever been contracted by this country in one sum since 1815. With universal consent, I decided that it was better that that sum should be raised by stock or bonds for a shorter term than by an issue of Consols. I think I may also claim to have obtained universal consent to the principle that, having to raise so large a sum, it was better to issue the loan at a fixed price than attempt to raise it by tender. I cordially desired that it should be taken up by the public at large; and that it should be widespread throughout the country. We have taken every possible step to secure that result, and up to last night there had been 18,000 separate applications of individuals for participating in the loan—applications coming from all parts of the country. I hope that before
  768
  the list is closed everyone throughout the United Kingdom and even in our colonies will have had an opportunity of considering whether they will assist in it or not. But, it having been decided to issue the loan at a fixed price, it was clearly essential that such a price should be fixed as would ensure that the money should be raised. It would have been the gravest mistake on my part, for the sake of saving a comparatively small sum—a sum large in itself, but small in comparison with the £30,000,000 of the loan—to incur a real risk of not having the loan subscribed. Any such result would have been a national misfortune. Further, if the loan had been only just covered, or only a little more than covered, I should have been quite justly blamed for parsimony in trying to abstract from the public more than they cared to give, and for having thus secured what everyone would have called a failure. I knew that I should be blamed whatever happened; but I have not been very much blamed to-night, because the loan is at a premium. No doubt, events have shown that it might have been possible to issue the loan at a slightly higher price. I admit it. But in fixing the price I undertook a great responsibility. I took the best advice I could get; and I may venture to say that, acting on my own responsibility, I fixed the price a little higher than that at which many of those whom I consulted would have fixed it. I am sure that none of my advisers would for a moment have suggested that I should fix it as high as 99. What is the result? Those persons who are fortunate enough to obtain allotments will have a very good investment, and will be able, if they choose, to make a profit by it; but not by any means the profit which some people may suppose from the nominal premium, for any attempt to sell in large amounts after the allotment would inevitably bring down the price, and the result would be very different from that which some people have been led to expect. In considering the price, I hope the House will remember that I had also to consider the possibilities. I had to fix the price last Thursday, and I had to consider what might happen in the course of the week following; because, in order to ensure a large public subscription, it was necessary to give a considerable time for application. Suppose that, instead of the successes of which we have happily heard, we had had some

  769
  serious reverse in South Africa. Suppose some wholly unexpected complication had arisen in foreign affairs. Prices might have gone down on the Stock Exchange to a degree which would materially affect the issue, and it might never have been taken at all. I ask the pardon of the House for alluding to these things; but they are not known to everyone out of doors, and when people see the loan at a premium they naturally begin to think that perhaps we could have got more money for it. It is very easy in these things to be wise after the event. I believe sincerely that I acted for the best, and that the country will not grudge anything I have done, seeing that the large subscription for the loan and its great success are due quite as much to the strong patriotic feeling throughout the country as to a desire to find a good investment. It is my desire, and has been from the first, that this loan should be subscribed for by, and should come into the hands of the public at large. There has been no underwriting, no guarantee, none of those high commissions or opportunities for making large profits on the part of great wealthy houses which generally accompany the issue of a large loan. We have thrown ourselves upon the public; the public have responded to the appeal; and it will be my endeavour, in concert with the authorities of the Bank of England, to secure that there shall be no favouritism whatever in the allotment, that bona fide applicants, whether for large or small sums, shall all be fairly considered, and that if anyone has an advantage it shall be those who have made application for small amounts.
  *SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I do not rise for the purpose of criticising the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman in reference to the issue of this loan. Nobody who has been in the position I have occupied would ever attempt to criticise the prescription of the family physician, who is necessarily more acquainted with the constitution of the patient than anybody else. I am perfectly well aware there were many circumstances which had to betaken into account. But I cannot quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that everybody has formed the opinion that the price fixed was the highest price it was possible to obtain. I have certainly heard opinions of high authority that it might have
  770
  been issued at a higher figure. There is no doubt that this loan has some advantages over Consols, and it has also its disadvantages. It has the advantage that it continues its interest of 2¾ per cent. for a longer period than it could be obtained from Consols. On the other hand, there is the disadvantage that it may be or will be paid off within ten years. These are circumstances the effects of which are difficult to calculate. I quite agree that the right hon. Gentleman in his position was bound to avoid any risk of the failure of the loan. But he had at his back not merely the great resources of this country but also the strong feeling in favour of the loan which predominates at this time throughout the country. I do not desire to complain of what has been done. The loan has been a great success, and the right hon. Gentleman may be congratulated upon it. I quite agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he could not have raised this loan on terminable annuities. There is no public demand, except of a most limited character, for terminable annuities. I confess I have myself a prejudice in favour of issuing loans at par, and giving whatever price is necessary for the purpose. It looks better that the country should issue its loans at par. The system in old days of raising loans at a very low sum in order to have apparently a low rate of interest was a very bad system, and we have suffered from it ever since. If Pitt had raised his loans at par, and given the interest demanded at the time, the interest would long ago have diminished, and we should not have been saddled with the enormous sum of the present debt. These are really questions to be considered in camera by the Treasury rather than discussed in the House of Commons. I rose really to express my anxiety that we should contemplate the future redemption of this debt. I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that he would keep alive the established provision for the redemption of the old debt, which has been naturally and reasonably suspended this year, and that he would make a separate provision for the redemption of this debt. I only wish that that should be on record. There is one other point to which I would allude. My right hon. friend the Member for East Wolverhampton must have not quite clearly expressed himself or I misunderstood him. As I understand him he

  771
  gave as a reason for raising this loan that though we were a richer country yet the taxation of the country was heavier than at the time of the Crimean War, and the reason he gave for that statement was that we were raising a much greater revenue now than we were at that time. But taxation may yield a great deal more money and yet be considerably lighter in its incidence. When Sir Robert Peel introduced the income tax it produced about £700,000 for a penny; now it produces more than, £2,100,000, or three times as much. But the taxation is no heavier than it was. The argument that, because three times as much is produced, the taxation is therefore three times as heavy, would not be a sound argument at all. At the time of the Crimean War the tea duty was raised to 1s. 9d. in the lb. The taxation at that time was very much heavier than at present. Therefore, when I ventured the other night to say that taxation was borne with greater patience in those days than at the present time I was well founded in my statement, because the weight of taxation per square inch of the population, if I may use the term, was far greater then than now. We are much more able to bear taxation now, although the lump sum raised from the revenue is far greater than it was at that period. I am very glad to hear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does recognise fully the duty of making provision for the redemption of this debt. I understood from the right hon. Gentleman the other night that, as soon as peace was concluded, he would inform the House of Commons of the measures he contemplated for that purpose.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I said that when peace was concluded we should have
  to consider what the amount of the debt was, and also how much of the debt would have to be paid by the Transvaal.
  *SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Those are both circumstances of which I desire to be informed, especially the latter. It is of very great importance that we should know what the total amount of the debt is, and I only hope that it may not be greater than the amount for which we are now providing. I hope the right hon. Gentleman is now considering and maturing his plans for making it the first charge upon the Transvaal, because I understand, that we are only to come in as liable in a secondary degree. If that is so I think that will be a very satisfactory arrangement.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I only wish to say one word. This night will be a memorable one in the history of the country, because to-night we have commenced a new policy. We have heard this war called a defensive war. Now, from the statement which the First Lord of the Treasury made to-night we know exactly, what the war is about. All sorts of theories were put about before, but now the right hon. Gentleman has declared distinctly that the war is to be carried on to destroy the independence of two free Republics. I wish to emphasise that. I only wish to say that, if that is to be the object of this war, and if it is to be carried on without any attempt to stop it, it is, in my opinion, a cowardly and infamous war.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 268; Noes, 21. (Division List No. 65.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir. Alex F.

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol)

  Butcher, John George

  Aird, John

  Beach, Rt. Hn. W. W. B.(Hants

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Allhusen, Augustus H. Eden

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Caldwell, James

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Billson, Alfred

  Cameron, Sir Chas. (Glasgow)

  Arnold, Alfred

  Birrell, Augustine

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Arrol, Sir William

  Bond, Edward

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Bowles, Capt. H.F. (Middlesex

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Asquith, Rt Hon Herbert Henry

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King'sLynn)

  Cavendish, R F. (N. Lancs.)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Brassey, Albert

  Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbysh.)

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Cawley, Frederick

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r

  Brown, Alexander H.

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Chamberlain, J Austent (Worc'r)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Henderson, Alexander

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampste'd)

  Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Holland, William Henry

  Pilkington, Sir G. A(LancsSW

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. Curzon

  Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Cotton-Jodrell, Col. Edw. T. D.

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Howard, Joseph

  Purvis, Robert

  Crombie, John William

  Howell, William Tudor

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry C.

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Currie, Sir Donald

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Richardson, Sir Thos. (Hartlep'l

  Curzon, Viscount

  Humphreys-Owen, Arther C.

  Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Denny, Colonel

  Jenkins, Sir John Jones

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Frd. Dixon

  Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez Edw.

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W.

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Round, James

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Runciman, Walter

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Joicey, Sir James

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Doxford, Sir William T.

  Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn. Sir U

  Rutherford, John

  Drage, Geoffrey

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

  Dunn, Sir William

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William H.

  Kimber, Henry

  Savory, Sir Joseph

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Kinloch, Sir J. George Smyth

  Seely Charles Hilton

  Emmott, Alfred

  Kitson, Sir James

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

  Knowles, Lees

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Faber, George Denison

  Lafone, Alfred

  Shaw-Stewart, M H.(Renfrew

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn

  Sidebottom, T Harrop (Stalybr.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Lecky, Rt. Hon. W. Edw. H.

  Smith, J. Parker (Lanarks)

  Fergusson Rt Hn Sir J.(Manc'r

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'ns'a

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D.(Strand)

  Finch, George H.

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Stanley, Sir Henry M. (Lambeth

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Long, Rt Hn Walter(Liverpool)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Fitzwygram, General Sir F.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Strachey, Edward

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Lough, Thomas

  Strauss, Arthur

  Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

  Lowe, Francis William

  Thomas, Alfred(Glamorgan, E,

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lowles, John

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Gibbs, Hn A. G. H.(City of Lond.

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary(St. Albans)

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Lyell, Sir Leonard

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  Macartney W. G. Ellison

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert J.

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Usborne, Thomas

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Maclean, James Mackenzie

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Gold, Charles

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Wason, Eugene

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  M'Crae, George

  Webster, Sir Richard E.

