Commons Sitting of 9 December 1902

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of the Chairman of Ways and Means.
LOCAL TAXATION (IRELAND) RETURNS.
Copy presented, of Returns of Local Taxation in Ireland for the year 1900-1901 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented, of the Liquor Licensing Ordinance, 1902 (No. 32), for the Transvaal [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

SPIRITS (ABERDEEN, ELGIN, AND INVERNESS).
Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 4th December; Mr. Gordon]; to lie upon the Table.
Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House.

LUNACY.
Copy of Report to the Lord Chancellor of the number of visits made, the number of patients seen, and the number of miles travelled by the Visitors of Lunatics between 1st April and 30th September,1902 [by Act].

PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
Return ordered, "of all the Draft Provisional Orders under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, which in the Sessions of 1901 and 1902 respectively have been reported on by Commissioners; together with the names of the Commissioners; the first and also the last day of the sittings in each group; the number of days on which each body of Commissioners sat; the number of days on which each Commissioner has served; the number of days occupied by each Draft Provisional Order before Commissioners; the Draft Provisional Orders, the Preambles of which were reported to

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Date when closure moved.

By whom moved.

Question before House or Committee when moved.

Whether in House or Committee

Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by Speaker or Chairman.

Assent withheld because, in the opinion of the Chair, a decision would shortly be arrived at without that Motion.

Result of Motion, and if a Division, Numbers for and against.

(in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 347, of Session 1901)."—(Mr. Caldwell.)

DIVISIONS OF THE HOUSE.
Return ordered, "of the number of Divisions of the House in Session 1902; stating the subject of the Division, and the number of Members in the majority and minority, Tellers included; also the aggregate number in the House on each Division; distinguishing the Divisions on public business from private; and also the number of Divisions before and after midnight (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 0.206, of Session 1901)." —(Mr. Caldwell)

PUBLIC BILLS.
Return ordered, "of the number of Public Bills, distinguishing Government from other Bills, introduced into this
436
have been proved; and the Draft Provisional Orders, the Preambles of which were reported to have been not proved."— (The Lord Advocate.)

ADJOURNMENT MOTIONS UNDER STANDING ORDER No. 17.
Return ordered, "of Motions for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 17. showing the date of such Motion, the name of the Member proposing, the definite matter of urgent public importance, and the result of any Division taken thereon during Session 1902 (in the same form as, and in continuation of, Parliamentary Paper No. 346, of Session 1901)."—(Mr. Caldwell.)

CLOSURE OF DEBATE (STANDING ORDER No. 25).
Return ordered, "respecting application of Standing Order No. 25 (Closure of Debate) during Session 1902, under the following heads:-
House, or brought from the House of Lords, during the Session of 1902; showing the number which received the Royal Assent; the number which were passed by this House but not by the House of Lords; the number passed by the House of Lords but not by this House; and distinguishing the stages at which such Bills as did not receive the Royal Assent were dropped or postponed and rejected in either House of Parliament (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 0.205, of Session 1901)."—(Mr Caldwell.)

PUBLIC PETITIONS.
Return ordered, "of the number of Public Petitions presented and printed in Session 1902; with the total number of signatures in that year (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 0.204 of Session 1901)."—(Mr. Caldwell.
SELECT COMMITTEES.
Return ordered, "of the number of Select Committees appointed in the Session of 1902, including the Standing Committees and the Court of Referees; the subjects of inquiry; the names of the Members appointed to serve on each, and of the Chairman of each; the number of days each Committee met, and the number of days each Member attended; the total expense of the attendance of witnesses at each Select Committee, and the name of the Member who moved for such Select Committee; also the total number of Members who served on Select Committees (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 0.201 of Session 1901)."— (Mr. Caldwell.)
SITTINGS OF TH HOUSE.
Return ordered, "of the number of days on which the House sat in Session 1902, stating for each day the date of the month and day of the week, the hour of the meeting, and the hour of adjournment; and the total number of hours occupied in the Sittings of the House, and the average time; and showing the number of hours on which the House sat each day, and the number of hours after midnight; and the number of entries in each day's Votes and Proceedings (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 0.203, of Session 1901)."—(Mr. Caldwell.)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (DAYS OCCUPIED BY GOVERNMENT AND BY PRIVATE MEMBERS).
Return ordered. "showing, with reference to Session 1902, (1) the number of Sittings on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays at which Government Business had precedence; (2) the number of Sittings on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Fridays at which private Members had precedence; (3) the number of other Sittings at which, in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House, Government Business had precedence; (4) the number of Sittings at which Government Business had precedence under a special Order of the House: (5) the number of Saturday Sittings; (6) the total number of Sittings at which Government Business had precedence; (7) the total number of days on which the House sat; (8) the
438
total number of Motions for Adjournment of the House on a matter of urgent public importance; and (9) the number of days on which Business of Supply was considered (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 348, of Session 1901)."—(Mr. Caldwell.)

PRIVATE BILLS AND PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Return ordered, "of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders introduced into the House of Commons and brought from the House of Lords, and of Acts passed in the Session of 1902, classed according to the following subjects: Railways; Tramways: Tramroads; Subways; Canals and Navigations: Roads and Bridges; Water; Waterworks; Gas; Gas and Water; Lighting and Improvement; Police and Sanitary Regulations; Corporations, etc. (not relating to Police and Sanitary Regulations or to Lighting and Improvement Schemes); Ports, Piers, Harbours, and Docks; Churches, Chapels, and BuryingGrounds; Markets and Fairs; Gaols and other County Buildings; In-closure and Drainage; Estate; Divorce; Naturalisation; Hospitals, and Miscellaneous."
"Of all the Private Bills. Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which in the session of 1902 have been reported on by Committees on Opposed Private Bills or by Committees nominated partly by the House and partly by the Committee of Selection, together with the names of the selected Members who served on each Committee; the first and also the last day of the sitting of each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; the number of dayson which each selected Member has served; the number of days occupied by each Bill in Committee; the Bills the Preambles of which were reported to have been proved; the Bills the Preambles of which were reported to have been not proved; and, in the case of Bills for confirming Provisional Orders, whether the Provisional Orders ought or ought not to be confirmed."
"Of all Private Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which, in the session of 1902, have been referred by the Committee of Selection, or by the General Committee on Railway and Canal Bills, to the Chairman of the Committee

439
of Ways and Means, together with the names of the Members who served on each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; and the number of days on which each Member attended."
"And of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders withdrawn or not proceeded with by the parties, those Bills being specified which have been referred to Committees and dropped during the sittings of the Committee (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.200, of 1901)."—(Mr. Caldwell.)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Naval Torpedo Flotilla—Damage to Fishing Nets at Sidmouth.
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAY (): To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can arrange, by way of compassionate allowance or otherwise, to give some compensation to the fishermen of Sidmouth for the loss sustained by reason of damage occasioned by the Royal Naval Torpedo Flotilla to their nets in Sidmouth Bay on the night of 9th July.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) As it appears that the damage done was not the result of any negligence on the part of the officers of the flotilla, whilst the fishing boats, on the other hand, were not complying with the Board of Trade regulations as regards lights prescribed for drift net-fishing, the Admiralty are advised that they are not liable for any compensation in this case.

  Naval Construction.
  MR. JAMES HOPE (): To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether orders have yet been placed for the contract-built battleship and cruiser and for the armour required for the dockyard-built battleship and cruiser authorised under the naval programme of the current financial year.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) The order for the contract-built battleship has been placed; that for the contract-built cruiser has not yet been placed, but tenders are at present under consideration. No orders for armour for the
  440
  battleship and cruiser to be built in the dockyards have yet been placed, but tenders for the armour for the battleship are at present under consideration.

  Liverpool Telegraph Staff.
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR (): To ask the Postmaster General if he will state the number and weekly wages of the postmen at Liver-pool who, during the past twelve months, have attended the telegraph school at that office, and how many have been declared efficient and have been retained in the telegraph department at Liverpool,
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) Twenty postmen, at wages ranging from 19s. 6d. to 28s. a week, have attended the telegraph school at Liverpool. Twelve are now being employed in the telegraph branch, of whom ten have attained the first standard of efficiency, and one has passed the second standard.
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR: To ask the Postmaster General, seeing that a telegraphist at Liverpool, who was number twenty-five on the seniority list, has recently been advanced to the clerks class, whether he will state what opportunity of appeal was afforded the seniors before they were passed over.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) In making promotions the officer best qualified for the vacant post is selected. I fear it would not be practicable to give the officers who are not selected an opportunity of representing their claims before a decision is arrived at.

  Belfast Postal Deliveries.
  MR. SLOAN (): To ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that in connection with recent complaints of late delivery of the English mails in Belfast, instructions have been issued that deliveries must commence at a certain time, and that the Belfast postmaster has stated that no excuse will be taken in lieu of a prompt despatch; and whether, seeing that sufficient time is not given for sorting the mails, the Postmaster General will inquire into the circumstances of the case with a view to making a satisfactory arrangement.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) In consequence of complaints of delay

  441
  received from the public, the postmaster of Belfast has given special attention to the question, and has properly enjoined upon the staff the importance of securing punctuality in the deliveries of letters. His action has my entire approval. Sufficient time is allowed for sorting the mails under normal conditions.

  Belfast Telegraph Staff.
  Mr. SLOAN: To ask the Postmaster General, in view of the fact that the services of a number of substitutes in Belfast Telegraph Department have recently been dispensed with owing to slackness of work, while at the same time assistance required by the engineering branch has been refused owing to alleged pressure of work, whether he will state the qualifications of the clerks drawn from two small provincial offices; and, seeing that they are receiving an allowance of 3s, per diem, will he explain why local assistance was not obtained.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The two officers in question were reported to possess the qualifications necessary for temporary duties in the superintending engineer's office. As regards the latter part of the Question, I must refer the hon. Member to my reply to him of the 27th November last on the same subject, to which I have nothing to add.

  Halfpenny Postage.—Place and Date on Obliterating Stamps.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY (): To ask the Postmaster General whether the obliterating stamps used upon postal matter charged at the halfpenny rate can be made to show, as in the case of other stamps, the place as well as the date of posting.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen chamberlain.) I am considering the right hon. Gentleman's Suggestion.

  Education Bill—Clause 18 (3)—Model Schemes.
  LIEUT. COL. PRYCE-JONES (Boroughs): To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether it is the intention of the Board of Education to frame a model scheme or schemes under Clause 18, sub-Section (3); and, if so, when will they be issued.
  442
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The Board of Education will be ready to enter into communication with local education authorities on the subject of schemes, and to assist them, when invited to do so, with advice and suggestion. But they have no present intention of framing a model scheme or schemes.

  Education Bill—Financial Arrangements during First Year of New System.
  LIEUT. COL. PRYCE-JONES: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether there is any provision in the Education Bill to meet difficulties which the local authorities will experience in obtaining the money required to carry on the public elementary schools in the interval which will elapse in the first year before the Government grants will be received.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) It is not anticipated that there will be any difficulties of the kind suggested in the Question, nor would any provision in the Education Bill be the proper way of meeting such difficulties were they likely to arise. It is not the case, as the wording of the Question would seem to suggest, that the Parliamentary Grants in respect of the public elementary schools in the area of an authority are not paid until the expiration of twelve months after the appointed day. Some of the grants are paid by quarterly instalments; and the annual grants in respect of the various schools in an area will be payable to the authority at varying dates throughout the year. Arrangements will also be made for an early disbursement of some portion of the new aid grant to authorities.

  Brussels Sugar Convention.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis): To ask the President of the Board of Trade can he state, in view of the differential treatment prescribed by the Brussels Sugar Convention in respect of sugars and sugared and other analogous products, when coming from countries which grant bounties either on production or export, what measures it is proposed to take in order to ascertain from what country such sugars or products may have originally come; and is it proposed to require certificates of origin in respect of all such sugars or products as may be imported into this country.

  443
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald BaIfour.) In the event of the Convention coming into operation, suitable measures will have to be taken by the Customs to distinguish sugar coming from foreign countries which grant bounties. I am not now prepared to make a detailed statement as to these measures, which will he provided for in the Bill to be introduced next session.
  MR. GIBSON-BOWLES: To ask President of the Board of Trade can he give the names of all States, not being signatories of the Brussels Sugar Convention, between which and Great Britain treaties exist containing the most favoured nation Clause.
  (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) Argentine Republic, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Colombia, Denmark, Greece, Honduras, Japan, Mexico, Liberia, Paraguay, Persia, Roumania, Russia, Salvador. Servia, Switzerland, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, and Zanzibar have treaties binding Great Britain to give them the treatment of the most-favoured nation.

  Government Agreements with Cunard company and Atlantic Shipping Trust.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, have the agreements as regards shipping made with the Cunard Company and with Mr. Pierpont Morgan, or the Atlantic Shipping Trust, been yet completed; when will he lay copies upon the Table of this House; if they are not completed, can he state the cause of the delay; and can he state when the evening promised for the discussion of these agreements during the present sittings will be given.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The agreements have not yet been completed; they are complicated documents, the details of which have taken longer to settle than expected, and are still under consideration of the lawyers. I do not anticipate that the agreements can be laid upon the Table this session. The promise was to give an evening if desired after the agreements had been laid.

  Bankruptcy Acts—Criminal Prosecutions.
  MR. H. C. RICHARDS (): To ask Mr. Attorney General if his attention has been called to
  444
  the remarks of the Recorder of London in the recent bankruptcy prosecution at the Central Criminal Court; will he say by whose direction was the prosecution instituted; and will he give instructions that in future prosecutions he will refuse to allow more than a reasonable number of counts in the indictment; and that unless the interests of public justice demand a warrant, the proceedings shall be initiated by information and summons only.
  (Answered by Sir Robert Finlay.) My attention has been called to the matters referred to in this Question. The prosecution was instituted by the directions of the director of public prosecutions. The number of counts to be inserted in any indictment must depend on the circumstances of each case. The case in question was of a very complicated and intricate nature, and the indictment was no longer than was necessary in the opinion of the very able and experienced counsel by whom it was prepared. It is, of course, preferable that proceedings should be commenced by summons, but it is impossible to lay down any fixed rule as to the circumstances which may render a warrent expedient.

  Uganda Railway
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL (): To ask the Under Secretary of state for Foreign Affairs whether he can state the cost of constructing and removing the temporary rope inclines used on the Uganda Railway.
  (Answered by Lord Cranborne) The total expenditure on the rope inclines to which reference is made has been £31,362. This includes the greater part of the cost of removal, a comparatively small item in any case. Against this, on the other hand, for whatever they are worth, must be set the materials which have become available for use elsewhere.

  Civil Servants and Private Trading.
  SIR EDGAR VINCENT (): To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if officers and clerks in the service of His Majesty's Government are under rules not to trade on their own account; and, in view of the fact that a number of them are dealing in excisable plate, as

  445
  agents of tally house firms, without holding a plate licence, he will say what steps he proposes to take in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Ritchie.) A civil servant is not allowed to engage in any business which is incompatible with his giving his whole official time to the public, or which may conflict with the proper performance of the duties of his office. Subject to this condition, he is under no restriction in the employment of his time out of office hours. As regards the latter part of the Question, if the hon. Member will furnish the Board of Inland Revenue with the names and addresses ot any persons whom he believes to be selling plate without a licence, inquiry will be made with a view to prosecution if sufficient evidence is forthcoming.

  Spiddal Pier, Galway.
  MR. O'MALLEY (): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the amount of money expended on the Spiddal Pier, County Galway, the number of persons employed in that work, and the weekly wage of each employee.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham) The expenditure amounts to £3,057. The number of persons employed varied as the works progressed; the maximum number was 100. The weekly wages of the employees were as follows:- Foreman mason, 36s.: time and storekeeper, 30s.; carpenter, 30s.; carters. 30s.; quarrymen,15s.; labourers, 12s.

  Irish. Land Purchase—Rockford Estate, Connemara.
  MR. O'MALLEY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the terms and conditions upon which the holdings on the Rockford Estate, Connemara, have been let to the tenants by the Congested Districts Board.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) Seven of the new holdings have been sold to the tenants at seventeen years purchase of the rents, the prices varying from £157 to £186. The one remaining holding is about to be sold to the Connemara Basket Company.

  Irish National Schools—Attendances of Assistant Teachers.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will consider the advisability of reducing the average attendance required for assistant teachers in Irish National Schools from sixty to fifty, owing to the increase of work in connection with new programme and the decrease of population, particularly in rural districts.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) It is not proposed to alter the scale of averages, according to which assistant teachers are appointed under existing rules.