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  M'Iver, Sir L.(Edinburgh, W.)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Goschen, Rt Hn G J (St. George's

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E. (T'n

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Malcolm, Ian

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Marks, Henry Hananel

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-L.)

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Mellor, Rt. Hon. J. W.(Yorks.)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Gretton, John

  Melville, Beresford V.

  Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  Monk, Charles James

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Montagu, Hon. J. S. (Hants.)

  Wilson, J. W.(Worcestersh. N.)

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hon ER.(Bath

  Hanbury, Rt Hon. Robert Wm.

  Morgan, Hn. F.(Monmouthsh.

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T.(Hud'rsf'd.

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

  Woods, Samuel

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Hardy, Laurence

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Wyndham, George

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Morton, Edw. J.C (Devonport)

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Harwood, George

  Murray, Charles J.(Coventry)

  Younger, William

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Myers, William Henry

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Heath, James

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Hedderwick, Thos. Chas. H.

  Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham

  774

  775

  NOES

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Malley William

  Ambrose, Robert

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Blake, Edward

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Redmond, Willam (Clare)

  Crilly, Daniel

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

  Molloy, Bernard Charles

  Tanner, Charles Kearns

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Doogan, P. C.

  O'Connor, Jas.(Wicklow, W.)

  Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Resolution agreed to.

SUPPLY.
Considered in Committee.
(In The Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. Lowther (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

SUPPLY.
  CIVIL SERVICES (EXCESS), 1898–9.
  1. £10, Prisons (England and the Colonies)

  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1900–1901.
  2. 430,000, Number of Land Forces.
  *COLONEL WELBY: I listened to the admirable speech of the Under Secretary of State for War with much interest, and there is one statement made by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean with which I fully agree. He said the speech of the Under Secretary for War was charming, but that is an epithet which would apply for all his speeches. The charm in his speeches consists in what may be read between the lines. As the right hon. Baronet has pointed out, perhaps the reading between the lines could not to so readily detected yesterday as in his other speeches. I have heard military officers talk loudly about reform before they went to the War Office, but after they have been a short time within that establishment, except under the genial influence of the dinner table, the talk about reform went very much in the background. It has been the same with those who have been officially connected with it in this House, and there is no more, prominent example of it than the right hon. Gentleman who
  776
  leads the Opposition. He spoke yesterday of the steady progress which there has been in the Army during the last thirty years. I can only say to him that if he had spent those thirty years as a practical soldier anxious for the efficiency of the Army—which I am certain he would have been—he would look now with almost feelings of despair and hopelessness upon his own utterances on that subject of reform. I am quite willing to allow that this is no time for pressing reform upon the War Office, for any attempt at reform now would only tend to dislocate the military machinery. I believe that the War Office at the present time is doing its very best, and has done its very best ever since the war broke out. I believe those employed at the War Office are working conscientiously for the good of the country, and whatever faults may be found with the conduct and the preparations for the war I do not believe that they have been the result of any individual slackness or want of knowledge and determination to do well for the country, but from faults which were inherent in the military system under which our Army exists at the present time. I am sorry to say that the Government at the present moment are very undecided as to what they say about the possibility of reforming our present system. We heard somewhat grudgingly of the possibility of an inquiry. Well, we all know what an inquiry means. Whenever a storm of public opinion beats upon a Government we have a Committee formed from those who sit on this side of the House and those who sit on the other, and they always put up a good stout umbrella, which is named a Royal Commission, or a Committee of Inquiry. They sit down very comfortably under that umbrella, and from time to time one of the ministers gets up and looks outside. If he finds that the storm is still beating, he says, "Let us have some more inquiry"; and so they go on, hoping that

  777
  that storm will pass by and the sunshine of popularity again be spread over them. I am very much afraid this will be the result of this attitude of inquiry which the Government have somewhat unwillingly promised to take up. We are now successful in the war, and that success may go on until the conclusion. Then public opinion will be slackening in its attention upon the state of the Army. They may say that the Army has we these victories and been victorious, and if mistakes have been committed let them be put upon one side, and the sunshine of public opinion may again shine upon the War Office. But for the good of the country and the defence of the Empire we want something more than an inquiry. The Under Secretary for War spoke yesterday of the many lessons we shall have learned from this war. This seems to me to point to very little except inquiry. We are told that we ought to wait until the war is over. There is no doubt that for all matters of detail we ought to wait. We should wait for the experience of those generals who are now leading our Army so successfully in South Africa, in order that we may know what they think of our system. What we need at the present time, and what the country needs, is that there shall be a definite expression on the part of the Government that not only shall there be an inquiry, not only shall there be a study of the reforms suggested from the seat of war, but that the Government shall promise that there shall be a complete and far-reaching reform of our military system. I believe that no such reform can take place unless there is some readjustment, and even a division of the work at the War Office among the military advisers on the head-quarters staff. It seems to me that there are three possibilities with regard to that readjustment. There is the extension of the present system, which may be roughly called the same system as that which exists at the Admiralty Board. I am one of those who think that an extension of that system is possible, but if it is extended and made permanent there must be a distinct responsibility resting with each of the military advisers of the Crown. At the present time we have no such direct responsibility. The Secretary of State for War, when he is challenged about anything connected with the Army, is chivalrous and says he
  778
  alone is responsible. That is no doubt a very chivalrous attitude and good feeling which we all admire, but I do not think that this practice is one which is for the best interests of the Army. We want to know with whom rests the responsibility for the military advice, and unless the work is much more clearly separated than it is at the present time, it is impossible that there should be direct responsibility. Whether it be the case of the Commander-in-Chief, the Adjutant-General, the Quartermaster-General, or any of the other advisers, the responsibility must be direct and it must be clear, and without that responsibility I am perfectly certain that we cannot obtain efficiency in the Army. The second mode of readjustment seems to me to be a compromise between the present system of the Admiralty Board and what may be called the one man management of the military side which was in existence before 1895. It is to make a Commander-in-Chief responsible jointly with a military administrator and divide the executive and the administration between them, but that would be very difficult. I must say that I cannot work such a scheme out, and I am doubtful as to the possibility of it. Then I come to the third system, that of making the Commander-in-Chief solely responsible for both executive and administrative functions. If you can get that system under—
  *THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is now discussing the constitution of the War Office, and that can only be discussed upon the War Office Vote, and is not relevant to this Vote.
  *COLONEL WELBY: But the headquarters staff comes under this Vote. I think it is mentioned in the Vote on page 10, but I have almost finished, and I will not dwell upon that point at all. Whatever is done with regard to the headquarters staff, a new name should be given to the responsible heads. In the Army, an adjutant or quartermaster is a subordinate officer, and it seems tome to call an officer of such responsibility an adjutant-general or quartermaster-general is to put him in a false position in regard to the common terminology of the Army. I would press on the Government the desirability of considering this question. There is one other

  779
  great difficulty connected with this enormous force, and that is the difficulty of making it coherent and united, In the Navy you have a different kind of unit. You have a ship complete in itself, and the commander is responsible for it, and accustomed to work on his own responsibility. The men we are voting to night are really in small units; units of battalions, regiments and batteries, and in order to make them a mobile force they must be united under one commander. Therefore in all questions connected with making this large force efficient the necessity for combining all the smaller units by means of constant inspections throughout the country should be borne in mind, and if this cannot be done by the headquarters staff then it must be done by the commanders of the districts, and they must be regarded as absolutely responsible for the efficiency of the troops under their command. At the present time the General Staff is divided into a number of different districts, each equal to the others, though we have some tiny districts like the Thames and Woolwich, and some very large ones like the North-Eastern and the North-Western districts. This is the old fashioned organisation, and if the Government want to make the Army really efficient they must go down to the very root of the matter and must look into the organisation of the General Staff. I must protest against the system which exists at the present time, by which a great official, such as the Quartermaster-General, at the very time when the Army is mobilising and when he is most wanted at the War Office to superintend the preparations for sending the troops abroad, is taken away and sent to a command in South Africa. Not only has that been done, but the officer in charge of the mobilisation Department has also been sent away from the War Office to do duty in South Africa. It is not a new system, but I say it is an absolutely false one. If these great military officers are appointed to the War Office at large pay, surely the time of war, when all is confusion arising from the mobilisation and the sending out of an unexampled force, is the time when they are most wanted in their Departments. I do hope and trust that in future an absolute rule will be laid down that a staff officer who accepts any of these appointments at home accepts it of the understanding that he shall not, in
  780
  case of war, be detached from it. Much has been said about the short service system. I am quite in agreement that it is possible to make an infantry soldier efficient in three years, but it should be understood that the whole of that time is devoted to military training. I do not think that anyone acquainted with our camps and garrison towns will deny that the number of men detached from military duties for fatigue work—a work which the men hate more than any other work—is very great. In cavalry regiments the fatigue work is always done by paid men, and I do not see why something of the kind should not be extended to the infantry regiments. To detach men from their regiment is all very well if they have enlisted for their whole lives or for twenty-one years; such men could be sent on all kinds of duties. I have known a cavalryman attached to the general staff sent from Dublin to Kingstown to fetch a parasol which the general's daughter had left there. We must look deeply into all these questions, and we must insist that during the three years' service the men are absolutely confined to military training. I know to a certain extent that would interfere with the technical training of the men for teaching them trades, but if you meet their convenience by shortening their service, we must put all other questions aside and make military training the first and foremost duty the men have to look to. I should like to ask the Under Secretary for War whether he would say what preparation is being made to replace the heavy losses of horses and mules in South Africa. I am afraid the cavalry who were shut up in Ladysmith must be very short of horses, partly because of the casualties, and also because they had to be eaten. I met an officer recently who was invalided home, and he told me that the horses have suffered in a very peculiar way. So hot, dusty and dry has the veldt been that it has affected the hoofs of these horses, and I am told there is the greatest difficulty in keeping them shod. In many cases the hoof has broken in two, and under such circumstances the horse has become absolutely useless, and has had to be destroyed. In the brilliant work done by General French the wear of the horse must have been very great, and a great number of them will have to be replaced, and I think it would be interesting to know what steps the War Office are taking in the

  781
  matter. I may mention that I have heard that though ample stores had been collected the horses only got 8lbs. of oats and 8lbs. of hay. That may be sufficient for Cape ponies, but I do not think it is sufficient for our large English horses. I do hope that the Under Secretary for War will see his way to putting the battalions of Militia to be called out this year into brigades in order to give them something more than regimental training. I would suggest to my hon. friend whether it would not be possible with such a large force of Militia to carry out some such scheme as a supposed invasion of this country or the defence of London on a large scale. I was very glad to learn that there is a commencement of a breaking down of the wall of separation between the Regular troops and the Auxiliary forces. I think we have suffered too much from that in the past. We have been in the habit of looking down on the Auxiliary forces. We have quite enough men if they were only united and organised, and if the wall of separation between the Regular troops and the Militia and Volunteers were broken down. If that is to be one of the results of the war, as I believe it will be, a great deal will be done for the defence of this country. I hope and trust that some announcement will be given to the country that the Government intend to go thoroughly and deeply into all these different questions, and that they will not rest, whatever be the difficulties with which they may meet, until the Army system is as efficient as it is possible to have it.
  MR. WARNER: In the Under Secretary's speech yesterday he stated that he could not answer questions with the Speaker in the Chair. It is, however, the custom to have a general discussion on Vote A, and I understood at the time that was the hon. Gentleman's intention. I am afraid, Sir, after your ruling, that some of the matters which I desire to bring before the Committee would be out of order. With reference to the commissariat in South Africa, I understand that although everything had been provided along the railway it was until Lord Kitchener went out most deficient in not being able to move any distance from the railway line, and that on several occasions in consequence of the inability of the commissariat
  782
  to move from it our generals were practically tied to the railway. That at any rate is the impression all over the country, and I trust there will be some explanation of it. In the accounts I do not see any amount for bringing the troops home. There is no estimate for paying the troops for a whole year, and yet there is no estimate for bringing them home. I think that is rather a misleading statement and that there must be a further Vote.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: That question ought to be raised on the Vote for transport.
  MR. BUCHANAN: On a point of order, Sir, has it not been the general practice on Vote A to permit a general discussion on the statement of the Under Secretary of State, and is it not a fact that the hon. Gentleman last night, before the Speaker left the Chair, stated that he would reply to the many questions asked him on this Vote?
  *THE CHAIRMAN: I have no knowledge of what the hon. Gentleman says occurred when the House was sitting. All I can take cognisance of is what occurs in Committee of Supply. Committee of Supply is not cognisant of what is done in the House any more than the House is cognisant of what is done in Committee of Supply. With regard to the practice, the discussion is general in this sense, that anything may be discussed upon the first Vote which cannot be properly discussed on any of the other Votes; but if there is a special Vote for a particular matter that is the proper place to discuss that particular matter. There may be certain matters which may not be found in particular Votes, and the proper time to discuss them is on the first Vote.
  MR. BUCHANAN: May we not on this Vote discuss the general statement laid before us last night?
  *THE CHAIRMAN: Anything connected with the men may be discussed; but, for instance, the question of rifle ranges cannot be raised in this Vote. Anything relevant to the number of men to be voted for the British Army would, of course, be relevant to this Vote, and in addition a general discussion in the sense I have just indicated.
  MR. WARNER: I, of course, bow to your ruling, Sir; but if we got a satisfactory answer to questions on this Vote it would not be necessary to put down reductions later on, which would mean that all the Votes would have to be discussed in detail. It will make the discussion exceedingly difficult, not only for Members, but I am afraid also for the Under Secretary of State. I think old Members will bear me out when I say that this is quite a new ruling, although it is absolutely within the law.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: I must really remind the hon. Member that this is not a new ruling, but a very old ruling. An unfortunate habit has recently grown up of discussing on the first Vote of Supply matters which ought properly to be discussed when the Speaker is in the chair. That has occurred on one or two occasions, and I have protested against it. I remember on one occasion when there was a so-called arrangement entered into that a certain discussion should be taken, I distinctly disallowed it on the ground that it was contrary to the rules which govern procedure in Committee of Supply.
  MR. WARNER: I quite recognise that the law is as stated, but it will be very inconvenient generally. Now I come to a matter which is within the Vote for the men, and that is the permanent increases. I observe that according to the Estimates there is to be no permanent increase in the medical service, the Militia, the Yeomanry cavalry, or the Volunteers, yet from the Under Secretary's statement it would appear that there is to be a permanent increase in all these. I understand that the medical service is to be put on a better footing, which will entail a permanent increase year by year. The Yeomanry are to be put in a different position, the bounty to the Militia is to be permanently increased, and the grants to Volunteers are to be also permanently increased. I should like to know whether these increases should not have been included in the permanent increases. I also wish to know whether the Royal Reserves are to be used for the forty-three new battalions which are to be raised. A considerable number of Royal Reserve men will be used in connection with them, and I should like to know what proportion of men will be trained
  784
  for permanent work with the new batteries. They will require a very considerable number of men, and I wish to know what arrangements will be made for their permanent working. I do not think these batteries will be a sufficient reserve of artillery, because the artillery has been short and is short, and the proportion of artillery to infantry will not be brought up to anything like the proper standard. With reference to the cavalry regiments, I wish to know, if the Reserve squadrons are to be turned into service squadrons, are officers to be also provided, in order that they may be made real regiments instead of paper regiments? With reference to the question of Militia depôts, I am very sorry that absolutely nothing has been done towards amalgamating some of the small depôts, where idleness is so prevalent and work so rare. I do hope something will shortly be done in this direction. In the small depôts the permanent staff is kept for a certain period of the year doing absolutely nothing, whereas they might be doing the real work of a depôt staff, if the department were put more under the control of the Militia officer, or the Militia more under the control of the depôt officer. If several of the smaller depôts were amalgamated it would save a great deal to the country, and the work would be carried out much better. Moreover, it would be a very simple thing to do.
  CAPTAIN JESSEL: I quite agree with my hon. friend in praising the most eloquent speech delivered the other night by the Under Secretary for War. I also agree with him in regard to the disastrous influences which come over any Member of this House who has to do with the War Office, although my hon. and gallant friend knows more than I do on that subject, for I believe he has a relation long connected with the War Office. The Under Secretary entered the War Office, and with military enthusiasm thought he would have some influence in altering the course which had been pursued by the Department. But unfortunately the War Office has been too strong for him, as for so many others, and I am sorry to say that he holds out no prospect of any reform in that Department. [Hon. Members: No.] I do not think he holds out any prospects of those reforms which he referred to as desirable in July last.

  785
  We have listened to many eloquent speeches from the Under Secretary, but they do not seem to be convincing. I do not know why. It is, I suppose, because the War Office case is not a good one, although the Department appear to be able to get the most eloquent advocates to state their case in this House. I remember a speech made by the Undersecretary in the House in regard to the Guards. We were told that the change would not only be a good one, but would very much improve the condition of the Guards. I am sorry to say the critics on that occasion were right, and the Under Secretary was wrong. For what have we secured? The second battalion of the Grenadier Guards were ordered to Gibraltar, and afterwards, instead of being sent on to the Cape, as we all understood would be the case, they were despatched back to England. Now, one of the chief reasons for the change of service of the Guards was that by the service at Gibraltar they would be rendered more efficient, and able to go on any expedition. The hon. Member for West Belfast said that no organised units had left these shores for ten days after the declaration of war. I cannot help thinking that, if the Guards had been left in the condition they were in before the change, we should have had some chance of some organised units being despatched to the Cape at once. I had hoped that the Under Secretary would have indicated some scheme of having a few regiments of infantry ready for despatch and to take the field at a moment's notice, without calling on the Reserves. Some of the difficulties we have had in this war have arisen from the fact that we could not send out any artillery or cavalry without calling on the Reserves. Now in this matter we differ very considerably from Continental nations, such as France and Germany, which always keep a certain portion of their cavalry and artillery up to war strength. It would appear we have to get back to the colours the Reserves before we can send our cavalry or artillery to the front. I may remind the Committee that one reason for the inability of Lord Methuen to advance after a successful engagement was that the artillery and cavalry did not arrive in time. That was not so much owing to the lack of transport, but that we could not send them out in an efficient condition. I would like to
  786
  direct the attention of the Under Secretary to the question of the organisation of our cavalry. I may remind the Committee that in this country our squadrons are smaller in the number of men and horses than the squadrons of any other nation. Our war strength of squadrons comprises only 134 mounted men, whereas in France and Germany the squadrons consist of 149 and 150 mounted men respectively. The difference does not seem particularly great, but when it is remembered that these nations put four squadrons in the field as a regiment, and we only put three, then the difference becomes more marked. Further, when we consider that our regimental full strength is 407 men and horses, as against 668 in Germany, and 935 in Austria, and 995 in France, then I think a clear case has been made out for doing something to increase the strength of our cavalry per regiment. I hoped to see something done in that respect, but I cannot find in the Army Estimates any indication of a change at any kind or description that is going to be made. I cannot see how the emergency proposals can be carried out. We have been told that the reserve squadrons of every cavalry regiment that has gone to the front would be now made into service squadrons. I cannot see how a reserve squadron, composed almost entirely of recruits, with very few officers, and these very young, can possibly be made into a service squadron, and at the same time provide drafts for the regiment at the front. I had hoped that the Government would have proposed a permanent addition to the cavalry forces, and I am sorry that they should have attempted, if I may venture to say so, to throw dust into the eyes of the British subjects that they had created four more cavalry regiments. I see that the new squadrons of the Household Cavalry are not to have any new officers, there is simply to be an addition to the number of the men. I would remind the Financial War Secretary that something ought to be done to supply a much larger number of officers in the cavalry. At the present moment there is a very real and serious deficiency in the supply of such officers. I know some hon. Gentlemen have put that down to the fact of the expense of living in cavalry regiments. When we look abroad we see that the German Emperor issued an edict about the ex-