  Irish Convent National Schools.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in view of the fact that the Board organisers have held, or are holding, courses of training in convents for the exclusive use of the inmates, and that a number of national school teachers are still deprived of facilities for training in the new system owing to the attendance of organisers in convents, whether he will arrange for the organisers to hold courses in larger non-convent national schools for the use of their staff.
  (Answered by MR. Wyndham.) The courses conducted in convent national schools are not limited to the inmates of convents. They are open to, and are attended by, the teachers of other national schools. Similar courses are also held in schools and buildings not in any way connected with convents. The Commissioners have made, and will continue to make, arrangements for courses in model schools and other non-convent schools so as to suit the requirements of all classes of national teachers.

  Mullingar Rifle Range.
  MR. KENNEDY (): To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that negotiations for the establishment of a rifle range at Mullingar have been in the hands of the military authorities for nearly five years, and that all the occupiers of the lands proposed to be taken and all the landlords of same with one exception have consented to the taking of those lands, he can explain the cause of the delay in carrying out the completion of the proposed rifle range.

  447
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The negotiations have, as stated in the Question, been protracted but are now practically concluded. The hon. Member will understand that it is impossible to commence the construction of the range unt 1 the War Department is in possession of the land required, but as soon as the land is handed over we shall proceed.

  Pacific Cable Board and Eastern Extension Telegraph Company.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON (): To ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that the Pacific Cable Board are about to enter into a pooling arrangement with the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company; and, if so, whether he will veto the proposal in the interests of reduced cable charges.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) No, Sir. I have no reason to suppose that such an arrangement is contemplated by the Pacific Cable Board. But the Postmaster General is not directly represented on that Board and has no control over its proceedings. Any further Question on the subject should therefore be addressed to the Treasury.

  Poor law Emigration to Canada.
  MR. WHITTAKER (): To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the fact that the number of orphan or deserted children emigrated to Canada by Boards of Guardians has fallen from 360 in 1893 to 174 last year, while 934 children were sent out there during the first six months of 1900 by various accredited societies, and for those 934 children 5,613 applications from householders were received: and whether, seeing that the cost to the Guardians in sending children to Canada is only one payment not exceeding £24, while the expense of maintaining them in workhouse schools here is £30 a year, he will take steps to bring to the notice of Boards of Guardians the increased facilities and advantages now existing in Canada for such children.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I am aware that the number of children
  448
  emigrated to Canada by Boards of guardians in recent years has been less than was the case in 1893, and that the number of children sent out by private societies in 1900 was considerably less than the number in respect of whom applications were received. Boards of Guardians have from time to time been made aware by the Local Government Board of their powers in relation to emigration, and the matter was referred to in a Circular issued so recently as August, 1900. I have no reason to doubt that the Guardians are fully informed on the subject, but I shall not fail to avail myself of any suitable opportunity of pressing the matter on their attention.

  Argentine Cattle Regulations.
  Mr. HARWOOD (): To ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he can say whether negotiations are proceeding with the Government of the Argentine Republic for the admission of live cattle for slaughter at certain ports in this country under due, precautions against the importation of disease.
  (Answered by Mr. Hanbury.) As I explained in my reply to the hon. Member for North Manchester on the 27th ultimo, we have suggested to the Argentine Government that they should take further precautions against the introduction of foot-and-mouth disease on lines similar to those we ourselves adopt. They have introduced, and, I believe, have now passed a Bill giving them the necessary statutory powers for the purpose, and I expect to hear shortly that a decree under the new law has been issued. If, as I have reason to expect, the terms of the new law and the decree issued thereunder prove to be satisfactory, I should hope that the negotiations which have been taking place may be brought to a satisfactory conclusion.

  China Operations, 1901—Clasps for Tientsin.
  MAJOR RASCH (): To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will lay upon the Table General Dorward's despatch of November, 1901, with reference to the Chinese regiment; and will he say whether a clasp. will be given for Tientsin.

  449
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) The question of a clasp for Tientsin was considered by the War Office and India Office and Admiralty in consultation at the time of the grant of the China. 1900 medal, and it was decided that only two clasps should be given, one for Taku and one for the relief of Pekin. I have no copy of General Dorwards despatch in my possession, but I understand that it is not considered desirable to publish it.

(2.15.)QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Sokoto.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE (): I beg to ask the Postmaster General, as representing the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he is aware that, by a treaty concluded in 1884, Mr. Joseph Thomson undertook, on behalf of the Niger Company, to pay to the Emir of Sokoto a sum of about £1,500 a year, that the treaty was renewed in 1890 and in 1894, that the Emir of Sokoto in those treaties was made to acknowledge the Niger Company as representatives of His Majesty's Government, and that this country, being still in possession of the consideration transferred in these treaties, has ceased the yearly payment to the Emir of Sokoto, and is now contemplating an expedition in the direction of Sokoto; and whether, seeing that a military expedition is now being sent against Kano, described by the Secretary of State for the Colonies as the Manchester of Africa, he will state what attempt has been made to remove by friendly negotiations the causes of difference between the Emir of kano and His Majesty's Government.
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,, for Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN): The yearly payment specified in the treaties referred to has not been made since the Royal Niger Company's rights were transferred to the Crown, as the Sultan of Sokoto has always refused to recognise the transfer. Attempts have constantly been made by Sir Frederick Lugard to establish friendly relations both with him and with the Sultan of Kano, but hitherto without success. The reports which have appeared in the newspapers with regard to expeditions against
  450
  Sokoto and Kano appear to refer to the preparations which Sir F. Lugard has stated that he would have to make to ensure the safety of the British and French Commissioners appointed to delimit the boundary between the Niger and Lake Chad, who will commence their work in January, and who will have to spend a considerable time in the country to the north of Sokoto and Kano. It will be necessary to maintain communication with the Commissioners and to keep them regularly provided with the supplies upon which they will depend, and in view of the present attitude of the Sultans of Sokoto and Kano it is necessary not only to provide the Commissioners with a strong escort but also to take into consideration beforehand the possibility of hostile action on the part of those Sultans and to provide an adequate force to deal with it.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I understand that there is no present intention of attacking Kano?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That is my understanding. The military preparations which are being made are preparations only for the protection of our Commissioners.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: Will the hon. Gentleman ask whether it is possible to give any Papers showing the attitude of these Mohamedan Kings later than the last annual Report of Sir F. Lugard?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir, I will make inquiry.

  South African War— King's Medal
  MAJOR, RASCH (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is intended to grant the King's medal to officers and men, who, after serving Her late Majesty, were, on account of wounds or illness (attributable to service in the field), contracted while serving the King, unable, to return to South Africa between 1st January and 1st May, 1902.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): As I have already explained to the

  451
  House, service in South Africa for some period between 1st January and 1st June, 1902, is held to be essential in order to earn the King's Medal. All officers or men who were invalided early in the war and returned between those periods are eligible, even if they did not compleate eighteen months service.

  Martial Law in South Africa—Case of Mr. Shoeman.
  MR. PIRIE (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, with reference to the court martial held in Cape Colony by the Standing Military Court, Western District, for the trial of Mr. J. H. Shoeman, M.L.A., can he explain why no preliminary examination was held as provided in the instructions on Martial Law, issued 1st May, 1901, and seeing that a promise had been made by the military authorities to the prisoner's attorney that at least seven days' notice should be given him of the charges against the prisoner before he was brought to trial, will he explain why, only on the day previous to the trial, the charges were communicated to the prisoner, thereby depriving him of the opportunity of calling witnesses for his defence.
  MR. BRODRICK: The points raised in the question have been included in the letter recently despatched to General Officer Commanding, Cape Colony, on this subject.
  MR. PIRIE: Why did not the case come before the Commission?
  MR. BRODRICK: I cannot say. Of course the Commission took their own course; I have no control over them.
  MR. PIRIE: When can we have papers? The case has aroused much interest in Cape Colony.
  MR. BRODRICK: Time must be given for answers to be made to the letter sent to South Africa.

  Factory Acts—"Particulars" Section—Wholesale Tailoring Trade.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any representations have been received to the effect that the
  452
  Particulars section ought to be extended to outworkers in the tailoring trade; and if any, and what, steps are to be taken in the matter.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): Yes, Sir. I have received such representations on behalf of outworkers in the wholesale tailoring trade, and after inquiry I have decided that the section ought to be extended to them. The draft order making the extension was published on the 18th of November.

  Petroleum—Flash Point.
  MR. TULLY (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state the prescribed limits for the flash point of petroleum in Pennsylvania and New York; and whether, in view of the recent accidents from the use of low-flash oil in this country, he is prepared to introduce legislation to give effect to the recommendations of the Select Committee who inquired into this matter.
  MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: I am informed that the method of testing petroleum adopted in Pennsylvania and New York is different from that in use in England. It is a fire test rather than a flash tost, and merely gives the temperature at which the oil will ignite and burn in an open cup. If the results wera reduced to terms of the flash point according to the Abel close test employed in England, they would show as nearly as possible 63 and 73 degrees Fahrenheit respectively for the States named. As regards the second paragraph, I am not at present satisfied that recent experience has strengthened the case for further legislation in this matter.
  MR. TULLY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the information he has just given is contrary to the evidence of the experts before the Committee, of which I was a member?
  [No answer was given.]

  Mallaig Pier.
  MR. WEIR (): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the fact that under the West Highland Railway Company

  453
  Guarantee Act, 1896, it was arranged that the sum of £30,000 should be paid by the Treasury to the North British Railway Company towards the cost of constructing a pier breakwater and other works at Mallaig, will he state why the breakwater has not yet been constructed.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): This is entirely for the railway company, but I have communicated with them, and am informed that owing to the cost of the Mallaig extension of the west Highland Railway having greatly exceeded the estimate, the question of proceeding with the breakwater has been deferred.

  Applecross (Ross) Road and Bridge.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland is aware that, owing to the bridge over the Applecross River having been closed on account of its dangerous condition, the people of the district are unable to reach the parish church and churchyard except by wading the river; and will he say whether the Congested Districts Board aid prepared to provide a grant in aid for the construction of a new bridge.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): I am not to be held as assuming the accuracy of the statements which form part of the Question of the hon. Member, and with regard to the latter part I can only refer him to my reply to his similar Question on 12th November†, there having been no further action taken in the matter by the local authorities concerned.
  † See (4) Debates, exiv., 749.

  Typhoid in the Island of Lewis.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state whether the Local Government Board for Scotland have taken any steps to ascertain whether patients suffering from typhus or typhoid fever in the Island of Lewis are segregrated; and, if fever cases are not thus isolated, will he state the cause.
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: As I have already informed the hon. Member, such measures of segregration as are possible in the Lewis crofters' houses have been
  454
  employed by the district medical officer, who reports to the Local Government Board that efforts are made to treat the sick in a separate apartment.
  MR. WEIR: Is the Secretary for Scotland aware that there are absolutely no means of isolation for fever patients at this place? Will the right hon. Gentleman make further enquiry?
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The Secretary for Scotland is, of course, aware of the fact.

  Tolsta School Children.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, in view of the fact that the school at Tolsta, Island of Lewis, which has 196 scholars on its register, has been closed since the 3rd July last, and that the children have thus lost upwards of five months education, will measures be taken to stamp out the fever epidemic.
  Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I have to refer the hon. Member to my previous answers relating to this matter. I can only add that a Report from the medical officer has been called for.

  Ben Wyvis Grazings.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that the grazings on the southern slope of Ben Wyvis, lying between the hill known as Little Ben Wyvis and the pass of Bailloch Mor, formerly in the occupation of crofters, are being fenced off for the extension of a deer forest; and, seeing that the crofters on the Heights of Strathpeffer have frequently urged that they should be allowed to occupy these lands, will the Secretary for Scotland consider the expediency of introducing an Amendment of The Crofters Act, 1886, so that the Crofters Commission may have power to allocate lands such as those indicated for the benefit of the crofters.
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I am given to understand the lands in question form part of the Wyvis Deer Forest. No application from the Heights of Strathpeffer Crofters for enlargement of holdings has reached the Crofters Commission. The Secretary for Scotland is not prepared to introduce legislation as suesested.

  Culloden Estate, Inverness-shire.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, in view of the fact that the law agents to the trustees of the Culloden Estate, Inverness-shire, have commenced the eviction of crofter tenants, will he consider the expediency of introducing legislation at an early date, such as will give crofters holding under lease the benefits of The Crofters Acts, 1886.
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I am given to understand proceedings have been taken in one case for the removal of a tenant holding under lease on the estate referred to and therefore not a crofter within the meaning of the Crofters Holdings Act. As regards legislation I have nothing to add to the answers already given to the hon. Member on several occasions.
  MR. WEIR: Is it not the fact that Mrs. MacDonald, who has eight children, was evicted on the 3rd July?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order ! That does not arise out of the Question.

  Londonderry Telegraph Staff.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that the telegraph staff at Londonderry have been called upon to sign a paper repudiating their personal connection with a paragraph that appeared in the Telegraph Chronicle on 7th November, 1902; and whether this procedure has his sanction.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It is not the case that anyone has been called upon to sign such a paper as the hon. Member describes; but certain members of the female staff at Londonderry of their own accord repudiated any connection with the paragraph in question.

  Bee Instructors in Ireland.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state on what grounds was Mr. Read, of Stratfan, honorary secretary of the Irish Beekeepers' Association, removed from the position of bee instructor under the Department of Agriculture.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): His
  456
  services at the Glasnevin Institute were discontinued on the ground that his residence in County Kildare was too remote from the scene. He still retains, however, the position of itinerant bee-instructor.
  MR. TULLY: Has Mr. Horace Plunkett inquired personally in this matter, in view of the absurd appointment which has been made.
  [No answer was returned.]

  Irish Agricultural and Technical Training Schemes—Circulation in Irish Language.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what steps have been taken in the Irishspeaking districts to circulate in the Irish language the instructions issued by the Department of Agriculture on agricultural and technical training.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The publication of agricultural and technical instruction schemes, promoted by local authorities is a matter that concerns these authorities alone. It is open to them, if they think it expedient, to issue such schemes in the Irish language. The schemes made by the Department in connection with cattle breeding have been printed and circulated in the Irish language. Some of the Department's leaflets will shortly be published in a similar manner.

  Irish Local Government Auditors.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board can explain why two auditors, who were superannuated, were recalled to duty, in order to audit the accounts of the local boards; and whether it is proposed to appoint from the members of the present Poor Law service two auditors to discharge this work.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The two retired auditors were re-employed pending the appointments, which have now been made, of two auditors on the permanent establishment.

  Land Purchase Bill.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of

  457
  Ireland whether he can indicate the nature of the instructions that have been given to Sir Antony MacDonnell as to the preparation of material and collection of facts on which to base a Land Purchase Bill for Ireland.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Sir, I must respectfully decline to discuss departmental communications between myself and official colleagues in respect of future legislation.

  Labourers' Cottages in Cork.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board can explain the delays that have arisen in giving effect to the Provisional Order in Cork rural district to increase the plots of lands attached to existing labourers' cottages, seeing that the Local Government Board inspector held his inquiry in 1901; and will he state what steps will be taken to place the labourers in possession of the additional plots of land.
  MR. WYNDHAM: On the 27th October, I stated it had been proved at the inquiry, that the occupants of sixteen existing cottages were not agricultural labourers, and that the issue of the Provisional Order would be deferred until the District Council considered these cases and to what extent the scheme should be modified in consequence. The Council has not, so far, taken any definite action in the matter.

  Ballymote Lighting Arrangements.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board have received from the Sligo Rural District Council a memorial asking for powers under the Public Health (Ireland) Acts, 1878 to 1896, to light the town of ballumote with the townlands comprising Ballymote the area; and will he state what steps have been taken to give effect to this memorial.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No such memorial has been received. It is understood, however, that the Council propose to apply for urban powers to light Bally
  458
  mote. Upon receipt of the application the necessary steps will be taken in the matter.

  The Council of Defence.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD (): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the duties appertaining to the position of President of the Council of Defence are still associated wilh the Minister in charge of Education; and, if not, whether he will consider the advisability of placing those duties for the future in the hands of the Prime Minister.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The President of the Council of Defence is not the Minister of Education. The Minister of Education is Lord Londonderry, who is not the President of the Council of Defence. I may add that the whole subject is at this moment engaging the very earnest attention of the Government, and, though I have no statement to make on the subject now, I hope early next Session to be able to do so.