  787
  penses to which cavalry officers are put, but in spite of that very little could be done to keep these expenses down. I ask the Government to see whether something could not be done to change the leave system. That may seem a trifle, but I can assure the Under Secretary for War that that is one of the main factors which deters men from joining the cavalry. They used to get two and a-half months leave straight on end. That may seem too much; but what the officers chiefly object to is that three weeks are taken away from them in the middle of their leave, and they cannot settle down in any one place. I would suggest that the leave should be cut down, and that the system of breaking the leave in the middle should be abolished. I consider that the most interesting portion of the speech of the Under Secretary was that dealing with the employment of troops composed of natives of British India for service in Mauritius. That is an entirely new departure in our military history. I venture to ask the Under Secretary whether the two battalions recruited in India, and paid for by the Government, will be permanently stationed in Mauritius, or whether they will be interchangeable with other battalions of the Indian army. Then I call the attention of the hon. Gentleman to the fact that the number of officers with these battalions is only eight per regiment. In this connection it is worth while that the Government should remember what Lord Roberts said as regards the number of officers and the efficiency of native regiments. The Field Marshal said that the officering of native regiments was one of the most important questions the Government had to deal with. His words were—
  "The officering of native regiments, nine to a cavalry, and eight to an infantry regiment, may be sufficient in time of peace; but that number is quite too small to stand the strain of war. Indian soldiers, like soldiers of every nationality, require to be led; and history and experience teach us that Eastern races (fortunately for us), however brave and accustomed to war, do not possess the qualities that go to make leaders of men, and that native officers in this respect can never take the place of British officers. It is, therefore, most unwise to allow native regiments to enter upon a war with a much smaller proportion of British officers than is considered necessary for European regiments. I have no doubt whatever of the lighting powers of our best Indian troops; I thoroughly appreciate their soldierly qualities; brigaded with British troops I would be proud to lead them against any European enemy; but we cannot
  788
  expect them to do with less leading than our own soldiers require; and it is, I maintain, trying them too highly to send them into action with the present establishment of British officers."
  Lord Roberts adds—
  "During the Mutiny the casualties among the British officers with the Sixth Punjab Regiment, which saw the most fighting, amounted to 60 per cent."
  Well, when we come to consider that in a cavalry regiment at home the number of officers is twenty-three, on service twenty-six, and in India twenty-nine; and in the infantry regiments at home twenty-four, in the colonies twenty-eight, and in India twenty-nine, I think the number for the Mauritius battalions is too small. It may be said that the Soudanese regiments are in the same condition; but I do not suppose that these regiments are intended to fight against any but Soudanese. The West African regiment has thirty-nine officers, the West Indian regiment forty-one officers, and the Chinese regiment twenty-eight officers per battalion. Last, but not least, the British Central African regiment stationed in Mauritius has only nineteen officers per battalion. I hope the Government will consider this point, and also that the number of officers in the Indian regiments should be increased. Another subject to which I wish to draw the attention of the Financial Secretary is with what rifle these native regiments are going to be armed. It may not be known that at present they are armed with the Martini-Henry single loader rifle, while our own troops are armed with the magazine rifle, and the troops with whom they may be called upon to fight are armed with the very best rifles that money can buy. I trust that fact will be taken into consideration. Turning to the Volunteers and the emergency proposals, I am sure that these proposals, especially as modified to-night by the Under Secretary for War, will be gladly welcomed. I have three gallant regiments of Volunteers in my own constituency, and from what I have heard from them, the Government will this year be easily able to get the men to camp for fourteen days. Another part of these proposals will be cordially accepted, namely that the Volunteers and the Militia are to have a Deputy Adjutant General. One omission I noticed in the

  789
  speech of the Under Secretary, and that was, he made no mention of the Yeomanry. Now I hold that the Yeomanry are entitled to a great deal of the praise that has been given to both the Volunteers and the Militia; and I think it is a pity that the Under Secretary did not take the opportunity of recognising the good work that they have performed. But I would like to know whether the Deputy Adjutant General appointed for the Volunteers or the Deputy Adjutant General for the Militia is to look after the Yeomanry, or whether a Deputy Adjutant General is to be appointed for the Yeomanry alone. Now I come to the question of the permanent staff of the Auxiliary forces. The fact is that at the present moment both the Volunteers and the Militia have lost part of their permanent staff. In one regiment that I know of, no fewer than three of the permanent staff have gone to the front; and in another, two including the adjutant, have been taken away. Now, the Yeomanry and the Volunteers have been asked to go out in training for a longer period, and invited to recruit up to their full strength; and it is very hard on them that no provision is made to fill up the vacancies on the permanent staff. Everybody knows the difficulty of getting hold of good men to instruct young recruits. Is it too much to ask the Government to detach some non-commissioned officers from the Regular Army, for the purposes of instructing the new recruits in the Volunteer and Militia regiments? I can assure the Under Secretary that this point is occasioning great consternation in the minds of commanding officers. Another point to which I wish to direct attention is the appointment to commissions in the Militia. The right hon. gentleman the Member for East Manchester, who is Chairman of the Service Members Committee, alluded to boys in public schools being appointed to direct commissions above the heads of men who had qualified in other respects, and who are serving at the front. I hope some care will be taken in the allotment of these commissions. Only the other day I heard from an officer who has a son serving at the front, that his son had taken part in two engagements, and hat been well reported on by his colonel. A death vacancy occurred, and a general was appointed from the Militia from home direct into the regiment, and the
  790
  young officer serving at the front loses his seniority. I know that these appointments lie with the Commander-in-Chief, but I trust that in the case of young officers who went out to the front in the first instance, inquiry will be made so that their claims will not be prejudiced. There is another question, that of the Royal Reserve Battalions. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for War in making his statement on the Supplementary Estimates told us that the Reservists were to be called back and asked to volunteer in the Reserve battalions, and that these were men who had done their twelve years service. He said—
  "We shall allow men to come back, although they have served their twelve years. In that case we shall allow them to serve on for pension."
  The other day I asked a question whether these men were to be allowed so to serve, and I was informed that that was not the case—that they were only to be allowed to serve one year, and not to serve on for pension. I venture to think that it would be wise to induce some of these men to serve on for pension. I can assure the Financial War Secretary that this point is one which has been much inquired after by the men affected, and that a favourable answer from him would be much appreciated.
  *Mr. BUCHANANsaid he did not wish to repeat the questions which he had put to the Under Secretary on the previous day, and in reply to which he had not obtained all the information he desired. He found that the statements he had made on the previous day were under rather than over the mark. What he complained of was that the Estimates submitted to the House did not fully show anything like the liabilities the country would have to meet in consequence of the large increase in the forces. The full truth was not revealed to the Committee. There were certain branches of expenditure consequential on the increase in the number of the forces which implied a small initial Vote this year, but which would involve great future expenditure; and in order to be frank and fair with the House the Under Secretary ought to have given them what would be the total liability to the country when the scheme came into full operation. The increased

  791
  number of men on the permanent establishment was 27,500, and he complained that no provision had been made for their barrack accommodation. He desired to know whether the Government intended to introduce a new Barracks Loan Bill, and if so whether it was to be done during the present year, and what the cost would be. According to the figures given by the Under Secretary of £120 per man, it would be three millions and a quarter, which was a very large amount. Under the head of the Vote for men there was an item under the head of Colonial Corps, part of which consisted of the colonial contingents now serving in South Africa. The remarks made by the Under Secretary rather pointed to the conclusion that the Government really intended in the future to organise a permanent force of these colonial contingents. Under those circumstances it was desirable that some explanation should be given as to the conditions under which they had been engaged, and whether they had been invited to undertake the extra work of garrisoning South Africa after the war had been brought to a conclusion, which seemed to be indicated by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. It had been suggested that when the war was over some of the colonial troops would be transferred to the service of the Chartered Company, who would use them for policing the conquered country. He hoped a categorical denial would be given to that suggestion. He could hardly imagine anything more unwise than to get a contingent from one self-governing colony to undertake such a duty in another, and in his opinion such a course would tend, more than anything else, to the disunion of the Empire. Apart from the colonial troops furnished for the purposes of the war in South Africa, he noticed on the Vote a considerable number of men voted under the head of Colonial Corps, and he found on looking back that that number was continually increasing. When the Government came into office these forces practically consisted of the Royal Malta Artillery, and other Artillery forces, and the infantry which came under the category was represented by two battalions of the West India Regiment, and one regiment at Hong Kong. From the time the Government entered office they had been constantly added to. The right hon. Gentleman denied that the recent increase was
  792
  due to Imperial expansion, but he had omitted to notice the fact that the increase of these corps had only taken place during the last few year. He deprecated the practice of charging the British Estimates with the cost of forces not British in character, and charged the Government with the responsibility of so doing. This practice, which had been adopted by the Government to an extent never before contemplated, in his opinion was most dangerous. For increasing colonial garrisons the aggressive and expansive policy of the Government was clearly responsible. He asked whether the Indian regiments were to be taken for the general reinforcement of the military resources of the Empire. Could they be sent anywhere? Were they to be absolutely at the disposal of the military authorities? It was important the Committee should understand what were the conditions under which the Indian Government had agreed to part with two of its native regiments.
  *THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL WILLIAMS,remarked that it was not a question of the Indian Government parting with any existing regiments. New regiments were raised to replace those taken for service in Mauritius. Whether they would ever be asked to volunteer for service elsewhere if occasion arose was more than he could, say.
  *Mr. BUCHANAN: I do not know that that agrees with what was said last night by the Under Secretary.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: If it does not, I am wrong.
  *Mr. BUCHANAN: Are the Government going to take two of the native regiments that at present exist?
  *Mr. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: No.
  *Mr. BUCHANAN: Are they going to recruit two native regiments in India and take them to Mauritius?
  *Mr. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: No.
  *Mr. BUCHANANsaid he certainly gathered that the Government intended to take from India two regiments for service in the Mauritius.
  *Mr. J. POWELL-WILLIAMSpointed out that that was a question of the future; the immediate intention was to recruit two new regiments.
  *MR. BUCHANANthought that if two regiments were wanted for Mauritius in the present emergency the authorities would have taken two trained regiments, but what had just been said showed the extreme necessity for some further explanation on the subject. There was the further question of pay to be considered. Did the Government propose to pay the capitation grant for each recruit? At the present moment we made the Indian Government pay not only all the expenses of the British troops in India, but compelled them to hire British soldiers from the War Office, at £7 10s. per head. The Home Government was now going to recruit soldiers in India, but he could not find the cost of that recruiting in the Estimates. Was it wise from a military point of view that there should be an independent recruiting authority in India recruiting against the Indian Government? Such a suggestion would only need to be mooted to be disclaimed. It was a very questionable departure from the military system of this country to go to India as a recruiting ground for the British Army, and the result so far as India was concerned would be that when the financial aspect was considered India, as she always did when financial relations were discussed between her and this country, would go to the wall. The large increase of colonial corps was justified by the Government on the ground of Imperial defence, and looked upon in that light India is our largest dependency. If India were lost Great Britain ceased to be a great military Power. At the present time India discharged the whole of her military obligations herself, and in fact did a great deal more than her duty in the way of Imperial defence, and now the Government intended to take a great number of her troops for service in other parts of the Empire. He hoped some further explanation would be forthcoming upon the points he had drawn to the attention of the House.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: In the first place I should like to follow the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire in pressing one or two questions. In reference to the colonial native troops who
  794
  are to be used for employment outside India, it would be interesting to know what the duties of those troops are, and what are to be the methods and places of their employment. There is considerable doubt felt as to what the proposals of the Government in regard to the permanent additions to our forces really mean. As far as I can make out the scheme of the Government does not go much further, except in some particulars which I will mention, than that outlined by Mr. Stanhope in 1888. In many respects it is the corollary and consequence of the steps then taken. In a memorandum attached to the Estimates of 1887–8 it was pointed out that a general review of our available forces showed that with certain changes and additions they would be sufficient to provide men for all our home and colonial garrisons, and also to furnish two army corps of regular troops, together with a strong cavalry division, and the necessary troops to guard their line of communication, i.e. after providing for India and the Colonies. The two great deficiencies to be noted were in connection with our garrisons, and existed in the Garrison Artillery and in the Engineers. Therefore, if we take, as usual, the infantry as the guiding line of discussion, it remains true that Mr. Stanhope's ideal was two army corps of regular troops, with a strong cavalry division, and the necessary troops to guard their line of communication. The memorandum went on to say that the whole of the units necessary to complete this organisation were actually in existence in the year 1888, with the exception of some deficiencies in the departmental corps, which could, however, be rapidly filled up on an emergency. I need not labour that point, but I should like to compare that statement with the speech of the Under Secretary for War in February last.* Speaking of the mobile force necessary for home defence, he said—
  "We propose to aim at three army corps and three cavalry brigades. This as been our aim for the defence of this country ever since 1888, and I think we have shown that practically we have recently reached that standard, because we have sent out more than two army corps, and have in this country the other half of the third."
  *See The Parliamentary Debates[Fourth Series], Vol. lxxviii, page 1271.