  Brussels Sugar Convention. II
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis): I desire to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the new facts, doubts, and differences which have arisen as to the Sugar Convention, will consider if he cannot arrange for another debate on it in this House, before the Convention is ratified.
  MR. A.J. BALFOUR: I have no ground for thinking that a debate would serve the purpose of clearing up the points to which the hon. Member wishes to direct attention. The hon. Gentleman knows the condition of public business, and he can surely hardly press theGovernment further on the matter.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. BRYCE (): Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any further information as to the business for this week, and especially on Friday. May we assume that nothing will be taken this evening after the Uganda Railway Bill
MR. TULLY: Is it proposed to proceed with the Irish Fisheries Bill tonight?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As to Friday, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will not mind repeating his question tomorrow, when I will make a point of answering it. At this evening's meeting the first business will be the Uganda Railway Resolution, and I certainly should not propose to take any seriously controversial measure after that. But I think the Lords Amendments to the Patent Law Amendment Bill might be disposed of. It would be a convenience if we could also take the Committee of the Militia and Yeomanry Bill, which I hope will pass its Second Reading this afternoon, but I am aware that that is a very unusual request, and I could not put the Order down without the general consent of all parties.
MR. LOUGH (): May we rely on having the London Water Bill reprinted, so that we can put down Amendments for the Report stage?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am informed that it was expected the Bill would be circulated this morning.
MR. LOUGH: How can we put our Amendments down unless wo have it? The Bill has been greatly changed.
SiR ARTHUR HAYTER (): I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not take the Committee stage of the Militia and Yeomanry Bill tonight. There are several Amendments I wish to put on the Paper.
MR. A.J. BALOUR: I quite recognise that my suggestion could only be acted upon by agreement with both sides, and the right hon. Gentleman may rely on it that I will not attempt to force that stage tonight.

MILITIA AND YEOMANRY BILL.
Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [10th November.] "That the Bill be now read a second time:"—
Question again proposed.
SIR ARTHUR HAYTER ()moved that the Bill be read a
460
second time this day three months. He desired, he said, to protest, in the first place, against the Bill being taken at all during this part of the Session, which was to be devoted to the Education Bill and the London Water Bill. In the second place, he thought he could easily prove that the Bill was not by any means an innocent or simple measure, but introduced great and far-reaching changes, which were not at all required at the present time. His great objection to the Bill was that it gave powers to the Secretary of State which, could already be exercised by Order in Council, and he could see no reason whatever why the Secretary of State should be so invested with exceptional powers. Moreover, the Bill was opposed to the territorial principle on which the Army system was based. The territorial principle had been adopted by Germany and Russia, and by the Japanese as well, and it had certainly proved very successful in our own case in the matter of recruiting. He did not propose to say much with regard to the Yeomanry part of the Bill, because there were many hon. Members opposite better acquainted with that organisation than he was who would state the objections to the way in which it was proposed to deal with the force.
He would ask the House to consider the first Clause of the Bill. It declared that for the purpose of forming Reserve divisions of the Militia and Yeomanry, the Sacretary of State might relax or dispense with any enactment relating to the training of those forces. But what was the use of putting that into the Bill. The Militia Act gave power to the King in Council to order from time to time that the annual training be extended to not more than fifty-six days in any one year, that the training of all or any part of the Militia be reduced or even dispensed with. Thus His Majesty already possessed the powers this Bill would give to the Secretary of State, and he could see no reason why they should be handed over to the Secretary of State.
It was quite possible he might wish to keep a great number of men on foot without any training whatsoever, and it was a well-known fact, especially with regard to cavalry soldiers, unless they were continually drilled they were of little use.

461
Next he came to a much more serious part of the Bill, the second part of Clause 1, which provided that any man in a Reserve division might be transferred from one corps of Militia or Yeomanry to another, so, however, that, a militiaman should not without his consent be transferred to a corps of another arm. That proposal absolutely set at naught the territorial system. It, meant that a Cornish militiaman must be transferred to a Northumberland Regiment or a Devonshire man to a Derbyshire Regiment. Why did militiamen desire to join a particular corps? Simply because they knew the non-commissioned officers and men, and they certainly would be very reluctant to go to quite another part of the country. The only alleviating feature of the proposal was, that a man should not be transferred without his consent to an entirely different branch of the Army, he would not, in fact, be liable to be converted from an infantryman into an artilleryman, or from an artilleryman into an engineer. This proposed transfer from one regiment to another was strictly guarded against by regulations made under the Militia Act of 1882, which provided that no Militiaman could be transferred from the corps he enlisted in without his consent. That regulation would become waste paper if this Bill were passed, and he believed, if such a power was given, that it would do very great injury to recruiting, for the men would not be able to depend on their engagements being kept. They would in fact become very shy of accepting service in the force under such conditions.
Now he came to Section 2, which applied Sections 3 and 4 of the Militia Act to the Yeomanry. There was no objection whatever in the case of Section 30 which merely provided that the Secretary of State might raise such a number of yeomen and militiamen as the House had already provided for. But Section 4 in his opinion reduced the Bill to absolute nonsense. As he had already pointed out, power was given under the first Section of the Bill to the Secretary of State to move men from one corps to another just as he pleased. But Section 4 of the Militia Act provided that no man should be so transferred
462
without his consent, and it was proposed to extend that provision to the Yeomanry. Why it was an absolute contradiction in terms of the second part of the Clause, and it ought to be deleted if the Bill was to become a permanent Act. Then under the last Section of the Bill a special service squadron of the Yeomanry, a sort of corps d'elite, was to be formed, which would be alone capable of serving broad in case of war. He thought that would be a very mischievous thing for the Yeomanry as a whole, and the Yeomanry were not likely to regard the formation of such a corps with anything but jealousy. It was creating a corps within a corps, and certainly to pay some men £5 to engage for foreign service, while others get nothing, would be a poor compliment to the latter. Again, it it would be a dangerous thing at the outbreak of a war to mix up these different country corps into one heterogeneous mass. He knew that the reason for the proposal was that the right hon. Gentleman wanted to find cavalry for his three last army corps. Would it not have been much better to say at once that he would raise a regular cavalry regiment, rather than to risk spoiling Yeomanry regiments by taking away their best squadron, and at the same time to take into the field a heterogeneous body with no cohesion and no right to be called a cavalry corps? His main objection to the Bill was that it placed the Militia and Yeomanry entirely in the power of the Secretary of State for War, and he certainly could see no reason why the right hon. Gentleman should be vested with liberty to transfer men from one corps to another, or to interfere with the training arrangements which were already open to be changed by Order in Council. If the Bill were read a second time he would put down Amendments to the various Clauses, for he thought the whole scheme required thoroughly sifting.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three mouths.'"—'(Sir Arthur Hayter.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
MAJOR RASCH ()said that ever since he had the honour of a seat in the House he had always opposed the Vote for the Yeomanry, because he thought it was impossible to justify the existence of the force. But during the last two years the Yeomanry had been completely changed and reformed in every particular, and had been made such a valuable force that, though he felt like Samuel among the prophets, he was now one of their warmest supporters. He was specially struck by the extraordinary success of the county Yeomanry regiments which were formed last year, although perhaps a little more riding drill was required, in order to avoid some of the casualities he had witnessed. That, however, was a detail which could be remedied in the near future. If the Yeomanry, however, were to be levelled up to the Militia they ought to have the advantages which the Militia enjoyed. Their bands ought to be paid for by the Government, and regular officers serving with them should be allowed to count such service for pension. Two objections were raised to that Bill. One was that the offer of £5 a year to a certain number of men would only be accepted by the worst possible men—by the scallywags. The other objection was that it would deplete the regiment of its best men. These arguments were mutually destructive, and he did not think there was much force in either of them. The object of the Bill, so far as the Yeomanry were concerned, was to form a corps d'elite to supplement the miserable weakness of the present cavalry regiments, and any one who had seen the cavalry regiments at Aldershot knew it was not too soon to supplement them by some means of other. It seemed to him that the proposal of the War-Office was very much like a sort of Cousin-German to the old Militia Reserve. It found a good many enemies, but during the course of a somewhat chequered military career he had the honour of serving in it, and he always found that the attraction of the Militia Reserve not only did not weaken the battalion, but was a considerable accession to the strength of the territorial regiment. He had never had much faith in the proposals of reform of the auxiliary forces adumbrated by right hon. Gentlemen on both sides. They had always appeared to him more or less like a merry-go-round. They started with much drum-beating, but when the band
464
stopped they found themselves in precisely the same position as when they began. As he thought the Bill meant business with regard to the Yeomanry, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would succeed in placing it on the Statute-Book.
MR. HALDANE ()said that the Secretary for War, bringing in a large scheme, desired to carry it out in the way his experts had elaborated it, and under these circumstances, no doubt Parliament was often a nuisance to a Minister who desired that scheme he had in hand should go quietly and smoothly. He understood, therefore, why the Bill had been brought forward at the fag end of the autumn sittings, when he was not likely to be hampered by unnecessary discussion and the necessity of wearisomely explaining the details, as he would be expected to do were the Bill brought on at the proper period of the session. Nevertheless Parliament had still some functions left, and there was an obligation on the Opposition, at all events, to see that Parliament understood the work to which it put its hand. When a Bill of this sort was brought before the House some explanation of its provisions should be given by the Minister in charge. It was not enough to say that at some time back those provisions had been discussed. Nobody carried in his head what had been said about technical details of a Bill brought in months ago, and it was the duty of the Minister to put the House in possession of the materials on which it could from a judgement. This was peculiarly necessary on the present occasion, for in the drafting of this Bill legislation by reference had been developed to a fine art in order to meet the exigencies of the Government situation, so that it was not easy for a Member to know what he was voting on unless he brought a library with him into the House. This Bill was very concisely drawn, and on the face of it appeared to be a very luminous measure. But closer examination of it soon dispelled that idea. For instance, Section 2 ran,— "Sections 3 and 4 of the Militia Act, 1882, relating to maintenance and government of the Militia shall apply to the Yeomanry." These artless words

465
completely changed the constitutional relations of the Yeomanry. They placed the Yeomanry under the entire control of the Secretary of State for War. He had the greatest confidence in the public spirit of his right hon, friend, but he objected to make him a Parliament, or a sovereign body of him, right off. Whatever good there might be in Home Rule he was bound to say that, in this instance, the War Office was claiming a measure of Home Rule far exceeding anything which had ever yet been submitted to Parliament. The great scheme of Army reform introduced by the right hon. Gentleman might be a good scheme—he was not nowdiscussing it—but this Bill was an integral part of it, and should not be passed without adequate consideration. How was it possible now to give it that consideration? This Bill could not have come on at all were it not for the arrangement come to by the two sides of the House with respect to the London Water Bill, and it was a little hard that people who had, in order to conduct public business in a reasonable fashion, consented to that arrangement should have this Bill thrust down their throats before they had an opportunity of digesting it. It seemed to him also that the course now being adopted by the Government was not in accordance with the understanding arrived at when the business of this special session was arranged. Speaking on the 16th October last, the Prime Minister, in moving his Resolution about Government business, said that the business in this winter sittings would be the Education Bill, the London Water Bill, the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, the Osborne Estate Bill, and one or two oddments; but there was not a word in the right lion. Gentleman's statement about this Bill, which involved such sweeping changes as he had pointed out; on the contrary, the only reference to any other in mattersof legislation than thosespecifically mentioned was the reference to such non-controversial matters as there might be a general desire to pass into law. He submitted that be had made out a complete case against proceeding with this Bill. He might also put it so high as to say that it would be almost a breach of faith to proceed with it if any objection were taken. Perhaps the right hon.
466
Gentleman was of opinion that it would pass without discussion, but they did not wish to pass it without discussion. They claimed the benefit, not only of the spirit, but the letter, of the undertaking which the Prime Minister gave to the House, and, therefore, while he was the last person to put difficulties in the way, he did not apologise for making the Motion that the debate be now adjourned.
MR. TREVELYAN ()seconded the Motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the debate be now adjourned." —(Mr. Haldane.)
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not imagine for a moment that we think he is desirous of obstructing in any way the business of Parliament in proposing the Motion he has made this afternoon, but he would probably not have taken up the attitude he has done if he had fully apprehended the scope and intention of the measure now presented to the House. I do not know how far I shall be in order in going into the merits of this measure on the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman, but I really think there is one point which is not appreciated in any quarter of the House, or, at least, by those Members who have spoken in opposition to the measure today, namely, that this is not in any sense a new proposal which is brought before Parliament. It is not a demand for additional men or additional money, nor is it a measure brought forward in order to obtain Parliamentary assent to proposals which have not already obtained the assent of Parliament. As a matter of fact, and I put this most strongly to the House, this measure contains two propositions, both of which have not only been assented to already by the House of Commons, but they have been discussed. In one case, so far as I know, the proposal was unanimously agreed to. In the other case, I cannot recall a voice which was raised against it. Both proposals involve a sum which was put into the Estimates in 1902, and one of them a sum which was put into the Estimates in 1901, and

467
in each case these sums were voted by the House. I will not go into the merits of the Bill, but if Mr. Speaker will allow me, I will put the object very briefly. All that is required is simply this. You have the power by the Vote of Parliament to raise a number of men for the Militia Reserve and to pay them, but you have not got the power, as has since been discovered, to suspend their training, and if you raise them on those terms, you will have to train them exactly the same as the ordinary Militia require training, which, in the opinion of the military authorities, the Reserve does not. In the same way as regards the special service section of the Yeomanry, you have the power of Parliament to train and pay them, but you have not the power at this moment to call them out without the special power we propose to take in this Bill. If they were new proposals containing serious controversial matter, then I think probably the right hon. Gentleman might be justified in calling attention to the fact that this is not one of the measures specifically referred to in the speech of my right hon. friend on 16th October, but, as a matter of fact, with regard to the Militia not one word has been said against the proposal in these two years, in both of which I brought the subject before the House in my speech on the Estimates. As regards the Yeomanry, the Committee appointed to inquire into the subject strongly approved of this experiment being tried. The Committee was composed entirely of Yeomanry officers, and they expressed a year and a half ago the view that it should be attempted. I brought the matter as prominently as I could before the House in March last, and in all the debates which have taken place I do not remember that a single word was said in opposition. I say that is how the matter stands before the House of Commons at this moment. I would ask the House of Commons to understand our difficulty. I do not bring forward the Bill in pursuance of any ambitious scheme of any sort or kind, but merely to prevent the extraordinary expenditure involved in calling up totally untrained men to which we were put during the late war. It does seem a little hard that forces which have been voted by Parliament, and the money for which has been approved by Parliament, should not be allowed to be
468
raised on account of the technical difficulty which exists, and which is removed by this Bill. I would ask the House to remember that unless we get legislation on the subject now, it is practically putting off for a year measures which the military authorities consider to be essential to place us in a proper state of defence. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider this Motion. I believe that the time is ample for us to discuss such objections as may be raised, and I sincerely trust that we may be allowed to proceed with the discussion.
SIR EDWARD GREY ()said he was glad his right lion, and learned friend had made this Motion. He did think that the House was not being treated in the way it had a right to expect in regard to proceeding with the Bill at this time of the session. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had truly said that his lion, and learned friend could not be accused of making this Motion from a dilatory motive or a desire to impede the Government in the performance of necessary business. Obstruction in the ordinary sense could not be effective at the present time. The House was too thin and small to make obstruction effective if the Government wished to press anything. Their point was that the House relied upon the programme put before it, and the statement that it would not be asked to undertake controversial business other than that mentioned in the speech of the Prime Minister. The Government had the House at its mercy. The Secretary of State for War did not think this Bill urgent in the ordinary sense in which the House regarded urgency. What the right hon. Gentleman did plead was that it was something so consequential, and of so little importance considering what has proceeded in military discussions this year or the previous year, that it really did not require the attention of a full House. That was a statement which was not accepted by hon. Members on more than one side of the House who had paid special attention to this question. The real difference of opinion between the right hon. Gentleman and the House on this occasion was as to whether this Bill was so small and so consequential as had been stated. A considerable part of the House held that it was not so small