  795
  The Under Secretary then went on to point out what, of course, was true—that by far the more serious aspect of this depleting of the country of troops is not that 128,000 Regular soldiers have been sent to South Africa, but that the permanent plant of two army corps has been sent away. He then said—
  "Our proposal is—and this is a permanent proposal—to raise at once the Artillery, the Army Service Corps, and the Engineers for two army corps. That is to say, we propose to raise at once thirty-six battalions of field artillery and seven battalions of horse artillery. Our scheme is this—that there should always be in this country at full war strength those permanent parts of an army corps which it is difficult to improvise."
  Practically, then, as I understand it, the addition we are now making to the scheme at which he have been working for twelve years is that of the permanent increase of two army corps. As to the permanent increase of the Army, I understand the Government propose to add in this year 27,000 men, but it must not be forgotten that we are practically in the middle of another programme; we are in process of raising 25,000 men which were announced as the goal of the Government in this matter two years ago. It is very interesting to observe what has been done in regard to raising these men. In 1897 the Government put forward a programme adding to the military forces of the country 9,024 men. In the following year they extended that programme and announced their intention of adding25,083 men to the Army. We have now the proposal to add another 27,000, so that there has been a progressive increase in the proposed additions, with the result that it is now the purpose of the Government to add a total of 52,626 men. How far has this purpose been carried out? The increase actually obtained on the 1st January, 1899, was 12,636 men, but from that number must be deducted 4,500 men in the first class Army Reserve, leaving a net increase after the scheme has been in operation for two years of8,136 men. That is to say, on the 1st January, 1899, you had not succeeded in carrying out the first programme of 1897. According to my figures, we have still to raise, under the schemes of these three years, 43,490 men for the Regular Army. By the present scheme we have also to raise 76,000 men for the Militia, Yeomanry, and Volunteers,
  796
  to bring up the battalions which we want for home defence. Beyond that we have a number of cavalry required to bring up to war strength the cavalry regiments we have here on a peace strength. We want men to bring up to war strength the three Household regiments which are minus a squadron each, and we have to bring twelve reserve squadrons to service squadron strength in order to form the four regiments referred to by the hon. Gentleman. Then we have a fourth item in cavalry—namely, the troop apiece from each Yeomanry regiment, which implies that we have to fill up the vacancies in the Yeomanry. I am trying to arrive at an estimate of the effort the country has to make both in men and in money to meet the demands of the Government, and how far the scheme is likely to succeed. In reference to the addition of 76,000 men for the auxiliary forces, I should like to ask the same question as I have asked before: Why is the Under Secretary so sanguine? Besides this permanent increase there are also temporary demands. You are calling up the artillery Reservists. I cannot help thinking that in the future organisation the 200,000 men connected with the twelve Royal Reserve battalions might be a very valuable source upon which to draw when an increase of forces for home defence was required. What is this very large demand going to cost? The hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire calculated the cost of barracks for 25,000 or 27,000 men, but it is going to be more than that. There will be barracks for 40,000 men, and if you are going to do something to attract a superior class of men, the cost will probably be much more than the estimate of £120 per man. It means a capital expenditure of between £5,000,000 and £6,000,000 for barracks alone, apart from ranges, equipment, the initial cost of arms, the rearming of the Volunteer artillery, and the establishment of these forty-three battalions. It is just as well we should know what we are doing, because we seem to be drifting into responsibilities which we scarcely realise. Another very important question, apart from the cost, is, are you going to get the men? We have had most encouraging figures as to the results of recruiting lately. Both here and in another place the representative of the War Office has told us how month after month there has been a very generous

  797
  rally of recruits to the services. I may incidentally say here that it is very difficult to discuss these larger considerations in connection with the Army without having before us the report of the Inspector General of Recruiting. The whole question of whether or not this is a wise policy on the part of the Government depends on whether it is likely to be realised. How far does our experience of recent years justify us in the expectation that we should get all these men? In war time the enthusiasm and patriotism of the country runs high, and recruiting receives a great impulse, but what is it going to be when peace again reigns? There cannot be worse agents for recruiting than those men who will shortly return in such large numbers with the loss of a limb, or loss of health, or loss of capacity to earn a living. What has happened in previous years? Perhaps I may disregard the experience of the past four months, as it does not afford a normal standard. In 1897 the Government brought forward a proposal involving an addition of 9,000 men to the Army. By the 1st January, 1899, they had succeeded in getting 8,000. If it takes two years to raise 8,000, how long will it take to raise 40,000? It is a very serious responsibility for this House and for the country to accept the proposals made by the Government as the minimum consistent with the safety of the country, if at the same time the way cannot be clearly seen in the present proposals by which that minimum can be obtained. That seems to be the situation in which we stand. In all quarters of the House there is a certain amount of doubt as to whether the methods proposed by the Government will be successful in securing the end they have in view. Various expedients have been proposed, and I rather regret that some of them have not received more serious consideration. There is the question so often raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Great Yarmouth as to the employment of marines in the place of military forces.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The hon. Member is aware that the War Office has no power over the marines.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: Certainly. I am only pointing out that that expedient,
  798
  if carried out, would have the effect of releasing some battalions from the colonial roster, and of relaxing in some measure the strain at present put upon our Army system owing to the number of battalions we have to keep abroad. If you are going to give the present system of invitation a real chance you must increase the present inducements. The old inducements are not sufficient. In the first place, we must contemplate increased pay. I do not think it necessary that the initial pay should be increased, because at the age at which men enter the Army they do not consider the question of pay so much as at a later period of life. But it might be worth consideration whether the pay in later years should not be increased, and whether, as an incentive to join and as a reward for good conduct, you should not make the good conduct badges not only more valuable but more frequent. Another inducement which is necessary, if you are going to add to the attractiveness of the Army, is that you should add to the number of married men in a regiment. Our system is not so comfortable as in foreign armies, the study of which suggests that the proportion of married men in our regiments is not very great, and it is worthy of consideration whether the increase of that proportion to each regiment would not be an inducement to recruiting. I need not say a word about the elasticity of the service, for we seem to be making progress in that respect. There is one other matter that has been suggested to me by more than one officer, and that is, that the service, as a whole rather lacks a career for the best class of non-commissioned officers. It might be possible to increase the number of warrant officers throughout the service. Possibly, then, the senior sergeant-majors and the various leading non-commissioned officers who are now senior non-commissioned officers would be able to work up to the rank of warrant officers, and so you would open a career which would be of great value to the Army. Perhaps I may be allowed to say a word about the idea that there should be some training in civil life. I feel that it might be possible to facilitate and regulate the transfer of men from the colours into civil life, and to make the channel between the civil population and the Army more open. This could be done by some condition on leaving the service that when-

  799
  ever a man had done his drills and become a trained and competent soldier he should be allowed to go to civil life and be a soldier on whom you can call when required. Then there is another point, and that is what is the increase of our Army due to? The Secretary of State for War in his Memorandum has said that our growing Imperial responsibilities are the immediate cause of the present increase. That is perfectly true, but we must define what we mean by growing Imperial responsibilities. I suppose it would be equally true of the Navy to say that the great increase there was due to the same cause. Even in the present scheme the Under Secretary admitted that in providing fifty-two battalions for India and thirty-nine battalions for the colonies, making a total of ninety-one battalions, even then you have not the full number to keep up the balance of battalions at home and abroad.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The figures I used were fifty-two battalions for India, three for Egypt, seventeen for all the colonial stations including Gibraltar, and we now propose twelve for South Africa; that makes eighty-four, and deducting the three battalions of Guards leaves the total at eighty-one.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: But you do not get the 162 battalions, which is the multiple arrived at considering the number of battalions at home and abroad. I do not blame the Government for not having gone the whole length of 162 battalions, but I am pointing out with all our great efforts we do not arrive at the result which we want to attain. What is it that causes this increase in our military responsibility and the demands made upon it? Your colonial garrisons number fifty-nine battalions, but in the year 1888 they only numbered 29,000 men. When I speak of the colonial forces I am referring not to the Queen's battalions sent abroad, but to the various local forces raised in various parts of the Empire, and put on the Estimates under Foreign and Colonial Forces on page 11 of the Army Estimates. This great increase is supposed to be due to the great increase of our responsibilities in Africa, Asia, and different parts of the world. The First Lord of the Treasury says it is not due to the extension of our Empire in Africa and Asia, and that it has been
  800
  rendered necessary not by the foreign policy of the Government, but by the naval and military policy of other countries. That is very important, and I believe it is a very true statement, because it must be seen on the Estimates that so far as it goes the forces which have been called into being by our colonial expansion in Africa and Asia consist not of forces of the regular Army, but very largely of those colonial forces which are not in the Army Estimates, and also of the forces under the Colonial and the Foreign Office, which, put altogether, form a very respectable army. When we come to other portions of the right hon. Gentleman's statement I must confess that I am obliged to differ. It is perfectly plain that whatever may have been the naval and military policy of other countries, the naval policy of this country has had some influence in encouraging, if not actually leading the way for, an increase in the naval expenditure of other countries. I am afraid that may be the case with these Army Estimates, and if the country does not watch closely the increase in the expenditure on the part of the Army we may be led into the same danger. It used to be said that an increase in the Navy had nothing whatever to do with the Army, but whenever an increase takes place in the Navy an increase in the Army generally takes place with it. If this great increase in our military expenditure is not due to colonial expansion, it is due to our relations with other Powers. If we choose to cultivate a friendly policy and make it our aim and object to cultivate friendly relations with other Powers, that affords the only hope of moderating the naval and military expenditure of the country. There is an idea abroad that we and other countries must go to large territories and keep them as preserves for our trade. Everyone knows that that was the first idea of colonies, but it has long ago been exploded. I venture to lay emphasis npon the fact that the alternative and only method of checking an increase in our naval and military expenditure is to adopt a persistent and magnanimous policy which will preserve equanimity and magnanimity between those great Powers which compete with us in armaments. It is difficult to discuss these questions in view of the present South African entanglement. Upon this question it is difficult to dissociate one's opinions,

  801
  because we are all standing shoulder to shoulder to get the country out of the present difficulty. The Under Secretary for War tells us that on this side we have no middle course between denouncing the war and co-operating cordially with the Government in the permanent proposals which they put forward, but I venture to differ from that statement. I do not believe that the policy of the present Government has tended to reduce the necessity for armaments, and I do believe that if a proper, friendly, and self-controlled policy on the part of this country—which ought to be mindful of the aspirations of other people as well as our own—had been cultivated, and the country had been helped to adopt that policy, and public opinion educated in that direction, we should have gone a great way in the direction of avoiding what I believe to be a real danger in the future, and that is that without studying these questions and without going into them carefully we should be forced by an ill-informed public opinion to increase very largely our Army Estimates. It is well known that, upon this matter, there is a very powerful public opinion outside. If the Government have had abuse it has not been from this side of the House, but it has come from those outside who are usually the supporters of the present Government. Those are the people who have been disappointed because the Government have not adopted more extreme measures and resorted to compulsory schemes. In The Times to-day there is a repetition and reiteration of a proposal that we should have an Army League to hasten and bustle the public opinion of the country at a time when it cannot be said to be normal, and through the circumstances connected with this war compel the Government to adopt proposals of very great magnitude. I am extremely grateful to the House for allowing me to speak so long. I know it is too late to object to these increases now that we are deeply committed to them, but I raise my voice, humble though it be, in order to urge greater vigilance and more close examination of the proposals of the Government, and to repeat that, so far as the present war is concerned, I am at one with the Government in wanting to get it over and carried out to its final conclusion. I trace this increased expenditure not only to increased responsibilities abroad, but also to
  802
  the policy which the Government has pursued ever since it came into office.
  SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD: The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite has given us to-night, as he generally does, a somewhat interesting address. In the long address he has just delivered he has discussed the general policy of the Government, but he does not seem to recognise the fact that this country is now at war, and that what we care about in voting these Estimates is that we should have a thoroughly efficient army in South Africa and also an efficient force for home defence. Instead of discussing this the hon. and gallant Member has gone more into questions affecting the general policy of the country.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: I do not know whether the hon. Member was here during the whole of my speech.
  SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD: Yes, I was.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: I stated distinctly that I wished to confine myself to the permanent increase in the Estimates.
  SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD: The hon. and gallant Member's speech from beginning to end referred to the general policy, but I wish to refer to the war policy, for I know the people do not care at present about the policy raised in the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member opposite. The people of this country want to see our troops beat the Boers, and they also want a good army for home defence. We are asked to vote a very large number of men, and in that you have two new factors; one is the colonial army and the other the Royal Reserves. Amongst the remarks made by my hon. friend the Under Secretary of State for War last night, the remark he made about our colonial forces was particularly interesting to me. There is no doubt that we have in our colonial forces a very great source of strength to rely upon in the future. I happen to know this force, for I spent two years in Australia, and I was an officer in the Victoria Militia. I know the stuff those men are composed of, and I know that their Militia and artillery are perfectly efficient and excellently trained. I hope the Committee will allow me to say that I have read with very great regret of the death of that

  803
  able officer Colonel Umphelby. I knew that gentleman when I was in Victoria, and I can say that a braver or a more enthusiastic soldier of the Queen never wore a uniform. With regard to this question of our colonial forces I must point out that it is one which requires to be handled with very great care. Although all our colonies are loyal they are all exceedingly jealous of interference with their local forces, and do not desire to be connected with any Imperial scheme or official red tape. Therefore, we should be very careful indeed how we try to bring them in as part of our military system. That will perhaps be one of the things which my right hon. friend the Colonial Secretary will be able to discuss with the Australian representatives when they come over here to discuss Imperial Federation. I listened to my hon. friend's speech last night, as I always do, with the greatest interest and attention, for he is always eloquent and amiable. I could not help thinking, however, that he was like the prophet Elijah, and I was like the young man, for my eyes were opened; but, unfortunately, when my hon. friend sat down that vision disappeared. Now, what are the actual requirements of the war at the present time? Two things are required. First of all we want a constant stream of drafts for our field force in South Africa; and, secondly, we require a mobile army for the defence of our country at home. I think when the Militia now embodied have gone out we shall then have quite sufficient units in South Africa. Our duty then will be to keep up a constant stream of drafts. To do this we have three forces. There are the recruits enlisted some twelve or eighteen months ago. Then there is Section D of the Army Reserves, and we have a certain number of men who are temporarily invalided for medical reasons, but who will be ready to go out again for duty in a short time. With these forces we should have no difficulty in raising 3,000 men every month as drafts for South Africa, which should be quite sufficient. I know that our losses at the commencement of the war were very heavy, but if we can keep up drafts of 3,000 men per month I think we shall do very well, and we cannot expect our losses to be in the future anything like so heavy as they have been during the past five months. With these drafts I think the Govern-
  804
  ment will be able to keep up their strength in South Africa. Now to turn to the question of our army for home defence. I do not propose for a moment to deal with the permanent proposals of the War Office. My view is that it is ideal to reform your Army permanently until you begin at the top and reform your War Office. I simply refer to-night to the emergency proposals of the Government. I am no alarmist, and I do not believe even in the possibility of an invasion of this country, although a raid is quite possible. I believe in that possibility, because our Fleet might possibly in the future meet with a temporary check, which in these days of steam power would be far more serious than under the old conditions. Another reason why we should have an army for home defence is that the stronger we show ourselves at home the less we have to fear from complications abroad. I think it was announced in the Army Estimates that we have a force of 400,000 men at home. I do not believe in the argument that this is a stage army. There is an army of 400,000 men which we are supposed to have at home, and I look upon it not so much as a stage army, but as magic lantern army. What we do want is a really mobile force at home which we can use not to repel invasions, but to repel a raid. I do trust that the Government will seriously take into consideration the question of giving up this useless idea of locking up a number of Volunteers to defend the forts around London. If the forts around London are to be held by Volunteers when London is being invested, it will be then time to haul down our flag. My hon. and gallant friend earlier in the session talked in an eloquent way of our gallant troops who were going to guard the heart of the Empire. As regards the Royal Reserve battalions there is a certain amount of justice to be done to the old soldier. A great many old soldiers who have joined the Imperial Yeomanry and the Volunteers and gone abroad have not received a sixpence of bounty, but these men who have stayed at home and joined for garrison duty have received a bounty. That, I think, is a gross injustice. When those proposals were introduced three weeks ago my impression was that the old soldier who was called to the colours would have participated—
  MR. WYNDHAM: They came back to serve for pension.
  SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD: The available number was, we were told, 170,000, and that the number expected to return was 45,000 or 50,000, and that the number that had returned was 17,000. The non-return of those who have not responded to the call is not due to any want of patriotism or loyalty, but is because they cannot afford it. A man with a family to support, who is in regular employment earning as alary of £1 or 25s. a week, cannot afford to throw it up. The bounty of £22 is too large and too small. It is too small to attract the best class of men—men who are in regular employment—and a smaller bounty would be sufficient to attract those who are engaged in casual labour. It is also a great mistake to form new Militia units. The second line which we have to fall back on for a mobile line in times of necessity is the Militia, and, as everybody knows, the condition of the Militia is deplorable. It is very well to take abroad battalions of Militia, but if you are going to embody them and depend upon them for national defence the proper thing would be to make a fresh battalion and to get Reserve men to join them. If old soldiers were tempted to join the Militia—if they were given a small bounty to join for a fortnight or a month's training, the Militia would be strengthened enormously. A small bounty of £4 or £5 might be given, and a great many old soldiers who could not leave their work for a longer period would train with the Militia for a fortnight and would make that body much more valuable as a mobile force in case of need. I think my suggestion is a feasible one. With regard to the suggestion to call out the Volunteers for a month's training annually, that in my opinion is fantastical to a degree. I have made inquiries of Volunteer colonels, and the universal opinion is that it is absolutely impossible. Neither employers of labour, officers, nor men could afford it. It is a strong demand to make on employers to grant Volunteers in their service a month's holiday in addition to paying war taxation, keeping their places open for Reserve men, and giving their wives half their wages.
  806
  I should suggest that, instead of having a month in camp, the Volunteers should have eight days in camp under military law and under Regular officers, and during the whole of that time should be kept at drill. Eight days of proper training under military law and Regular officers would do a great deal more good than the month's go-as-you-please that the Government proposes. All these schemes with regard to the Volunteers are in the hands of employers of labour, and the Government should endeavour to get the employers of labour on their side. If a man has a number of Volunteers in his service, it is obvious that his business must suffer while those men are away in camp, and that loss should be returned to him in some way. My suggestion is that as this is a temporary scheme, where an employer of labour can return half of his employees, between the ages of twenty and thirty, as efficient Volunteers, he should receive 50 per cent. abatement on his income tax, and I can assure my right hon. friend that if he adopts the eight days camp instead of the twenty-eight days camp, he would get back that money over and over again. I hope the emergency proposals of the Government will be a success, and that we shall have in this country a mobile force able to make our shores secure against invasion.
  MR. WYNDHAM: My hon. and gallant friend who has just addressed the Committee has brought into the discussion a great deal of experience and of know-which he has accumulated during a distinguished career. Some of his suggestions are points we have considered and reluctantly set on one side. He touched on the colonial forces, and he has had some experience of them, and he paid a tribute to them. He went on to express a sentiment with which I absolutely agree, and which I myself tried to express last night—namely, that we must not dictate to the forces of our colonies, that we must not look to the forces of our colonies to help us in the daily routine work of our great Empire. It is true we are supporting the largest burden; but how little it is considering the extent of our wealth and considering the fact that this House, after all, does in the last degree,