469
and consequential, and that it did involve larger changes in principle than the right hon. Gentleman admitted. When a dispute of this kind arose between a Minister and the House as to whether the House had previously pledged itself in the debates in a way that rendered it unnecessary to discuss a particular measure, the House alone should be the judge, and at present it was too thin for them to expect an opinion as to whether this measure was a consequential part of the larger scheme of which it had already approved. When the Bill was brought forward earlier in the year at least two Members on the Government side of the House had expressed the strongest objection to the Bill being pressed. If objection to the Bill existed, it was not confined to one side of the House, and that entitled them to say that the right lion. Gentleman ought to pause before proceeding with it, on the assumption that it was one which did not need much discussion. The Bill involved some large changes in principle.
MR. BRODRICK: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that they have already been discussed and approved by Parliament—one of them on two occasions?
SIR EDWARD GREYsaid that was his very point. The right hon. Gentleman said the House had already approved of the large changes which were covered by the Bill. The question of difference between hon. Members and the right hon. Gentleman was whether a full House in giving its general approval to his scheme was contemplating then a measure of this kind as an integral part of it. He held that they could not go on with this Bill without discussing the large changes of principle which were involved, even though those changes were small in practice. They did not know but that this was part ot a much larger scheme. What lie asked the Prime Minister was this— Was it fair to the House of Commons to press this measure forward after the statement lie had made at the commencement of the session. Ot course "breach of faith'' was a strong term, and should never be used except in circumstances of extreme exasperation
470
and provocation; but no one could read the statement of the Prime Minister at the commencement of the session without seeing that the introduction of this measure was a most unexpected departure from the programme then announced. The Prime Minister, after stating that programme which, of course, included the Education Bill, and the London Water Bill, said, "Thereare a few other measures on the Order Paper which I think are uncontroversial. With regard to these I shall certainly not think of asking the House to make any exceptional exertions, but, if there is a general desire that they should pass, I think they ought to pass into law." He did not think it was consistent with that statement that this measure, which was clearly regarded as controversial, should be pressed. He therefore supported, and asked the House to support, the Motion of his hon. friend that the debate be adjourned.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No notice has been given to me that objection was going to be taken against proceeding with this Bill, on the ground that it was inconsistent with what I had said on a I previous occasion, I am the more surprised that this argument should be sprung on the House, because it was perfectly understood that in making arrangements yesterday to meet the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite in regard to the Water Bill. I especially begged that it should bo understood that no objection should be raised to the Bill of my right hon. friend without notice.
SIR EDWARD GREY: I beg pardon; I was not present myself, but I understand that the right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition, did enter a caceat
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am in the recollection of the House as to the general accuracy of what I have stated. But the right hon. Gentleman will see that that has nothing whatever to do with my speech, at the beginning of the Autumn Sittings. I gather that it is on that speech that the right hon. Gentleman who has sprung this Motion on the House relies. I had not had time to read all the debates on the 16th of October. Only

471
one of my speeches has been quoted. After making it, I was reminded, immediately after I sat down, that I had omitted to mention the Militia and Yeomanry Bill, and I took care to remedy that omission when I came to reply on the afternoon's debate. It is reported in Hansard, which seems to be very accurate, that I said, "The only general pledge I give to the House is that it will not be asked to discuss general legislative questions which, however interesting or important, can be deferred to a subsequent session. I believe in that connection I ought to mention in the first place a one-Clause Bill which my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War will introduce and explain in good time, and which he tells me ought to be passed without any undue delay." I am quite sure that everybody who heard me make that statement will recognise that part of the programme for the Autumn Sittings was the Bill of my right hon. friend. I hope, therefore, that that particular argument will not be used beyond the point to which it can be reasonably carried, seeing that we have always regarded the passage of this Bill as eminently desirable, and have stated this on the first day of the session. I venture respectfully to suggest to the House that, at all events, the explanation of the Bill by my right hon. friend should be beard, and that he should be allowed to state his reasons for thinking that this is the proper time for passing the Bill. It will then be admitted, I think, that it is not with the view of obtaining any Party credit for the Government, but in the public interest. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not press his Amendment, but will give my right hon. friend a chance of stating his case to the House of Commons.
MR. COURTENAY WARNER ()said that the House would have listened with great interest to the Secretary of State for War if he had made a statement when the Bill was introduced. The difficulty was that there were important points in the Bill which many Members, who did not expect it to be proceeded with, would wish to discuss. The Secretary of State tor War made the point that the Militia Vote had not been discussed this year. That was quite true,
472
because it came on at nine o'clock, when few Members were in the House. But, on the general discussion of the whole scheme of Army Corps and Yeomanry, it was very strongly opposed in many parts of the House. He begged to support the Motion of his right hon, friend for the adjournment of the debate.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)said he was surprised to hear the right hon. Baronet read the passage from the speech of the First Lord of the Treasury so as to suggest that there was a breach of faith. He remembered that speech, and had himself intended to quote the passage which the Prime Minister had read from his speech—and it was an extraordinary and rare instance of the accuracy of the Hansard report—that it was proposed to introduce a one-Clause Bill.
SIR EDWARD GREYsaid he did not adopt the term "breach of faith."
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he did not say so, but that the right hon. Gentleman had read the passage so as to suggest that there had been a breach of faith. The reference to the "one-Clause Bill" had suggested to him something quite informal, which would have been brought in and passed without any discussion. He was, therefore, surprised when he saw what the Bill was. Of course, they might have a one-Clause Bill to abolish the Monarchy, and really this one-Clause Bill did the next thing to it. This one-Clause Bill proposed to do for the Secretary of State for War that for doing which James II. was sent over the water. The Act of Settlement recited that James II. "by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges, and Ministers employed by him, had endeavoured to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion, and the laws and liberties of this kingdom by dispensing with, and suspending the laws." That was exactly what this Bill was to enable the Secretary of State for War to do, as though he were to be set up as a sort of James III. It said. "For the purpose of forming reserve divisions of the Militia and Yeomanry, the Secretary of State may, by regulations, relax or dispense with the provisions of any enactment relating to training of Militia and Yeomanry, so far as

473
regards their application to men in the reserve divisions, &c." This gave him a dispensing power over every enactment that referred to the subject matter. For a one-Clause Bill this was rather a tremendous measure, and it did not in the least answer to the expectation raised in his mind by the words used by the First Lord of the Treasury when he introduced it. He was merely dealing now with its character in point of weight and importance. It was a large thing to give to a Minister a dispensing power over any enactment whatever. The right hon. gentleman the First Lord had made the suggestion that before deciding whether the House should continue the discussion on this measure, it should hear a larger description from the Secretary for War as to what it was intended to do. If that suggestion were accepted, he presumed it would be necessary for the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw his Motion, on the understanding that it could be revived, if necessary, after the right bon. Gentleman s explanation. He should like to add that undoubtedly these sittings had been crowded with new measures and new proposals, which no oneever expected. They had had new Supply, another Appropriation Act, and tonight they were to have further Supply set up, or probably a third Appropriation Bill. That was not quite the way to treat special sittings—
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is not addressing himself to the Question before the House.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he would merely repeat his suggestion, which seemed to be the most reasonable way of dealing with the matter—viz., that the right hon. Gentleman should withdraw his Motion, and allow the Secretary for State to explain the measure. The Motion might then be revived.
MR. BRYCE ()said he did not suggest that the Government had committed anything like a breach of faith in the matter. What were the facts? They were told at the beginning of the Autumn Sittings that the Government were not going to proceed with any large measures, except the Education Bill and the London Water Bill. Then the right hon. Gentleman said that there might be one or two small Bills, not of a controversial or very urgent nature; but at
474
a later period, not leading the House to suppose that it was uppermost in his mind, the right hon. Gentleman interposed a remark in regard to this Bill, which had not then been introduced. It was described by the right hon. Gentleman as a one-Clause Bill; and they naturally supposed that it was some simple Departmental measure, which might require half-an hour or an hour to discuss, and which would not raise any serious difference of opinion. Therefore, he thought that, although there was nothing in the nature of a breach of faith, there was an understanding, or an impression, created in the House, which was not consistent with the course that the Government now proposed to take. They did not expect that they should be called upon, after the two main measures hadbeen disposed of, to discuss any question which would raise new issues, on which there was considerable difference of opinion, and which might have very important results. No one could say that the Bill was not an important one, or one which did not raise considerable opposition. As was observed by his right hon. friend, there were three hostile notices on the Paper, two of them by hon. Members opposite and, as the hon. Gentleman had just said, it gave dispensing power over certain legislation. That power was sometimes given, but many of them thought the present proposal was going rather further in that direction than Parliament, with due regard to its functions and principles, ought to go by releasing a Government Department from the ordinary provisions of the law, and entrusting to it practically legislative power. The right hon. Gentleman asked by the Bill to be what the Roman Emperor was—relieved from obligation to the law. Whatever confidence there might be in the right hon. Gentleman's Department—he would not discuss that now—was it right that any Department should be granted such wide powers without a far larger and fuller discussion than was now likely? What was the position of the House? Hon. Members had been exhausted by long debates; the attendance was exceedingly thin; and many hon. Members, who had the knowledge and experience enabling them to take part in the discussion of the Bill, were not present; and could not have been present considering the notice

475
that was given. The discussion, therefore, under such conditions, must be of a perfunctory character; and it was not right that the large matters to which the Bill led should be proceeded with at this period of the Session. It had been suggested, as he understood, by the right hon. Gentleman that what was chiefly desirable was that the purport of the Bill should be explained. If that were the main thing desired, he did not suppose that there would be any objection to allowing the Secretary of State to make a statement; and he presumed, under the circumstances, that his right hon. friend would be willing to withdraw his Amendment. But that if the statement of the Secretary of State removed the objections which were felt to the Bill, if it put the Bill on a new footing and made it appear to be no longer controversial, then the House might consent to go on with it; but that if objections were still entertained to it, if any considerable section of the House still felt it was too large a measure to be proceeded with at such short notice, the Government should consent to the debate being adjourned and to the Bill going over until next session. It was only on some such terms that they could consent to allow a statement to be made. But if the Government seriously proposed, in spite of the difficulties which had been stated in a manner that carried conviction to every dispassionate mind, to persist with the Bill, it would be necessary for them to enter a protest, which was conveyed in the Motion for the Adjournment, and to take the sense of the House as to whether the Bill should be proceeded with on such an untimely occasion.
MR. BECKETT ()said he would urge the Government to accept the Motion of the right hon Gentleman. He thought the Prime Minister was under a misapprehension. The Secretary of State for War stated, just before the Prime Minister entered the House, that he had already sufficiently explained the Bill. Further, the right hon. Gentleman said that he had explained it to such an extent that the House was already committed to it.
476
Either they knew what the Bill contained or they did not. If they did, then it was not necessary that they should abstain from pressing the Motion; if they did not know what the Bill contained, and that a longer statement from the Secretary of State for War was necessary, then it was obvious that they ought not, at that period, to be called upon to consider it. It was true that the Secretary of State for War made an explanation on the Estimates, but that was part and parcel of the whole scheme of Army Administration; they could not pick out the particular part which referred to the Bill; and they naturally passed the Estimates as they were presented to them. But he could not see how the House could be said to have given consent to a Bill which, at the time, was not in existence. If the Government wished to press it, they could carry the Bill; but whether that would be wise or desirable, in the teeth of strong opposition from all quarters of the House, was another question. He would, furthermore, appeal to the Prime Minister on the ground that, as his right hon. friend had said, the Bill was part and parcel of that larger scheme which was not yet in full operation. Before they discussed a Bill which introduced a great many serious changes they ought to see the other parts of the scheme in full operation; and on that ground he would ask his right hon. friend to consent to the Bill being postponed.
COLONEL BLUNDELL ()said he would most respectfully urge on the House that the Bill was an urgent Bill. What they wanted especially was a reserve for the Militia. Any hon. Member who had studied the Army at all would agree that the Militia was the stand-by of the nation. He had seen that at the Crimea. It was very important that they should have a reserve of Yeomanry; but he disagreed very much with the proposal that the Yeomanry should be called to pass from regiment to regiment, except in time of war. There were at present in the country a number of men returned from the War who found it difficult to get work. Each of them would know where they could get a little extra money by

477
joining the reserve of Militia or Yeomanry if the Bill were passed; and he was satisfied that great injury would be inflicted if the measure were not proceeded with.
MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN ()said he was very much astonished at the attitude which had been taken up by many hon. Members with reference to the measure, especially at the attitude of his hon. friend the Member for the Whitby Division. For a long time past hon. Members on both sides of the House had been calling out for Army reform; and he believed that there was no keener Army reformer than his hon. friend. Yet, on the present occasion, when his right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War came forward with a very small but very necessary measure of Army reform, it was immediately met by a dilatory Motion from the other side, which was supported by his hon. friend. It seemed to him that, in Army reform they ought to take small measures, such as that before the House, and press them through when they had time at their disposal. For his part, he could not understand what the objections to the Bill were. They had been told that under sub-Section 2 very large powers would be given to the Secretary of State in connection with the Yeomanry; but these were the very powers which had been in force since 1882 in connection with the Militia, and he had never heard that any bad result had followed from the exercise of them. Why, therefore, should they not be entrusted to his right hon. friend in connection with the Yeomanry? Then, as to that part of the Bill in which he was more immediately concerned, the powers given to the Secretary of State in connection with the Militia, he, speaking as a Militiaman, would submit to the House that the reserve of Militia promised by the Secretary of State would be far better than the old Militia reserve. It seemed to him most extraordinary that when his right hon. friend the Secretary of State asked the House to pass this small Act to carry out the purpose which he had fully explained both this year and last, for which the House had already voted the money, and which would give the country a real reserve of Militia, that he should be met with a dilatory Motion of this kind. Speaking as a Militiaman, he
478
hoped this Motion would be defeated, and that the Government would press forward this Bill. It was impossible to obtain a Militia reserve without this Bill, and it was only right that the Bill should be passed in order to enable that reserve to be created without delay.
MAJOR SEELY ()said the hon. Member who had just sat down contended that all army reformers ought to support this small Bill, because they ought in the interest of army reform to support all such small Bills as this whenever the House had time to pass them. The contention of his hon. friend opposite was that the Bill was a retrograde step.
MR. SPEAKERsaid the question whether this was a good or a bad measure was not before the House. The question was whether the debate should be adjourned.
MAJOR SEELYapologised for having trespassed beyond the subject before the House. He should support the Motion for the Adjournment because he believed, quite apart from the Bill being a retrograde measure in itself, it was as contentious a Bill as could well be. The people acquainted with it were almost unanimously opposed to it, and although no one would accuse the Government of a breach of faith in the matter, the House contended that the Government had made a mistake in saying that the Bill was non-controversial, when, as a matter of fact, directly it was put into words it was highly contentious. He strongly urged the House to support the Motion for the Adjournment.
LORD CHARLES BERESFORD ()thought the House was in a rather curious position. As he understood, the right hon. Gentleman had been asked by his light hon. friend the Prime Minister and others to explain the Bill, and as he (Lord Charles Beres-ford) understood, if that explanation were made the Motion for the Adjournment would not be persisted in. Would the right hon. Gentleman explain the measure?
MR. BRODRICK: I cannot on the Motion for Adjournment.
LORD CHARLES BERESFORDsaid in that case he would offer a few remarks upon the Motion for the Adjournment and the reason why he should vote for it. He should vote for the Adjournment because the thought this Bill was a portion of a patchwork scheme of Army reform; it was part of an enormous scheme which the right hon. Gentleman had taken in hand. Whether the scheme was a good or a bad scheme he did not know, but from what he had heard he thought the whole scheme was a very bad scheme indeed, and that any such scheme of reform was perfectly impossible. He should also vote in favour of the Motion for the Adjournment because to bring forward this patchwork Bill at this late period of the Session was in his opinion impolitic in itself, and because he believed that such a course would land us into enormous expenditure without our getting any of that efficiency which we all wished for. On those grounds, and believing that, as some a scheme of Army reform had been proved to be necessary for this country the matter should be amply, quietly, but not hurriedly debated, he should support the Motion for the Adjournment. They should look at the matter more from a national than a Party point of view.
SIR JAMES FERGUSSON ()said his noble friend who had just addressed the House was an Irishman in the best sense of the word, and his speech on this occasion seemed to have been one of those Irish conundrums so difficult of solution. The Motion before the House was to prevent the Bill being discussed. Yet the noble Lord voted for it because he thought the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman was a bad one. The noble Lord could form no opinion on the matter until he had heard why it was desirable that a considerable part of the scheme should be passed now. No doubt his right hon. friend could give good reason for passing this portion of his scheme at the present time, and he was inclined to think his right hon. friend might now regret not having made a statement when he moved the Second Reading. But was not the House stultifying itself in discussing a dilatory motion of this kind without knowing what the scheme was?
MR. KEMP ()pointed out that the hon. Member for King's Lynn had suggested that the House ought to hear the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State first of all, and then if it was not satisfactory the Motion for the Adjournment of the debate should continue. The Prime Minister, quoting from a speech in which he stated he was going to bring in this Bill, said the Bill would be explained in good time. Was this explaining it in good time? As he understood it, this was an important part of a large scheme of Army reform, and if that was so it ought to be discussed at the time when the whole question came up and not at the end of a Session such as the present. The House had met for the Education and the Water Bills, and they did not expect to have other important questions brought forward for discussion. He would be very sorry to oppose anything which had for its ostensible object the reform of the Army, but he strongly objected to the manner in which this matter was being dealt with, and therefore he should support the Motion.
SIR ARTHUR HAYTERsaid the right hon. Gentleman had stated, and had been backed up by the hon. and gallant Member, that this Bill was absolutely essential in order to alter the training of the Militia. If that was so, what had become of that article in the Militia Act which stated that His Majesty in Council might order the training to be extended or to be dispensed with? That article was in force now, and therefore this Bill could not be required. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean to maintain that the question whether men should be changed from one regiment to another, and from one county to another, had ever been discussed in this House?
(3.59.) Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 60; Noes, 90. (Division List No. 621.)

AYES

Beckett, Ernest William

Harwood, George

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Beresford, Lord Chas. William

Hayne, Rt.Hon. Charles Seale.

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Bowles,Capt. H. F.(Middlesex)

Hayer, Rt.Hon. Sir ArthurD.

Smith, Abel H.(Hertford,East)

Bowles, T. Gibson(King'sLynn)

Jones, David Brynmor(Sw'nsea

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Broadhurst, Henry

Kemp, George

Spencer, Rt. Hn. C.R.(Northants

Bryce, Rt.Hon. James

Kitson, Sir James

Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

Burt, Thomas

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Tomkinson, James

Caldwell, James

Lloyd-George. David

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Cameron, Robert

Lough, Thomas

Wallace, Robert

Causton, Richard Knight

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

M'Kenna, Reginald

Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan)

Crombie, Johm William

Markham, Arthur Basil

Wason, John Catheart(Orkney)

Cust, Henry John C.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Weir, James Galloway

Davies, M. vaughan-(Cardigan

Parker, Sir Gilbert

Whiteley, George(York, W.R.)

Dilke, Rt.Hon. Sir Charles

Paulton, James Mellor

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Fenwick, Charles

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Fuller, J. M. F.

Rea, Russell

Gladstone, RtHn. HerbertJohn

Rigg, Richard

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Mr. Haldane and Major.

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Seely

Grey,Rt.Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)

Saunderson, RtHn. Col. Edw. J.

NOES

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Fletcher, Rt.Hon. Sir Henry

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Flower, Ernest

Parkes, Ebenezer

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Forster, Henry William

Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlingt'n

Arrol, Sir William

Galloway, William Johnson

Plummer, Walter R.

Atkinson,Rt.Hon. John

Gardner, Ernest

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Garfit, William

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Balcarres, Lord

Godson,Sir AugustusFrederick

Purvis, Robert

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

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Balfour, RtHn. GeraldW(Leeds

Heath,ArthurHoward(Hanley

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Heaton, John Henniker

Remnant, James Farqubarson

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Brodrick, Rt.Hon. St. John

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Johnstone, Heywood

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Bull, William James

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Carson, Rt.Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Law, Andrew Bonar(Glasgow)

Spear, John Ward

Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

Chamberlain, RtHn. J. A. (Wore.

Lawson, John Grant

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H.A.E.

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Lockie, John

Valentia, Viscount

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Walrond, Rt.Hon. Sir Wm. H.

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Long, Rt.Hon Walter(Bristol, S.

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Cranborne, Viscount

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

Wilson-Todd,Wm. H. (Yorks.

Crossley, Sir Savile

M. Killop, James (Stirlingshire

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

Dickson, Charles Scott

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Doaglas, Rt.Hon. A. Akers-

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

Wyndham, Rt.Hon. George

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Mount, William Arthur

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

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

Murray, RtHn A.Graham(Bute

Sir Alexander Acland-

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

Fisher, William Hayes

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Question again proposed. "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
MR. BRODRICK: Before proceeding to describe the scope of the Bill, I may say that it is through no fault of mine that I have not explained this measure hitherto. I did explain its main points under the Ten Minutes Rule, but at a time when the House was in a state of excitement over an incident which had
just occurred, and, through no fault of mine except that I could not make myself heard, was unable to gauge the full effect of the measure. Again, when I was called on the other night, an hon. Member rose and moved the Adjournment of the debate. On the present occasion I thought it was only reasonable and courteous to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who had given notice of his intention to move the rejection of

483
the Bill, to listen to what he had to say, and before I had an opportunity to rise, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Haddingtonshiremoved the Adjournment of the debate. But I have now an opportunity of bringing the scope of the measure before the House, and I will endeavour to do so without taking up an undue amount of time.
First of all, I think there is very considerable misapprehension in the House as to the scope of the measure. Several speeches have been made indicating a belief that some large new principles are affirmed by the Bill, that very large new powers are to be given to the Secretary of State, and that there is an amount of change involved which the House has not contemplated, and which would justify a very considerable discussion at a period of the Session when it could not be carried on without great disadvantage. I think I can show the House that all these contentions are unsound, and that the scope of the measure is limited. To begin with, it is not a measure to take the opinion of the House as to the establishment of the Militia and Yeomanry reserve. What was the position of the Militia during the past campaign? It consisted of an establishment of 150,000 men which had always been at a strength of about 100,000—that is to say, the Militia had 100,000 men to fulfil functions assigned to 150,000. Each regiment, in other words, was short of one man in three. But that did not represent the full effect of the position of the Militia. They were liable to send to the Line at any moment 30.000 men who were liable to be called upon for Line service, and who were, in fact, so called upon during the late campaign. Consequently, a Militia colonel who ought to have had about 1,000 men in his regiment, taking the average of all the regiments, found himself, to begin with, with 650, and with the full expense of the permanent staff and establishment for a complete regiment. He saw three out of every ten of these men called away to serve in the Line. Thus the force, already reduced to 100,000, was further reduced to 70,000. But even that was not the full extent of the difficulty. Of these 70,000 men, half were recruits in their first year, men
484
who had joined at the age of seventeen or a little over, and who were not physically fit to be put in the field. Even in this country it was a strong thing to put a boy of seventeen in the field.
CAPTAIN PIRIE (): But how often is it done?
MR. BRODRICK: I think the hon. Member will agree with the remark I made, whatever he may say as to what has been done. Even if these men had been physically fit, they were not sufficiently trained to be put in the field against European troops. Thus the actual numbers of the active Militia two years ago, after the Militia Reservists had joined their Line battalions, were about 35,000 men instead of 150,000. I am sure the House will agree that that was a condition of affairs which no War Minister could possibly leave alone. It was recognised in the beginning of 1900 by the enormous expenditure incurred in rapidly collecting together the men who had served in the Army and Militia, who were induced to come hurriedly forward, and who were rapidly arranged into Royal Reserve regiments.
That was the condition of affairs which I put before the House early last year, and which the House debated on a Resolution distinctly carrying out the proposition, to give legislative effect to which is the object of the main Clause of this Bill. I proposed to the House, as the cheapest, most efficient, and most certain way of bringing the Militia up to its proper strength of 150,000. that 50,000 men who had served in the Army and completed their service in the Line Reserve, or had served for ten years in the Militia, should be allowed to take 4d. a day to join a Reserve for the Militia, to be called up in case of national emergency. That proposition was the onlv one of the numerous propositions I then submitted in a scheme which the Militia authorities inform me is working out satisfactorily in almost every detail, which, so far as I am aware, was unanimously approved of by every speaker, and after three days debate was specifically approved of by the House in these

485
terms: "That it is expedient that six Army Corps," and so forth, "be organised," and "That a Reserve for the Militia be enrolled not exceeding 50,000 men." We are actually under pledges to the men who have joined the garrison regiments. The principle upon which the garrison regiments were formed was to give the men who had completed their service in the Line and in the Reserve one of two alternatives. They might go back to civil life if they liked; but if they desired to continue further service up to twenty-one years they could do so, by going into the garrison regiments, and then, after two years, transferring themselves into the Reserve of the Militia. Having before us the Resolution of Parliament sanctioning that arrangement, and the Vote for the money, the War Office, as we were entitled to do, issued to the men who had come forward to join the garrison regiments the pledge of Parliament that they should be subsequently allowed to serve in the Reserve of the Militia, and in March or April a number of the men will be in a position to take that service. How do we stand? It was not, I admit, pointed out before I made the proposal that, under the existing Militia Acts, if you enrol a Militiaman in the Reserve he is subject to all the Militia enactments with regard to training, and to remove those regulations the right hon. Gentleman asks: "Why do you not do that by Order in Council?" But an Order in Council is intended only for temporary cases in which it is not thought necessary to train a particular corps in a particular year, and, besides, it is subject to the provisions of the Militia Acts, which do not contemplate the establishment of a Reserve for the Militia, which is now desired. Obviously, therefore, the most straightforward course for the War Office was to bring forward their proposals in the form in which we have submitted them to the House. It seems to be supposed that power can be given to the Secretary of State for War to dispense with all the enactments relating to the Militia; but, as a matter of fact, those only which relate to training are touched, and all the general enactments with reference to the Militia remain exactly the same. I therefore hope that this portion of the Bill—involving the good faith of the War Office, which has been pledged to the men in the garrison
486
regiments that they should be permitted to enter the Reserve of the Militia—shall be regarded as non-controversial, and that the discussion shall be confined to those portions relating to the Yeomanry which are regarded as novel. The chief provision in that section of the Bill is that which proposes to ask 5,000 of the Yeomanry to agree to serve abroad in case of emergency, and to give them £5 a year per man for that obligation.
Many things have been said about this. The first is that it is establishing a Reserve similar to the old Militia Reserve, which provided a force of 100,000 men— one-third available, one-third recruits, and one-third taken away from the Line. How is it with the Yeomanry? I ask the House to vote a large additional sum for the Yeomanry, because the value of the Yeomanrv as a mounted service has been clearly established by their record in South Africa, and considering that within a year of the time within which I had laid my new proposals with regard to the force before the country, it has gone up from 9,000 to 27,000, and the numerous demands for the establishment of new regiments which come before the War Office, I do not think it is too much to ask that out of the 35,000 men proposed to be raised 5,000 should he available for service abroad in case of need, leaving 30,000 available for service in this country. I do not believe that the general force of the Yeomanry will suffer through jealousy of this special corps of 5,000 men. Not only did a Departmental Committee report unanimously in favour of making the experiment, but at a meeting which I summoned, attended by thirty commanding officers of the yeomanry, twenty-seven supported it. It should be also remembered that this is an insurance against large expenditure upon the Army. Every Regular soldier costs the country £50 a year. These men will cost only £9 a year. The proposal carries out what should be the policy of every Minister for War— namely, having the largest number of men in the Reserve and the smallest number of men with the Colours, consistent, of course, with every regiment being maintained in a proper condition. The country cannot afford to keep at full pay, standing as it were to arms, the whole of the forces required for the defence of the country; and by giving 5,000 men of the Yeomanry £5 each

487
for agreeing to serve abroad in case of emergency, you avoid, for £25,000, an expenditure, which, in the case of Regular soldiers, would amount to £500,000 at the very leat. For that reason, and having regard to the service which the authorities hold that these troops did in South Africa, and their absolute eligibility for such services in case of emergency abroad, or in any other part of the world, I sincerely trust, in fact, I am certain, that this provision, if time be given to discuss it, will obtain the assent of this House. Remember that this question has been discussed with great exactness before, and carried, and a Vote has been given for it, and therefore we have already obtained the assent of Parliament.
SIR CHARLES DILKE (): What does the right hon. Gentleman mean when he says that this proposal has been discussed, and a Vote given on it, with regard to the Yeomanry?
MR. BRODRICK: I mean that the proposal was put forward in the sense that a proposal was put into the Estimates, and specifically called attention to by the Minister, and a discussion was raised upon it. So far as I am aware no hostile objection was taken to it.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman name the day on which he says that the question was discussed?
MR. BRODRICK: I cannot give the day, but I certainly called attention to it. The right hon. Gentleman says that you ought not to move Militia from one regiment to another. Many of these men have served in territorial regiments, and some in regiments which were not territorial. The large number of men who are coming home far exceed those that are necessary for a Militia battalion of that calibre, and include some of those who have never served in the Militia. Of course the general principle of the territorial system will be kept up to the extremest limit possible.
MR. CLAUDE HAY (): And how about the Yeomanry?
MR. BRODRICK: As regards the Yeomanry, power is taken to transfer where a reserve is possible, and we desire to keep the system on the most common-sense basis. Let me now explain the position. I trust, at all events, in regard to the Militia, we shall be allowed to consider the provisions of the Bill as non-controversial. As regards the Yeomanry part, if there was any general consensus of opinion among Yeomanry officers against it I would not press it for a moment; but the mass of Yeomanry officers strongly support it, and I still hope, therefore, that hon. Members will give this portion of the scheme that fair discussion which is still possible, and allow it to be inserted in the measure. I have referred to what are the strong grounds in our possession for originating the Yeomanry part of the Bill. It is, as I have said, not a new proposal, but merely the completion of a scheme for which Parliament has already voted money. It is urgent from the point of view of the military authorities, and, if put off, must seriously inconvenience the arrangements we are making to put the Army into a proper condition after the war.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he would not follow the right hon. Gentleman on the Militia part of the Bill. There were Members in the House who were fully competent to discuss it from the Militia point of view, though he himself was not able to do so. He frankly admitted that he was a revolutionist in regard to the infantry services of the country. He did not believe in the distinctions which were drawn in regard to these services, and therefore he put himself out of court for discussing from a technical point of view the Militia. The Yeomanry part of the Bill was a different matter, and it was impossible to discuss it as if it were one that could be decided by Yeomanry colonels. Their opinion on Yeomanry was of the utmost value, but it was not worth more than the opinion of any member of the Committee with regard what should be the mounted troops of this country for war abroad. Some of our Yeomanry officers who had done most distinguished service abroad were those who had served during the past two or three years in

489
South Africa. They had had more experience of cavalry and yeomanry than any troops in the world. They had become absolutely competent men to speak on the subject of mounted infantry; but the opinion of a Yeomanry colonel at home was only of the same value as that of any Member of the House on a matter of this kind. They must discuss the Yeomanry part of the Bill from a larger point of view. They could not form an opinion on it unless they had in their mind what the British Empire was, and what in case of war the Yeomanry would have to do. Applying himself only to the portion of the Bill affecting the mounted services of the country, he asked the House to have in view the wider considerations of which he had spoken. The right hon. Gentleman said that the House had already approved of his proposals. On every occasion when questions affecting the mounted infantry and cavalry had been under consideration in the House, there had been a great deal of objection taken to the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman, and as one who was present at the whole of these debates, he did not think they could be said to have been generally favoured by the House. The feeling of the House on those occasions was against the proposals which were shadowed forth. When the right hon. Gentleman put his six Army Corps scheme before the House, a great attack was made against making up any of the Regular Army in respect of cavalry and mounted infantry by the use of Yeomanry. At that time no statement was made by the right hon. Gentleman to lead the House to suppose but that the Yeomanry regiments selected for service in time of war would be there as they had served in time of peace. In the statement made the year before last, he did not think the right hon. Gentleman gave any hint to the House of the proposal ever to take out a portion of the Yeomanry and use them to make up the deficiencies of the Reserve or for the cavalry of the Regular Army.
MR. BRODRICK: I ought to have made it clear that the proposal now made would of course not be on the lines of the old Militia Reserve, who were a body of trained soldiers.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the proposal now was a new one. Last year the right hon. Gentleman threw out a hint that a certain number of men were to be taken for service abroad in time of war, and to receive pay for that purpose, but he did not then tell the House what was the scheme proposed. Now for the first time an explanation was given in regard to the men who were to serve in separate squadrons attached to the regiments which were to go abroad.
With regard to the 30,000 Yeomanry at home, that was an essential portion of the ideas of the right hon. Gentleman, who believed in a home army to resist invasion, and who contemplated the possibility of the defeat of our fleets at sea. It was impossible not to take these considerations into view in discussing this subject. Those who believed in naval defence as the only one that could be effective, rejected the home army part of the scheme, and believed that what was wanted was a striking army that could go abroad, and for that a high proportion of regular trained mounted troops was required. That they could not get without professional training; they could not get it from the Yeomanry would be trained. The differences between cavalry and regular mounted infantry had now become so distinct that the Powers were likely in the next few years to be going in a direction in which, with our South African experience, we ought to precede them—namely, of having both cavalry and regular permanent mounted infantry. The War Office were too much inclined to take a good class of recruit for the Yeomanry, and to take this as being the equivalent of cavalry. They had in recent times seen regiments take highly belligerent titles, such as the Rutlandshire Rough Riders, or words to that effect, and they were accepted by the War Office as being what they appeared to be at first sight. But they were not cavalry soldiers, and they could not be counted upon as persons who had received a cavalry or a mounted infantry training which would fit them at once to take their place in the ranks of the regiments into which they would be sent. But now, he believed, the Government had not finally made up their mind on the subject, and that was one reason why he thought the discussion that afternoon would be of value. He had seen