  807
  through the Government of the day, advise the Sovereign, who is the single link, the one symbol of unity of the whole Empire. But let us be careful not to trade on that fact. Let us use that advantage with the utmost tact and the utmost discretion. Let us never use that power of advising the Crown through the Ministry of the day in such a manner as to lead the representative Assembly of any dependency of the Crown to think that we wish to interfere, by dictation or even by suggestion, in a matter so intimately within the province of their own discretion as the force which they elect to raise and pay in any one year. I said last night, and I say it again, that after what we have seen we may believe that, if any other emergency arises which puts a strain upon the actual and potential forces of the Empire as a whole, the colonies will do in the future what they have done during the last few months, and we may expect that they will put themselves in a position to act when they wish to act side by side with ourselves. Then the hon. and gallant Baronet referred, and I was glad to hear it, to the exigencies of the present time. He said we cared more about the war in South Africa than we did about War Office reform. That is quite true. Everybody knows that when the chief military officers of the War Office are working during the hours and under the pressure that they are working now, it is not the moment to discuss or consider War Office reform. My hon. and gallant friend said that when the Eighth Division had arrived in South Africa the total number of troops in South Africa would be about 208,000, and that we ought not to increase the number of units. I quite agree. He also touched upon the question of drafts. Unfortunately, I have not with me the total of the drafts up to the most recent date, but up to January 31st we had sent out to South Africa as drafts to the Regular troops 12,061 men. What has sooften been lost sight of is that the losses have always been made good. Up to the end of January over 12,000 men had been sent out as drafts, and not as units to South Africa, and only 2,611 of them were drawn from the Militia Reserve. Therefore, the inroad made on the Militia Reserve is not nearly so large as has been supposed. If we can maintain that stream of drafts—and I know we can maintain it—it will be seen
  808
  that a good deal that has been said inside this House and outside it about the Regular troops left in this country is very highly coloured and exaggerated. I never pretended that the 109,000 men left in the country—now 101,000—were in units. I have always told the House exactly how many units there are in this country, in India, and in the Colonies, and I cannot give that table every time the matter is referred to. When I say that there are seventeen battalions in this country I cover the whole ground, and it follows that the men left in the country are largely made up of recruits and Reservists; but, as far as there are any Regular regiments and Reservists left, those regiments and those Reservists are every bit as good as those who have proceeded to South Africa and covered themselves with glory. No one can say that the Eighth Division is one whit behind the First or the Second, or any of those which have gone out. Passing from the exigencies of the situation in South Africa, I follow my hon. and gallant friend to the question of home defence. He says we must have a mobile Army. I do not any longer pledge myself to my own view as to what is a mobile army. I take refuge in the fact that everyone says you ought to have it; but in discussing the question my hon. and gallant friend ran a tilt against the Royal Reserve battalions. A mobile army to be mobile must be made up of troops who are proficient soldiers, and, therefore, in a year when we have sent so many of the trained troops out of the country, it is right and proper in our judgment, as an emergency measure for one year, to draw on this large reserve of men who are thoroughly trained and efficient, and who have done some seven years with the colours. My hon. and gallant friend says, "Your proposal is either too large or too small"; too large because it may give umbrage to men who are serving in the Militia, and too small because the bounty will not compensate the men for giving up the wages they are earning. When I hear my hon. and gallant friend say that our proposal is both too large and too small, I think I may believe that, perhaps, we have found the real mean which is described by the epithet "golden." My hon. and gallant friend said that our proposal is unfair to the man who has been a soldier and is now serving in the Militia, but a moment afterwards he

  809
  suggests that we ought to have invited such men to join the Militia. But if you were to compensate them for that you would not only have an injustice but a flagrant injustice, for you would leave the Militiaman in his Militia pay and the Royal Reserve man drawing much larger emoluments falling in day by day next to him in the ranks. That very proposal when carefully considered was set on one side because it was thought better to make the Royal Reserve scheme a frankly emergency measure, standing alone for one year, and I think, on the whole, that that was the wisest course. My hon. and gallant friend also touched upon the question of the Volunteers—on that point I must appeal from him to my hon. friend the Member for the Lewes Division of Sussex, who has been for so many years intimately connected with the Volunteer movement, and when he comes forward and tells us that our scheme is a sound one I am, at any rate, inclined not to despair. I may tell my hon. and gallant friend that all the questions he has put to me may be answered in the affirmative. The Government will provide camps and rations and pay, and treat the Volunteers in every respect on the footing of the private soldier.
  SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD: Under military law?
  MR. WYNDHAM: Well, I do not think you can put Volunteers under military law unless they are working side by side with Regular troops, but in this case they will be working side by side with Regular troops more often than not. The hon. Member for For far has spoken at some length, and he takes a gloomy view of things. He harps upon two things: the difficulty of getting men on the terms we now offer and the necessity of retrenchment in the Estimates. He asked why we do not use the marines. The marines are all required when the Fleet is mobile, and of all the crimes against the Navy that of robbing it of the marines would be the most warmly resented. The hon. Member used what I thought a very unfortunate expression in regard to the colonies, in comparing them to other uncivilised countries; but I will not pursue that. The hon. Member sug-
  810
  gested that we ought to have more married men in the Army. Again, I reply that that will not favourably affect the cause of retrenchment, because, as has been pointed out, one of the most important ultimate increases due to any increase in the Army is the increase in the charge for barracks, more especially in the charge for married quarters.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: I accepted the Government scheme, but I thought I had made suggestions which would have made the Army a little more attractive.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Quite true. The truth is, recruiting is at the bottom of the whole difficulty. We have been working hardly and patiently at the problem of recruiting, and our recruiting has expanded during the last three years from 27,000 to 40,000. The recruiting this year, I admit, with the adventitious aid of the war excitement has leapt up to 70,000. Are we then to despair on the road we are pursuing with such results, and when we have only begun during the last three or four years to tackle this problem of recruiting in a thoroughly methodical manner? No; that is part of our task which is the most difficult, but it is the part from which we hope to achieve the greatest results and advantages in the long run; and it is the only field on which we can work. "You ought to vote the establishment needed for the Empire," said an hon. Member, "and then get the men."
  MR. WARNER: What I said was that we had certain sections of the establishment which were not intended to be filled up at all.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Well, I will not follow that up. My hon. and gallant friend the Member for Taunton mourned over the development of my characteristics, since I was an attached officer in his regiment, due to the pernicious influences of the War Office, He told us there was a up as tree in the War Office, the mephitic fumes of which paralysed the brains of all who came near, so that however eager we may have been in earlier days for reform, from that moment not a word on the subject was heard from

  811
  us. Of course not. All that might be accepted without bringing in the up as tree and all those other allegorical appliances. The representative of the War Office cannot air his own ideas and fancies in the House. He cannot make the kind of speech delivered by the hon. and gallant Member for For far, for the Government would be accused of breach of faith if we did not set up forthwith barracks for married men. I can only indicate reforms and propound schemes which have been considered and decided upon, and for which the funds are provided in the Estimates. But I can assure my hon. and gallant friend that in hours of leisure my imagination plays over vast orbits which would satisfy even him. My hon. and gallant friend did make some suggestions of a practical character. A most valuable one was that we should diminish the amount of fatigue work placed on our soldiers in the Army. I quite agree with that, and we have taken some steps in that direction. The Committee will remember that in the Estimates of last year we took money for bringing back a certain number of reservists and pensioners to do such fatigue work in order to liberate the soldiers more to perform their proper military duties. I do not think we can press that reform too far. Then the hon. Gentleman criticised us on the score that certain members of the Headquarters Staff had proceeded to the theatre of war. That is a legitimate criticism, but I fail to see how the state of things of which he complains is to be avoided. It is one of the many cases in which the ideal conflicts with the practical in the management of our Army, and you have to make the best compromise you can. As to the question of remounts, I should hardly be justified in dealing with it fully, but in order to relieve apprehension I may say that we have sent about 12,000 remounts to the Cape in addition to the horses with the units, and that there are 8,000 more on their way. I do not think we need be anxious at all on that score, though, of course, on any one day, and in any one place, we may be short of horses for transport, or even for artillery. These are accidents that must at times overtake us when we are conducting military operations in a theatre of war about seven times as large as this kingdom. If I may pass a criticism on
  812
  this matter I must say that I cannot admit that the absence of cavalry or deficiency of artillery at a particular place, or on a particular day, is to be charged to the War Office. In speaking on the Address I pointed out that certain provision was made, to mature at a certain date, but that, owing to accident or misfortune, or, if you like, mistake, these plans were altered, and that undoubtedly Lord Methuen found himself without a proper proportion of cavalry. But if this charge is to be pressed home it ought to have been pressed home in October last, when we stated the exact conditions of the force that was to be sent out. I do not think the right hon. Baronet will say that for the 47,000 men then contemplated eight regiments of cavalry was an inadequate complement. The plan which we made was properly proportioned, but it was not on a sufficiently large scale. The whole plan was deranged owing to several incidents, but the defect has been remedied, and both as to the proportion of cavalry and guns I am prepared to attempt to convince the right hon. Gentleman that our case is a fairly good one.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: What I stated with regard to the number of guns had reference to the statement made by the Leader of the House at Manchester.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I do not think I will pursue that topic. It is hard enough to take up all the speeches made from day to day in the House and to conduct the ordinary work of my office without going into a defence of speeches delivered under very different circumstances three months ago. Of course I wish it to be understood that I have never said we had five guns for every thousand men under arms in South Africa, but that the forces in the fighting line would have five guns for every thousand. The number of field guns that we have in South Africa is 392. Reduce that and it gives you 78,400 men in the fighting line with field guns, and I do not believe that Lord Roberts and Sir Redvers Buller acting conjointly or separately could ever put more than 78,400 men in line in front of the enemy. Including semi-mobile and siege guns there are 479 guns in South Africa,