491
hints given that it was possible the Government might have in view the creation of regular mounted infantry regiments. Of course there were a great many men serving in South Africa who had had such a training, and in that respect we stood in a position of superiority to the other Powers. But the Government would have to take a decision on this subject. The right hon. Gentleman had told the House that he shrank from the cost of extending this branch of the service; but the plea he offered to the House was that if the cost of the service had become too great, it was on the infantry, which they could improvise, rather than on the mounted infantry, that they should economise. The same argument had been used some years ago in regard to the artillery and the cavalry, which had been cut down and their horses reduced in number; and it was ultimately admitted that he and his friends were right and the Government wrong. The same thing was now going on in regard to the mounted infantry. They were going to try, for the sake of cheapness, to save on this branch of the service, although there was much ground for thinking that it was on it they must rely in an emergency. He should not be in order if he were to point out, on the Second Reading of this Bill, where a saving on the infantry might come in; but he did most earnestly plead with the Government and the House not to try to save money on the mounted branches of the service which could not be improvised in case of war. They all knew what occurred in South Africa. A portion of the mounted troops hurriedly raised were good, but the great bulk of them were not only useless, but were absolutely a danger; and it was not till they had been some time in the field that they were found to be of much service. The Government had too much in view, in regard to home defence as compared with naval defence, this 30,000 Yeomanry, as against this striking force of 5,000 men. The need of this country was to have a thoroughly prepared striking force. These troops, for which we paid so highly, ought to be of the best description; and Bills of this kind, which provided for masses of half-trained men as an imperfect makeshift, should not receive the sanction of
492
this House. The Prime Minister had that day made a most important declaration as to what was occupying the mind of the Government at the present time in connection with national defence. The right hon. Gentleman had promised a complete statement at the beginning of next session; and the House would wait for that with great interest. He could not but think that it would be better for the Government to agree to drop the Yeomanry portion of the Bill, for if they passed that portion they should be shutting the door against those fresh proposals which the Prime Ministerled them to hope for next session. He did not think it would be difficult to pass the Militia portion of the Bill. The Secretary for War had apparently forgotten what Napier had said of the Government of 1813, that they seemed to be unaware that we were surrounded by the sea. The Secretary for War had always in his mind that it was necessary to have a large land force in these islands because we might be invaded. Let the right hon. Gentleman get that out of his head. We should have a highly organised and concentrated force, but above all, we ought to be strong in cavalry, mounted infantry, and artillery.
SIR JOHN COLOMB ()said that he would heartily endorse all that had been said by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean. Having taken some part in the debate on the Army Reform Bill, of which this was really a part, he could say that his objection to that scheme was the want of appreciation of the conditions in which the Empire existed and of its military necessities. It would be quite improper for him to proceed on that line now, but he strongly objected to voting in any way for any part of a scheme which showed that the Government were carrying out a false policy which was not for the benefit of the country. He could not accept the plea of his right hon. friend the Secretary for War as to the urgency of this Bill. Twenty months ago the House passed a measure creating the Militia Reserve of 50,000 men, and now his right hon. friend came down and said—"If you don't pass this Bill, such and such terrible things will happen." If it

493
was urgent now, it must have been urgent all through the session. The fact was that the War Office were blundering into a policy, and hence their claim for urgency for this Bill. He heartily supported the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean, who advocated the old policy—for which they had been fighting for twenty years—and that was the influence of the element of time, which had never been recognised by the War Office. Cavalry and artillery took longer to train than infantry, and, therefore, in the nature of the case, they must in peace maintain regular cavalry and artillery at a higher proportion, numerically, than the infantry. The Government had never really accepted common-sense principles in their organisation. They had created what was called Imperial Yeomanry—a force which was neither Yeomanry nor Imperial. The title was only adopted to catch the public imagination and would not stand examination, because any proper consideration of the Yeomanry meant that you do not want this 35,000 men at all. He altogether objected to the right hon. Gentleman saying —"5,000 men will only cost you £25,000 and look what a Regular soldier will cost you." It was not a just argument, and therefore in Committee he should move the deletion of sub-Section 3 of the Bill. He had it from his right hon. friend that from the beginning to the end the Militia Reserve system was a bad one, and now he says—"You can apply the same principle, which has been found in practice to be bad to the Yeomamy." But says the right hon. Gentleman, "There is a very great difference. The Militia Reserve man was a private soldier who went into the regular Army for military service abroad; the individual unit of the Imperial Yeomanry is not a private soldier, he is subject to a different law." He saw no difference between the two. His right hon. friend tried to harmonise his arguments by saying that the Imperial yeoman will go with his own officer. Why could not the militiaman do the same? If that was a practical argument for the one it was practical for the other. We ought to have some explanation of this. How was it going to be arranged that the yeoman shall go with his own officer? They had two yeomanry cavalry regiments. In one they had only
494
ten men in the Yeomanry reserve, and in the other fifty men. How ware they going to arrange for the ten men to go with their own officer? His right hon. friend had no doubt a very large scheme in his head, but he had not explained to them where the difference between the Yeomanry reserve and the old Militia reserve was. In Committee ho would have to show them and give them definite proof that the principle was to be so different in its application to the Yeomanry reserve as compared with the Militia reserve to provide that the men shall always go with their own officers. He did not vote for the Adjournment of the debate, because he wished to hear what the Secretary for War was going to say, but had he known, as he now did, he certainly should have voted for it. With regard to the Militia part, he had not much to say except on the broad ground that it was carrying out a bad policy, but he objected to this provision in regard to the Imperial Yeomanry, because he thought it was throwing dust in the eyes of the people; because it would produce inferior cavalry units, and because this policy might be used by future Ministers to keep down the efficiency of the real Army.
MR. BECKETTsaid that after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, the Bill seemed to have been divided into two parts. With regard to the Militia part of the Bill, for which both men and money had been voted, nothing could be said, but it was around sub-Section 3 that all the opposition concentrated, and considering that the Session was drawing to a close and there was not much time for the carrying through of this Bill, he would suggest to the Secretary of State that he should drop sub-Section 3 for the present, and be content with carrying the remainder of the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman would adopt that course he would find no opposition to the measure.
MR. BRODRICK: I am most anxious to meet the wishes of the House in a question of this kind. But although I am aware of the strong opposition entertained by my hon. friend and others to this particular sub-Section, I believe that if the subject were debated in a full House the proposal would

495
be strongly supported by military Members. I do not feel quite clear whether the occupants of the Front Opposition Bench would accept the other part of the Bill as of an uncontroversial character if I abandon for the time sub-Section 3. In the event of it being abandoned for the present it must be understood that I do not hold myself in any degree bound not to re-introduce it at the first opportunity. I believe that my hon. and gallant friend has misconceived what the effect of the sub-Section will be, but I realise that we are at a late period of the Session, and that strong objection has been taken to proceeding with the measure for that reason. If it is clearly understood that the first two sub-Sections are to be regarded as uncontroversial, namely, those which permit the Government to establish a Militia and Yeomanry reserve, and if it is made clear that men shall be allowed to remain on the books of the Yeomanry under the Militia Act, so that training may continue, I will try to meet the wishes of my hon. friends by dropping sub-Section 3. I should like, however, to have some assurance from the Front Bench, opposite with regard to this.
CAPTAIN NORTON ()said it was impossible to consider this Bill without, to some extent, looking at the whole scheme of Army reform of which this was a part. The reason for the opposition to it was that the majority of the Service Members of the House felt that the right hon. Gentleman would have had little necessity for this Bill if he had taken the opportunity when the country was ripe to make use of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, and had placed himself in the position in which he might then have placed himself with reference to militia affairs. The proposal to transfer militia from one county to another altered the whole character of the force, both territorially and constitutionally. Of course, circumstances had altered in the last half century, and agricultural counties formerly able to produce large quantities of militiamen were not now in the same position, whilst other counties like Glamorgan were able, owing to the increase of population, to raise as many as six regiments; but the principle of transferring the men from one county
496
to another would result in muddling up the Militia in a manner never before known. One of the six Army Corps was to be supplied with cavalry from scrap squadrons from different Yeomanry regiments, an unsatisfactory force for a general officer to rely upon. He ventured to point out that it would be impossible to secure a force of the right character. There was a great distinction between mounted infantry and cavalry, and no absolute lessons could be drawn from the experience of the South African War. Scrap cavalry of this description would go down like ninepins before trained Continental cavalry. No fewer than 35,000 Yeomanry were to be raised, in order to obtain 5,000 efficient cavalry, and the remainder of the force would be of no value whatever in the event of their having to operate at home. What was needed in this country was a mobile striking force, and this Bill was beginning at the wrong end. Instead of pressing this Bill now, at the close of the session, it would be far better if the Government would hold it over until next session, when they were developing their entire system of Army reform.
SIR ARTHUR HAYTER: The right hon. Gentleman has made an appeal tome, and has, I think, made an extremely fair otter to this side of the House. I understand he proposed to drop sub-Section 3, Clause 1, for the present session only, if we withdraw the Amendment to read this Bill a second time this day three months. I may say on behalf of this side we will accept the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, and leave this discussion to a later date, and though we may move small Amendments we shall move no obstructive Amendments.
Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
COLONEL NOLAN ()desired to have some explanation of sub-Section 1. He quite understood that the War Office, or the Commander-in-Chief, might be able to transfer all the men of the Yeomanry, Volunteers, and Militia from one part to another, as it suited the Service, and that they were very impatient at the fancy some soldiers took for a particular regiment as against

497
another. He understood that under this Bill a militiaman could be transferred from one Militia regiment to another, with one exception. An infantry man could not be transferred to an artillery regiment, and an artillery man could not be transferred to an infantry regiment. But a Militia Reserve man could be transferred from a Galway or Mayo regiment to an Antrim regiment or a Yorkshire regiment. Did that rule appertain to all militiamen or only the Militia Reserve men? Because he did not want west-country men who had joined the militia of their county to be transferred to a northern regiment, where there might be some objection to their religion. He knew some regiments which had a very great objection to Catholics and would not allow them to join. Then with regard to the convenience of the men themselves, there were many who would be likely to suffer from such a transfer. There were many objections to men being called out and transferred to other regiments in other parts. Irishmen rightly or wrongly liked to be with their own regiments in Ireland. This Bill seemed to him to take this power to transfer, and he would like some explanation upon that point. He also wished to know whether a man in the Galway or Mayo Militia could when he joined the Reserve be transferred to an English regiment at the will of the Secretary of State or the Commander-in-Chief.
COLONEL WELBY ()pointed out that in the latter part of sub-Section 1 militiamen were mentioned, but not yeomen. Was it intended to enable a yeoman in the Reserve to be transferred from one arm of the Service to another? He did not say that the principle was a bad one, but if a yeoman could be transferred to the artillery, engineers, or the Army Medical Department, it ought to be clearly stated.
MR. BRODRICKsaid a yeoman could not be transferred to another arm, inasmuch as there was only one arm of the yeomanry.
COLONEL WELBYhad always understood the word "arm" to refer to a branch of the service. Technically it
498
did so, whatever might be its meaning in Parliamentary language. As to the point raised by the hon. Baronet, he understood sub-Section 2 to refer to the raising of Militia. Technically the Militia could be raised by Ballot unless the Ballot Act was suspended by the House. He therefore asked whether this sub-Section would bring the Yeomanry under the provisions of the Ballot Act.
MR. COURTENAY WARNERthought the Bill afforded a good instance of the way in which the War Office always mixed up a lot of rubbish with a little good work. There were many things that might have been done with regard to the Yeomanry and Militia, but this Bill simply tinkered with the question without affecting the important points. One of the chief reasons urged for the Bill was the scarcity of men in time of war. But did not that scarcity exist in time of peace? In some counties additional battalions of Militia could easily be raised, while the neighbouring counties were short of men, and if there had been inserted in the Bill a provision with regard to recruiting in other counties similar to that proposed in connection with the transfer of reserves, he believed many more recuits could be secured. There was one thing without which no Militia Bill was sound. Militia officers were almost unanimous in the opinion that it would not make the least difference in recruiting if the Militia were recruited to serve either at home or abroad in case of emergency. That would do away with the ridiculous and unsatisfactory farce of the so-called "volunteering" for foreign service. He was glad the proposal to take the Yeomanry for foreign service in sections was to be dropped. It was an impossible idea. If they were sent in companies, and under their own officers, a great deal might be done. By the amalgamation of corps it would be possible to arrange for the men to go out more or less with friends, and under officers whom they knew. If the same principle were applied with the Militia there would be no fear of the recruiting falling off, and the Bill would do more good. He agreed that it was a good thing to establish a Militia reserve, and he hoped it would fulfill all expectations. At present, however, the

499
rush for the Army and Militia had fallen off, and, unless the men were made more comforable, the required number of recruits would not be forthcoming. The question of having more mounted troops would have to be faced; and the Government would have seriously to consider the question of having regular corps of mounted infanntry as well as our present cavalry. He was pleased that the Bill was going through without opposition, as the Militia reserve was an excellent thing, and everybody agreed that, if the Yeomanry were to be efficient, they would have to be under the same discipline and training as the Militia in days gone by.
MR. TULLY ()thought Irish Members were entitled to some explanation of how this Bill would affect Ireland. Important alterations were to be made with regard to the Militia and Yeomanry, which might seriously concern many poor men in that country. Some time ago a Bill was rushed through the House without discussion, with the result that men who had previously joined the Militia found themselves liable for service in South Africa. The first Clause of the present Bill might have a similar effect, inasmuch as the proposal to transfer militiamen from one corps to another might mean that Irish-men would suddenly be transferred, without their previous knowledge or consent, from an Irish to an English Militia regiment. He did not think that militia who joined at Roscommon should be liable to be transferred to some English regiment, such as the Yorkshire or the Lancashire regiments. On theose grounds he thought they were entitled to some explanation from the noble Lord as to how this Bill would affect Irish regiments. They were prohibited in Ireland from having Volunteers, although some Yeomanry regiments were raised in Ireland during the recent war. A great many of the Yeomanry raised in Ireland had distinguished themselves in South Africa by the facility with which they surrendered to the Boers. If they were to have Yeomanry in Ireland, he wished to know whether they could be transferred to English and British regiments. The hon. Member for North Galway had asked for an explanation, and he hoped the noble Lord would give them some assurance on this point.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY,)said this Bill would not affect Irish reservists or Militia reservists any more than English. Men, at the completion of ten years, could go into the reserve of the battalion to which they belonged. There were also in the Army a lot of men who, when they left the Army, were lost to the military service. They were to be asked to go into the Militia reserve to serve as a reserve for the whole of the Militia. There was no esprit de corps concerned at all, and they would be allotted amongst the various Militia regiments as required.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed for Tomorrow.

PATENT LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
FISHERIES (IRELAND) [EXPENSES].
Order for Committee thereupon read, and discharged.

MAIL SHIPS BILL.
Order read, for resuming Adjourned. Debate on Question [1st December], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Question again proposed.
MR. CALDWELL ()said it was necessary for him to put before the House the nature of this measure. It was a simple and very useful Bill, and had reference to the bond of security which the owner of mail ships carrying mails between this country and a foreign State had to give in order that the ship might have the privileges of a mail ship, which privileges were very considerable in many ways. Under this Act the High Court had to be satisfied with regard to the sufficiency of the security, and if the High Court was not satisfied the security had to be provided in another way. Therefore this Bill made the law more effective by bringing the parties within the jurisdiction of

501
the High Court, and in this respect the measure was an improvement. He wished to point out that the Bill contained a provision in regard to "change in the residence or place or business and serivice." The President of the Board of Trade would find that the whole of this had arisen from tautology in the present Act. They ought to have scored out the words "is from any cause insufficient." As for the Bill, as a whole, it always gave him pleasure, when he found that a Bill was right, to give every facility for it passing, and this was an illustration of the fact that they did not find a measure opposed if it was a really substanital one, as this Bill was.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed for Tomorrow.