  813
  and Lord Roberts is satisfied with that total. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North-east Manchester has invited our attention to the steps we have taken in order to procure officers for the Army. His remarks have received and will receive the most careful consideration, but there are certain difficulties. We must get more officers for the Army, and the output, if I may so put it, of Sand hurst and of Woolwich is determined by their four walls. You have only one cadet for one room. You can increase the output by shortening the term, and that has been done. But a cadet could receive no military training at all unless he were retained there for one year, or at least for six months. Therefore we must go to other sources of supply. We hold that if a man, say of twenty-three years, has passed the examination at the university, or has now, under the great stress of the present circumstances, been selected by the Vice-Chancellor on his responsibility—we think that test gives us as good a qualification as we can find. That is really the whole matter; it is a question of demand and supply.
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: I may remind my hon. friend of what I really did say. I pointed out that there were public schools which had no instructors and no cadets, and I said that it would be unfair to give the proposed new direct commissions in priority to men who had probably not undergone any military training in these schools.
  MR. WYNDHAM: It might be that the men receiving commissions might have some other qualifications. A man might very well have failed two or three years ago in his examinations, and have gone into the Militia for military training; but, no doubt, some hard cases may arise. The Military Secretary, however, assures me that he has taken every care that in these particular cases every semblance of hardship and injustice should be avoided, and that candidates from schools or colleges should be widely distributed, so as to cause the least possible hardship. The difference is really so small that I think it ought not to be urged against us at a time like the present. I believe I have dealt with most of the topics raised on this Vote; and if hon. Members are
  814
  satisfied that I have endeavoured to meet them generally, I shall deal with any points that remain over when we come to discuss the hard practical details of each branch of the service.
  *SIR BRAMPTON GURDON: I am anxious to obtain fuller information in regard to a subject to which I called attention on a former Vote, but was then informed it would be more regular on the Army Estimates. I allude to a statement which appeared in The Times with reference to a battalion of 800 natives which were taken from British Central Africa—a very low type of untutored savages, not even like the Zulus—and had been sent without their wives and families to Mauritius, which we may call a civilised country, the country of Paul and Virginia, and placed there in the position of a British regiment to perform ordinary garrison duties. Naturally the despatch of these savage men to Mauritius was taken by the inhabitants as an insult, and they were subjected to some persecution. When only a short time in the island they raided a village, wounded thirty-five men, committed theft, and outraged some women. The Times correspondent gays that great disappointment was felt at the want of success of that experiment. I cannot understand how anyone who knew the nature of these men could express disappointment at the failure of the experiment. They are good enough men in their own country against Arab slave raiders or recalcitrant chiefs, if allowed to live in lines with their wives and families; but they are quite unfit to perform garrison duties in a civilised country. I am anxious to know what has become of that battalion. I understand that when the raid took place in Mauritius the men were interned in a quarantine island. That was a cruel punishment. I asked on a former occasion what had become of those men, and I was informed that they were returning to Africa. I naturally believed that they would be sent back to their own homes, but from the statement which accompanied the Army Estimates it appears that they are on their way to Somaliland. I wish to have some positive assurance from the Treasury Bench on

  815
  this subject that papers will be laid on the Table of the House, and that the Government will not again attempt, as they did in Mauritius, to play the game of Buffalo Bill on so large a scale. I hope that if these troops are really going to fight in Somaliland, great care will be taken to exercise full control over them, and not allow them to commit any such atrocities as had been committed in Mauritius. And, lastly, I hope that the Government will at the very first opportunity send these men to their own homes again.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am not an authority upon the character of the various tribes of Central Africa. It seems that this regiment has been taken away from Mauritius because the experiment of placing it there was, in the opinion of the War Office, a failure, and its place has been taken by two regular regiments of native infantry from the Indian Army. I feel bound to inform hon. Members that there is another side to this story, and that this regiment does not deserve to be held up to public odium by any means. For some time they were subjected to prolonged provocation; they were insulted, stoned, and goaded into reprisals. When the hon. Member says he hopes that in Somaliland, whither they have been despatched, they will be under proper control, we can say that we will take that care. No great care is needed on our part, because, although these men did break out, and the extent of the wrong they committed is a matter of doubt, the moment their officers appeared on the scene they fell in and returned to the path of duty. The men were subjected to severe punishment, but we believe that they will form a useful battalion in the forces of the Empire.
  MR. BUCHANAN: The hon. Gentleman used the expression that these troops were under the War Office last year, but he does not say whether they were sent to Somaliland under the Foreign Office. I ask whether a report has been received from the commanding officer in Mauritius, and whether that report will be circulated or laid on the Table of the House.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I will ask my hon. friend the Secretary of State for War if that can be done.
  MR. BUCHANAN: These Central African troops have no uniform, and ought not to have been sent to the Mauritius. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us more particulars as to the engagement made between this Government and the Government of India with reference to the two native regiments? Are these regiments to be taken solely for Mauritius, or can they be sent to any other parts of the Empire?
  MR. WYNDHAM: The hon. Member is probably aware that for many years past the British Government have recruited a native battalion in India which has been stationed at Hong Kong. Some objections had been taken to that proceeding, or at any rate to extending it; for it is never a good plan to have two people competing against each other in the same market. We have felt, however, that in some garrisons, particularly those in hot climates, there is a field for the employment of these admirable Indian troops, side by side with the British battalions. In order to avoid competing in the recruiting market in India with the Indian Government we fell in with the wishes of the Government and accepted two regiments from their roster of native infantry, for which we pay them, leaving that Government to increase their force by two regiments. As to the term of years for which we take these two particular regiments, that is a subject for future arrangements. As I understand it these two regiments are not ear-marked, for others would be glad to follow in their steps.
  MR. BUCHANAN: Are two extra regiments to be raised?
  MR. WYNDHAM: The hon. Member will see that there is an elaborate book-keeping arrangement between the two Governments, and we do our best not to rob each other.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMB: I wish to ask why men are appointed to commissions without any training, whereas the students at Woolwich and Sandhurst, who have some training, have been passed over.
  MR. WYNDHAM: How much further would my hon. and gallant friend consider such a system should be carried? Would he say that a man who had been two days at Sandhurst would have a right to selection?
  *SIR JOHN COLOMB: My point is that a man with six months special training should be given preference over a man who has had no special training at all. My hon. friend solemnly warned the House how extremely cautious it ought to be in making suggestions with reference to the colonies and the military defence of the Empire. I have looked into the question for many years, and what more than anything else has blocked the rapprochement between the colonies and the mother country is the red tape and obtuseness of the War Office. I feel bound to say that the War Office is missing a great opportunity. They have a large number of Volunteers from the colonies fighting at the front, and yet in filling up the commissioned ranks they have not time to give a thought to these men. Instead, the War Office is writing to the heads of universities and public schools to find officers to foist into the Army, while men who are qualified for the positions and are fighting at the front are not given a thought. I should have thought that if commissions are to be given away, the proper people to write to are the generals commanding in South Africa. There are certain to be a number of recommendations from generals commanding as regards men who have shown themselves fitted for commissions, and then the War Office will say that they deeply regret that all the vacancies have been filled up. It is by want of such forethought that so much harm is done. I have a motion on the paper with reference to the garrisons of Wei-hai-wei and Esquimault. My hon. friend can, however, stop me from discussing it if he states whether the present arrangements are to be accepted as the final decision of the Government.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The only indication I can give my hon. and gallant friend is that since I dealt with this subject last year we have had so many other important matters to deal with that I believe
  818
  no one has given a thought to Wei-hai-wei during the last five months.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMB: You get millions of money, and yet you don't know how they are to be spent. Have the Government at all calculated the cost of the garrison at Wei-hai-wei, and have they arrived at the limit which that garrison should attain? When an hon. Gentleman referred to the coaling stations, my hon. friend got up and said, "Oh, the First Lord of the Admiralty will tell you about that." I want to know what is the policy of the Defence Committee. Have the Defence Committee been unable to give a thought as to the policy they will pursue with regard to garrisoning naval stations? My hon. friend evidently has no policy. Is the policy of the Defence Committee to throw upon the Army naval work and naval responsibilities?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I said last night that there were seventeen British battalions in naval stations, and that is the policy.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMB: But there are no British battalions in these two places, only British artillery and engineers, and I want to know what the policy of the Government is. Are we to accept it as an emergency or a permanent arrangement that the Army should do naval work on naval stations? The greatest naval statesman England has had in modern years—Sir James Graham, who was twice First Lord of the Admiralty, once in peace and once during the Crimean War—has left it on record that the true policy of this country is that naval stations should be garrisoned by naval forces and not by military forces, and he spoke as a man of unique experience. We have now a new distribution of forces. We never before had a military force at Esquimalt. One hot night last July, I showed the very small way in which this new departure began and how it was manipulated, and I prophesied that if the War Office did not then and there check it there would be a considerable in-

  819
  crease in the Army Estimates. Last year there was no charge at all on the Imperial Votes for Esquimalt. For years we had Marine Artillery there and everybody was satisfied. There was a charge nominally on the Naval Votes, but the whole charge was repaid to the Admiralty by the Dominion Government. Now we have incurred a bigmilitary charge. That is the policy of the War Office, and it arises because under certain circumstances at the War Office a good deal more attention is paid to getting billets for friends than to bullets of the enemy. This matter began altogether by the desire of engineer officers to get to Esquimalt, and they finally succeeded, with the connivance of the War Office. I am quite satisfied that the Committee will see that my hon. friend shows the want of policy in these matters. He tried to get rid of discussing Wei-hai-wei altogether by the statement that he had not paid the slightest attention to it for many months. It is perfectly plain we have no policy in these matters. We are shifting responsibilities from the Army to the Navy, and back from the Navy to the Army, and both services suffer.
  3 £15,200,000, Pay, etc., of the Army (General Staff, Regiments, Reserve, and Departments).
  Resolutions to be reported.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £555,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Pay, etc., of the Medical Establishment, and for Medicines, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901."
  DR. TANNERsaid that the Vote had increased to an extent which was never expected, and there was consequently a certain amount of satisfaction in the medical schools throughout England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. He recollected when the number of candidates for the Army Medical Service were three or four times as many as the present number, but recently there happened
  820
  to be more vacancies than candidates. The pay of civilian medical practitioners as recorded in the Vote was altogether in advance of anything that had been done before. He found now that the doctors in the Army, instead of being called doctors were called lieutenants and colonels and majors and all that sort of thing; but was that a satisfactory remedy for all the grievances under which the Royal Army Medical Corps suffered? If it were he should have thought that young men in the medical profession would more extensively patronise the Army than they did. He would wish to know exactly at what rate the civilian medical practitioners had been employed. There was an increase in the item for pay of £41,800, which was rather astonishing. Then there was an increase of £120,000 in the pay of civil medical practitioners. He thought they should not have those large estimates submitted to the Committee without some explanation. He should like to know how many civilian medical practitioners had been employed in connection with the war in South Africa. He for one would not be in favour of cutting down the pay of civilian medical men when they were absolutely required, as unfortunately they were required, at present, because, of course, medical men were always supposed to stand to each other. But still there should be some explanation of these large sums. He could not understand why the extra expenditure on medicines and instruments should be £50,000. He had learned from friends and acquaintances who had returned from South Africa that the best instruments there had been provided by private resources and not by the Government at all. He could not see where all that extra money had been spent.
  It being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
  Committee also report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
  Adjourned at five minutes after Twelve of the clock