BANKERS (IRELAND) ACT REPEAL BILL.
Order for Committee read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.

FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Committee read and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
(5.55.) There being no further business which could, under the terms of the Order of the 16th October, be taken at the Afternoon Sitting, Mr. SPEAKER left the Chair until the Evening Sitting.

EVENING SITTING.

  UGANDA RAILWAY [GRANT].
  Considered in Committee.
  (in the Committee.)
  [Mr. JEFFEREYS (Hampshire, N.) the Chair.]
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE,): In moving this Resolution in Committee, I beg first to call the attention of hon. Members to the memorandum on the subject which was presented two days ago, and which gives a very complete statement of the reasons why it is necesary for the Government
  502
  to ask for more money. It begins with a short summary of the history of the railway, and it includes a memorandum by the managing member of the Uganda Railway Committee containing a comparative table shewing the original and the present Estimates, and an explanation of the reasons why the Estimate has had to be modified. That dispenses me from making any elaborate statement in detail, though I shall be quite willing and ready, so far as my powers allow, to answer any questions hon. Members may put to me on the subject. I may, however, make a few general remarks.
  It is, perhaps, hardly necessary to remind the House of the past history of the Uganda Railway, or that our presence in East Africa was dictated by considerations of trade expansion, by our hope to fulfill the mission of civilisation which has so long been the function of the British Imperial authorities, and by the position this country occupies in Africa, which requires that we should take our share in the development of that country. I have used the word "development." Any sensible man who owns property thinks it his duty to develop it, and there is nothing more essential in the development of a property than the making of proper communications. It follows almost as a matter of course that if we are right to be in East Africa at all we should make a railway. I challenge contradiction of this statement, that if we were to be in East Africa at all, sooner or later, being established as the controlling authority over this was tract, it was our duty and our interest also to make this railway. Hon. Members will remember that the vast majority of the House of Commons when the project was first proposed were in favour of making the railway forth with, and that it was at once entered upon. Great difficulties almost immediately showed themselves. In the first place, it was impossible to get the requisite labour on the continent of Africa, and an army of 20,000 labourers and artisans had to be transported from India in order to make the railway. In the second place, 600 miles of railway had to be made. The line passed through most difficult country. In its course it reached a point over 8,000 feet above

  503
  the sea, and in the middle there was a formidable drop of 1,500 feet, which had taxed the ingenuity of our engineers to the very highest point. I may mention, in order to show the kind of country that this railway had to traverse, that there are no less than seventy-live viaducts, as distinct from bridges, and the Committee cannot be surprised to learn, therefore, that in all the circumstances the railway has been an expensive one to build. Including the present grant, if the House is good enough to give it us, it will have cost, in order to complete it, £5,550,000, the demand I am now making on the Committee being for £600,000. 1 ought to say here that as against that sum there is an asset in the shape of stores which are valued at about £150,000.
  What the Committee will require me to justify is my demand for an increased sum over the estimate made in the early part of 1900. The details of the reasons are to be found in the Parliamentary Paper I have laid on the Table, but generally speaking I may say that it is due partly to causes over which the Government have no control, and partly, I. frankly admit, to mistakes which ought not to have occurred. The first cause was, I think, by far the largest. The line was begun in complete ignorance of the country through which it was to be made. There was not in 1900 even a complete or detailed survey with which to work out the quantities. Indeed, there was no material at that time with which to work them out. On the top of that came the great rise in the price of coal last year, which made an enormous difference in the cost. It was felt in almost all departments of the work. The coal rose in fact from 13s. to 27s., and freights from 22s. to 23s. Then there was the abnormally bad weather. For five months, to the end of September last, it rained continuously, and it began again at the latter end of October. We did not get fine weather until the 25th November. Thus the Committee will see the difficult conditions under which the latter part of the work was conducted. The circumstances were entirely beyond the control of those responsible for making the railway. It was not to be expected that the weather would be so bad as to make it impossible over large sections to do any work at all. All the
  504
  time, the coolies brought from India had to be paid, and the additional expenditure consequent upon the bad weather is a very serious item indeed in the total cost. Then there is another item which must be taken into account, and of which the Government has no reason to be ashamed. So long as water could not be found in sufficient quantities, it, of course, had to be carried. The cost of carrying water was not a capital expenditure at all, but as water was discovered machinery had to be supplied, and the charge for that was thrown on capital expenditure. It is economy in the long run, but it makes it necessary to ask for a large sum. The Government were undoubtedly over-sanguine as to the time it would take to make the railway, and in generalising from the cost of the earlier portion of the railway to the cost of the whole, it turned out that the latter part of the railway further into the interior was more expensive to make, and that, of course, threw out the whole calculation, which was made on the average of the earlier months. Then, certain things were undoubtedly omitted which ought to have been included. Certain, works at headquarters were not estimated for, for which the money has to be found now. These are, roughly speaking, the general heads under which the greater part of the excess has occurred.
  The Committee will ask whether, in the judgment of the Foreign Office, there will be any more expenditure. I am not going to enter into any engagement which I cannot fulfil, and 1 do not desire to deceive the House. It is perfectly possible, these works being what they are, that certain extra expenditure may be thrown on the country at a future date. It may be possible, and I hope it will be, that sources of water will become available in much greater quantities than at present. Work will be required to make them useful, and this will involve extra capital expenditure. If there is a necessity for that, the money will have to be found in the ordinary Estimates to be laid before this House. It would, there fore, be rash to say that there is an absolute certainty that other capital expenditure will not be incurred. On the other hand I ought to bring before the House and

  505
  the country what they have got for their money. They have in the first place got a good article— a first-rate railway. People may differ as to whether a railway ought to be made at all, undoubtedly the money has been expended in producing a good article. That has been testified by several impartial observers. Sir G. Goldie, who enjoys a great reputation, visited the railway not long ago, and has stated that after seeing the line throughout practically its whole length, and visiting its fully-equipped workshops, stores, and other accessories, he has no hesitation in answering affirmatively the question whether there is intrinsic value in the railway in proportion to the capital expended upon it. Sir Harry Johnston, although perhaps not so absolutely an impartial authority as Sir George Goldie, also speaks in the highest terms of the railway. In expense of construction the railway compares favourably with the Cape Railway and that of Natal, the Uganda Railway having cost about, £9,500 a mile, as compared with rather over £10,000 in the case of the Cape Railway, and £11.000 in that of Natal. The gauge of the Uganda Railway is. I admit, three feet three inches, as against three feet six inches in the case of the other South African railways, but the difference in gauge, I am told, makes very little difference in the cost.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONES (): What did you pay for the land?
  LORD CRANBORNE: I am informed that the land cost nothing in either case.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONES: £20,000 is put down for it now.
  LORD CRANBORNE: I am not going to make any promise as to the prospects of the line. Trade there is now in its infancy, but the country is a very fertile one, and capitalists in England are showing a willingness to venture considerable sums on concessions which we are granting for trade. But I may say that the opinions of Sir George Goldie and Sir Harry Johnston are again favourable, the former saying he has not a shadow of doubt that ultimately the line will prove a sound commercial speculation, and the latter predicting that in ten years' time the railway will be returning a handsome
  506
  profit on working expenses, which may enable the Government to pay back to the nation the original cost of its construction. The value of the railway, moreover, is not to be calculated only by its promise of a direct return. There is a considerable indirect economy, because all that is required for the development of the country is now so much more cheaply introduced. The cost of carriage as between porter-borne and railway-borne stores may, for example, be compared. The cost of carriage by caravan was 7s. 6d. per ton per mile; by rail it was from 2 1/4d. to 2 1/2d. The Committee will realise what an enormous difference that is. Applying that figure up to March 31st, 7,417 tons of Protectorate—that is Government—stores have been introduced at a cost of £57,000. Under the old system of carriage by porters, the cost would have been £552,000. The economy which will be caused by the railway is in fact almost incalculable. Without the railway, in fact, the development of our dominions there would have been impossible. With it everything was open to us. In the progress of administration and in the comfort of the people the railway will be an unexampled blessing. The journey from London to the capital of Uganda can now be made, according to Sir Harry Johnston, in twenty-four days, as compared with four months in former times, and the natives will be able to avail themselves of these great advantages when they go in quest of more profitable employment on the coast, or when they seek to sell their products. In fact, from the native point of view, the commercial advantage of the railway can not be, over-estimated.
  I think that the Government have done nothing but their duty in pushing forward this railway. I regret, of course, that it should have cost as much as it has done, but provided we have got a good article for our money, that we confer these great blessings on the native population, and at the same time promote our own trade. I do not think the Committee ought to grudge the sum I am now asking. The reason why I am asking leave to introduce a Bill for a loan is that this course has always been adopted in regard to sums asked for this railway. It is only just that

  507
  this method should be pursued, because this is in the nature of capital expenditure. The benefit of the expenditure will accrue to future taxpayers, and therefore the cost ought to be thrown partly upon them. The same method has been adopted in respect of other public works, such as military and naval works, and a precedent is also, I believe, to be found for it in the specific cable expenditure which was defrayed in the same way. This money is to be borrowed from the National Debt Commissioners on the security of terminable annuities payable in thirty years in the ordinary way. I move the Resolution, and I have only to add that, if further information is desired, I shall be happy to answer questions.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is expedient to authorise the issue, out of the Consolidated Fund, of a further sum not exceeding £600,000 for the purposes of the Uganda Railway."—(Lord Cranborne.)
  MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid the noble Lord had made a very clear statement, but he should like to remind him of the debate that took place a few sessions ago. The noble Lord's speech tonight was directed rather to the principle of the undertaking than to the details which they on this side of the House ventured to criticise. He had talked of the development of our dominions. If we did undertake the protectorate of Uganda it could be well understood that we had also to undertake the making of railways and roads, and many other things which were necessary to the effective support of our Empire and of good government in that region. The hon. Member said, in 1900, that he was in favour of the making of this railway, because we were practically committed to that or the giving up of the protectorate. Let them take that as their postulate in argumentation. It appeared to him that the noble Lord had forgotten that the point they were making was that the Foreign Office, in becoming a kind ot railway contractor, had been guilty of inefficiency, waste, and extravagance. That was the main burden of the opposition to the Bill of 1900. He did not know that it was expedient for
  508
  him at present to enter upon the details of the mistakes of which the Government had been guilty in regard to the carrying out of this undertaking. He had, however, this complaint to make, and it might justify him for not talking at length at this stage of the Bill, that he had only had the "Memoranda relating to the Uganda Railway, 1902," for two or three hours in his hand. That Paper was not signed by anybody, and it was only by a process of inference that he could assume it was laid before the House by the noble Lord. It was not sent to his house this morning with the other Papers.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out'£600,000,'and insert £500,000'"."—(Mr Brynmor Jones.)
  Question proposed, "That ' £600,000' stand part of the Question."
  LORD CRANBORNE: If that is so I think the hon. Member has been very badly treated. It was in the Vote Office yesterday afternoon, and, of course, according to the ordinary practice it ought to have been circulated to hon. Members this morning. Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to say this much. My right hon. friend the First Lord of the Treasury had originally arranged that this matter should be taken on Wednesday, and if that arrangement had been carried out the hon. Gentleman would have had more time to consider the memoranda, but, owing to the exigencies of business, the adjourned debate was put down for today. My right hon. friend, when he altered the arrangement, said he hoped that hon. Gentleman would understand that he did so for the convenience of the House, and that they would not complain that they had lost the opportunity of considering the new business put down for today which they otherwise would have had.
  MR, BRYNMOR JONESsaid that, as far as the personal position of the noble Lord was concerned, the explanation he had given was absolutely right, but at the same time, when they remembered that the Session commenced in January, there was good cause to complain of the delay in the presentation of Papers. The Foreign Office made a great mistake when,

  509
  in 1895, they undertook to carry out this business. There was an experienced firm of contractors ready to carry out the work at the rate of £3,500 per mile and, as a matter of fact, it had cost the country £9,000 per mile. If the Foreign Office would take on its shoulders this work of railway construction as well as other things appertaining to that office, it must expect to be severely criticised for its inefficiency, waste, and extravagance. The Foreign Office appointed a Committee, and he had followed every step taken by the Committee in so far as appeared from the printed documents which had been laid before the House. but, of course, these formed only a very little part of what must be at the disposal of the noble Lord. Colonel Gracey was appointed to go out in an independent manner and examine into the state of things.
  LORD CRANBORNE: He is a member of the Committee.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONESdid not think Colonel Gracey was a member of the Committee. If he was a member of the Committee there had been no independent inspection at all. He understood that Colonel Gracey, who had had experience in India, was appointed as a kind of independent officer not concerned at all in regard to this matter. He was to go over what had already been done by the officers on the spot, and to test the accuracy of the estimates which had been already framed. Colonel Gracey went out, and in his report he made the most damaging criticism in regard to the work which had been done. He wished to call the noble Lord's attention to the question of inclined planes. The noble Lord had said that the railway was finished to Port Florence. As a matter of fact, he had reason to believe, for he had seen the figures, that the inclined planes were by no means finished. He was told by an hon. friend that the inclined planes were only temporary. This was not, perhaps, the occasion for going into engineering details, but he advised the noble Lord to give attention to the accounts for the construction of another African railway from Beira to Umtali, and he would find under every head of expenditure, the construction had been more efficient and cheaper, and quite as good a line had been the result. But the House never
  510
  seemed able to get to the end of expenditure on this Uganda Railway; every two years a fresh account was opened. The construction of this railway was not a work for the Foreign Office to undertake, and the result had been extravavance and waste of money. As a protest, he moved a reduction of the Vote by £1,000.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)saqid it was unfortunate that a Department organised for negotiations and diplomatic business should embark upon the work of railway construction. He was not quite sure that they would be more successful in Uganda than they had been in Brussels. It was inconsiderate to keep back the information contained in the Papers until the day before debate; it was a growing practice which he hoped the noble Lord would endeavour to check so far as his Department was concerned. In the opinion of many hon. Members a sum of £600,000 was a fleabite, but he thought that it was a very large sum indeed. There was no notice in the Paper cirulated this morning of the sum to be asked for. Until a few minutes ago the House had no notion of what the sum was to be. He did not think any private person would be content to be dealt with in that wat, He regretted that they had not had a little more time to consider the proposal. He could not but remember Standing Order 62 of the House, which absolutely prescribed that when such a proposal was made the consideration of it should be postponed to a future day.
  LORD CRANBORNE: It is to go into Committee tomorrow.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he was perfectly well aware that what was now being done had been usual of late years, but if the noble Lord would refer to the old journals of the House he would find that when such a proposal was made it postponed to a subsequent day appropriated for it under Standing Order 62. In this case a demand for £600,000 was flung at the House, and, then and there, it was asked to vote upon it. He thought that was a highly inconvenient method of procedure. In view of the large expenditure which had been incurred this £600,000 might be considered a very small matter, but it was a straw on the camel's back, and he must take some

  511
  account of it. Moreover, this demand had to him a very serious aspect. This was the third time that the House had been asked for Supplies this year, and the present vote would necessitate the passing of another Appropriation Act. But it appeared to be easy for the Government to obtain moneyin these days. He pictured "youth at the prow and pleasure at the helm"—the Colonial Secretary in South Africa and the Prime Minister at the helm here. Even the Chancellor of the Exchequer made no resistance. The predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman had the appearance of a mastiff sitting on thecash-box showing his teeth to everyone who came near. There was nothing of the mastiff about the present Chancellor of the Exchequer; there was more of the spaniel, he thought, for the right hon. Gentleman could not refuse anything, not even to the noble Lord and the Foreign Office, when accounts were presented such as no human being ever before looked at, and when reasons such as no human being ever before adduced were made in support of them. These accounts, if not so sad and pathetic, would be positively comic. When this matter was first raised they were told that the railway would cost £3,000,000, and would be one of the most valuable assets of the Empire. He predicted then that it would cost at least £6,000,000. It had already cost that amount, and the noble Lord with perfect frankness had told the House that it was possible that it might cost a great deal more. As to the future, the noble Lord could give them no information. He thought this a good article, as if it were a piece of haberdashery. The Public Accounts Committee had had trouble over the Uganda Railway accounts, but he was not going over the ground they had ploughed with so much assiduity and toil. The Paper which had been issued in regard to the Uganda Railway contained some remarkable statements. He should like to know whether the whole of it was by F. L. O Callaghan, or whether it was partly by the noble Lord.
  LORD CRANBORNE: My hon. friend knows that all the Papers laid before the House are passed by the Foreign Office, which is responsible for them.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he had asked the information in regard to the
  512
  authorship of the Paper in order that he might understand it a little better. The hon. Member called the attention of the House to the reasons set forth in the paragraphs (a) to (e) of the "Reasons for the figures in the Revised Estimate" on page 8 of the Paper. The noble Lord gave the House a fearful picture of five months' constant rain, and of everything and everybody being overwhelmed with water. It appeared, however, that if there was too much water at one time there was too much water at one time there was not enough at another. Why, having all this water, did they not keep some of it and use it? Was the rain in one part of the country and not another? ["Oh!" and laughter.] He really thought this was not a thing to jeer at. The Chief Engineer's estimate was plans were completed, therefore the data he relied upon were imperfect. Of course, when the Chief Engineer knew that he had git perfect data, he could work out his calculations to perfection! Then the Report went on to say that the Chief Engineer—
  "took the cost of so much of the line as was then finished as a guide, and used the actual cost per mile of each main head of account, modifying the averages in some cases where his experience led him to believe the cost would differ materially from that in the past."
  Now here was the comment on that statement—
  "Conditions being similar in all respects, this method gives fairly accurate results, but the actual condition proved not to be similar."
  Then, it was admitted that the Chief Engineer had very imperfect knowledge of climate conditions, which could only be determined after years of observation. The two years following the date of his estimate proved exceptionally wet. The gentleman never thought of these rains, or whether there would not be rain enough; and then to his surprise, during the year 1901, there was an unexpected loss of 100 working days. How were these working days lost? They were not thrown out of the calendar. The Report went on to say that—
  "For 1900 a table of lost working days does not exist, but as the line was blocked for three months the amount would not be less."
  Why. they were not told. He would not go into this Memorandum further than that as to details. But, what did the Office say? 'This Office can only

  513
  form a, surmise '' of the amount of the loss. That was the way the Foreign Office kept its accounts—by forming surmises! He was sorry to go into these matters, but In; had to do so because they illustrated the frame of mind in which the Foreign Office went into the construction of railways. At the bottom of page 10 of the Memoranda there was a reference to rolling stock, which stated that—
  " In regard to the increase under this head, the figure of the original estimate was made in this office, and was less accurate than that made by the chief engineer."
  Then came this remarkable paragraph—
  " The cost of repairs to rolling stock, due to accidental parting of trains, on the steep inclines, already incurred would have paid for a considerable portion of the cost of safety appliances.''
  He could not follow these accounts, because they were in such a fearful muddle; and when he came to the explanations of the Foreign Office, he was lost in much greater confusion than ever. Whether the chief engineer was still out there making his poetical estimates for the construction of the railway, he did not know, and the noble Lord apparently could not tell them. It seemed to him to be a very sad and melancholy thing that the House of Commons should be asked again this year for a large sum of money for this railway, and for the third time to make a new Budget. It was still more sad that they should have such imperfect accounts, and, sadder still, that they should have such absurd explanations of them. He could only express the hope that the Foreign Office would leave off making wars and railways, and set themselves to learn how to write a despatch.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that the House was not in a fit condition to discuss this Bill efficiently after the exhausting labours on the Education Bill. He asked, however, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should at this or some other stage of the Bill make a statement of the various loans which had been indulged in for works that used to be borne on the Budget. As the noble Lord had told the House, they now voted loans for Army works, Navy works, public buildings, the Pacific Cable—all
  514
  these were new—now they had a loan. for this Uganda railway. He was not at all opposed to the policy of these loans, provided full publicity was given to them in Parliament. They ought to have from the Chancellor of the Exchequer a statement of the amount of money they had to raise for these purposes. He shared the views of his hon, friend who had moved the reduction of the Vote that the Foreign Office was not a Department to carry on railway construction, or a war. Personally, he went much beyond his hon. friend. He had never been a partisan of the Uganda occupation. He did not believe that we had done any good to civilisation, or to the native population of that part of Africa, by going to Uganda. He knew that the extraordinary depopulation of the Unyiro Province was a disgrace to civilisation. If they could not make the West Indies pay, with all their advantages of soil and climate, he did not believe that they could ever make Uganda pay. He hoped, however, that this would be the last the House was to hear of the Uganda Railway.
  MR. BAYLEY ()said that this was a business matter, and the House was forgetting that the Foreign Office were carrying on a trading concern. What he wanted to know was—Who was responsible for the gauge of the Uganda railway being different from that of the railways either in South or North Africa, because the idea was that at some future time all these railways would be connected up. Proper engineering opinion ought to have been asked before deciding on that question of gauge. He noticed that general charges, including administration, amounted to £283,431; but so much were the Foreign Office out of their Estimates lor these general charges that they were now asking for £200,000 more. He did not see their friend the Crown Agent for the Colonies figuring in this matter. He should like to ask how much of that £200,000 was going to that old friend. The noble Lord had told them that he could not say what this railway was going to cost next year; but of the Gentlemen who called themselves by the extraordinary name of the

  515
  Managing Members of the Uganda Rail-way Committee, he would like to know how many of them had any experience of English or Colonial railways? The gentleman who prepared these Memoranda stated that the cost of rolling stock to September 1899 Was £246,332, and that the cost of the locomotives and other rolling stock to be added would bring up the total to £455,707. There were thirty-six new American locomotives on order at a cost of £92,700, making an enormous total of 128 new engines in three years, together with several thousand trucks of different sorts, to run a train a day for 560 miles. Why there was sufficient rolling srock to run ten trains a day each way, thought there was no possibility of having traffic for such a service for vers! No business man would approve of such a thing. The noble Lord in his Memoranda was not quite correct in saying that the traffic earnings (including Protectorate stores but excluding railway stores) came to £80,797. That was not traffic earnings, but traffic receipts. The gross working expenditure, including maintenance and carriage of railway stores, was £378,891,so that it cost £378.891 to earn a traffic of £80,797. He was not at all sure whether they had got the proper water out in Uganda for the boilers of the locomotives, and it might be cheaper to convert the line into a tramway and run it with horse. The noble Lord had told the House that certain concessions had been given. He supposed these concessions had been paid for in some way. Could the noble Lord put these concessions on the Table of the House so that hon. Members cold see them before they voted this Bill? this was a most serious matter.
  LORD CRANBORNEsaid that the concessions had nothing to do directly with the railway. He only mentioned the fact to illustrate his contention that there were a considerable number of persons who had confidence in the future of these territories.
  MR. BAYLEYsaid he would like to know the terms and conditions of these concessions and what the Government were to have in return for them. It was important to know whether there
  516
  were any Englishmen going out to Uganda as farmers and settlers. If the Government went on in the extravagent way they had done in buying engines and rolling stock for a railway which had no traffic in the sense that English or South African railways had, where there was a large population at both ends, his impression was that they would require more than a million of money to carry on this Uganda railway as a working concern.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL ()said he did not see in the Memoranda any sum put down for the steamers on the victoria Nyanza. How was the cost of these steamers to be provided? He wanted some information as to the surplus stores, Which were estimated to be of the value of £160,000. Were they of a character to be used afterwards? In regard to the concessions he wished to ask: Were they granted for lands in the British East African Protectorate or in the Uganda Protectorate, or for both; and in what proportion were they distributed between Uganda and the British East Aftican Protectorate? When he was at Nairobi at the beginning of the year there were great complaints about the site on which that town was built, and a report was current that it would be necessary to remove it from the plain. Where drainage was impossible, to the adjacent hills. Was there any truth in this report, and was the expense of the removal included in the Vote which they were now discussing?
  SIR EDWARD GREYsaid the story of this railway was a very old one, and he did not think that much that was new had been put before the Committee on this occasion. They had become used to these extensions of the cost, and compared with previous demands the amount now asked for did not seem a very large one. It was quite hopeless to look at this matter as a commercial transaction.
  When once we had gone to Uganda the railway clearly had to be made, and we did not go there as a commercial speculation. He did not think any one could put his finger on the precise reason why we went to Uganda or the precise moment when we decided to do so. European countries having decided to

  517
  embark on the development of the African continent, it was impossible for this country to stand aside; but to say that we went to Uganda as a commercial speculation was entirely an inaccurate account of the matter. He thought the noble Lord was a little sanguine in saying that the money spent on the railway was capital locked up which was going to be profitable in the future, but he thought it would be long time before the railway paid its way. What they had to remember, he thought, was that a great deal of capital had been locked up in this undertaking, and that they had rather to make good what had been put in. They had got to develope the resources they had already got and not lock up more capital in Africa.
  Attention called to the fact that there were not forty members present; House counted, and forty members being found present —
  SIR EDWARD GREYsaid the other point he wished to refer to was the fact of the under-estimate of the work. He did think that was a serious thing. It was one of the most notable instances of under-estimating cost that had ever come before the Committee. It was a dangerous thing that the cost of works like these should be so much underestimated, because, if the Committee got into the habit of treating with distrust the estimates put before them, they would become reluctant to vote money to embark on undertakings when the government asked for it. The under-estimate in this case was so serious that it ought to be a warning to the Foreign Office, and any other Department undertaking such works, to do their utmost to prevent any such case of under-estimating coming before the House of Commons again. They were told that weather was exceptional. So it was in every part of the world. But all such things would be allowed for by a contractor, and if he did not allow for them he would very soon become bankrupt. He trusted the noble Lord's statement was true, and that the railway would prove to be a good undertaking: but it certainly ought to be the object of the noble Lord to take the account he had had to give of the underestimating as a warning. The moral to be drawn from it was that the way in
  518
  which the foreign Office had undertaken the making of this railway was not the right way. It was much better that railways should not be undertaken by government Departments. They had much better be put in the hands of business men. There was no doubt now that the railway had to be made, and, having been made, had to be paid for. That being so, he hoped his hon. friend would not press his Motion to a division. He hoped, however, that steps would be taken to secure that the country was never again placed in the same position they had been placed in over and over again in regard to this matter.
  MR. JOHN BURNS ()said he was one of the small number of Members in the House who opposed going to Uganda, and who always criticised the extravagant way in which estimates were formed, expenditure incurred, and money wasted; and so long as he was a Member of the House he would never lose an opportunity of protesting against the original sin, whether of a Conservative or a Liberal Government, of going to a place like Uganda for the flimsy reasons alleged by both Parties whenever this subject was up for discussion. He should like to congratulate the right hon. Baronet who had just resumed his seat upon the chastened tone he had displayed, which contrasted very much with his previous utterances upon this subject. This was one of the worst of the crazy Imperial schemes into which in this this country had been misled during the last seven or eignt years. The right hon. Baronet was perfectly right when he said that it would be very difficult for them to say that we went to Uganda for a commercial reason. If they did go there for a commercial reason, that object would never be justified. He had read nearly every book which had been published upon this subject, and he was convinced that if Africa was to be civilsed and Imperialsed, in the best sense of the world, it was worth doing for England's sake: and if cilvilisation was worth supporting and extendidng in Aftica, he would rather that the honour should be Britain's than any other country, Of that he was convinced by a study of the subject following a year's experience in the Niger territory, and he also

  519
  thought that under the guise of civilisation we should introduce habits and customs that would decimate the native population. This had been proved in the district to which the hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean had referred. They would superimpose upon these people certain habits and customs that would more than counterbalance some of the supposed advantages of civilisation. They would seek to impose upon this subject people customs which were supposed to be in the interests of Imperialism and civilisation, but which were invariably in the interests of the military subjection of people who were better off without us than with us.
  The right hon. Baronet had said that if we went to Uganda for commercial reasons they would not see their money back, and he also said that it would perhaps never be known why they went to Africa at all. He had read a well-informed article, which put the case in a nutshell as to why they went to Uganda, and the quotation he would now read was in his opinion the real reason—
  " Putting aside the practical and optimistic statements in Sir Harvey Johnston's Report, the truth appears to be that Uganda is held for political purposes because it commands the head waters of the Nile, ensures the safety of Egypt to the south, and on the northern side of the Victoria Nyanxa will be the terminus of the Egyptian Railway."
  That was the real reason why we went to Uganda. We went to Uganda for political reasons with the idea of commanding the head waters of the Nile, and to secure a link in the Cape to Cairo railway communication. For a political will-o'-the-wisp there had been all this waste of money and human life, and misuse of energy in accordance with the expansionist doctrines of the new diplomacy. Solomon said, many centuries ago, "The fool hath his eyes in the ends of the earth." That was why we were in Uganda. England had got great ambitions, and they knew that Uganda was a wealthy country, and so statesmen thought it was their mission to have their eyes in the ends of the earth and thus waste money and dissipate the strength of this country. He believed that this £6,000,000 which the Uganda railway had cost up to date, might have
  520
  been better spent in developing their home markets or in developing their trade in India, and in every other part of the British dominions, rather than in this plague spot which Uganda happened to be. Having decided to go to Uganda, they ought to have done it in a much better way. As a mechanical engineer, and as one who was a pioneer in Africa for the Royal Niger Company and a servant of the Colonial Secretary, he felt positively ashamed of the incapacity shown in the construction of this railway. A properly trained civil engineer and practical contractors would shave carried out plans for interchangeable links of line, but the Foreign Office had three converging links with dissimilar gauges, arid had already doubled their estimate of three millions. The Foreign Office had responded to a wave of Jingoism that synchronised with a full treasury, and this was the result. They had employed military men for civil work, without training, without knowledge of the country, or of the language of the Indian coolies, whose lives had been sacrificed by thousands. The noble Lord would probably think he was over-stating his case, but he would quote upon this point from the report of Sir G. Molesworth. What did he think about the officers who constructed this railway? He said—
  " The officers are new to each other and to the country, and many of them are new to the language and character of the Indian coolie.''
  When they knew that the lives of thousands of these poor Indian coolies had been sacrificed, as the reports showed when they remembered the way in which the cost had exceeded the original estimate, and when they saw the incompetency which had been displayed in the making of this railway, he thought they should at once insist that the Foreign Office should correct its habits and retrace its steps and get rid of this particular class of work altogether, if they were desirous of being known as practical business men. Now they had been told in a very optimistic way by Sir Henry Johnstone that this railway was likely to be profitable within ten years. A railway was not likely to be profitable when in 1902 the following report was made—

  521
  "The loss of small materials, fish-bolts, nuts, and keys. has amounted to as much as 50 per cent. due to the matives stealing these small articles."
  He notice that on papge 10 of the Paper relating to the Ugada Railway, the expenses of the staff quartes appeared. Althought those officers employed in the construction of this railway did not know the language and the habits of the coolies, they appeared to have got a good idea of the comfort and luxury which was necessary for the. He noticed that for staff uarters to the end of September, 1899, the sum of £75,505 was required, while to the end of May, 1901, the total was £215,117. He thouth the quarters for the officers were on such an extravagant scale as the conditions of life in that region did not warrant. With the refreshing candour which was typical of his distinguished father, the noble Lord had told them the short and simple annals of the poor Uganda Railway. but he must not imagine that he could explain a way the imcompetence which the noble Lord had dwelt. especially as regards the bad weather, were such as ought to have been foreseen, as they were the normal meteorological conditions in tropical Africa. He invited the noble Lord to coonsider seriously whether there ought not to be a change in policy with regard to the construction of this railway, or it it were persisted in, whether he should not call to his assistance the most able and experienced men he could command. There was no information as to the necesssity for voting more locomotives. Locomotives in Africa deterirated more quickly than human beings, because bad water would very quickly eat the heart out of the locomotivie, thus increasing greatly the cost of maintenance and repairs. If Parliament had made pu its mind to spend £10,000,000 or £15,000,000 upon this railway, let them pursue the line of least resistance, reduce the expenditure to a minimum and employ the best men. machinery, and organisers. He hope the Uganda railway would be an objectfesson to certain politicians, and he welcome the period of disillusiomment as to his project whih had now set in. In conclusion, he wished to tell the noble
  522
  Lord that there was other places in the British Empire upon which he could have spent this £6,000,000 to better advabtage than in Uganda, Where everything would be wasted, with no good results to British trade, and which might Prove a curse to the very peole in whose interest the money was supposed to have been spent.
  LORD CRANBORNEsaid the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had asked him whether they were determined that this railway was to be made. They railway was made, and therefore there could be no question about it. They were quite aware of the kind of difficulty to which the hon. Member for Battersea had called attention. They knew perfectly well that locomotives deteriorate with bad water, and that this constituted one of the great difficulties in railway enterprise, because they often met with water which was unusable for that purpose. Hon. Members opposite had spoken of the mistakes they had made. Of course they had made mistakes. Anu contractor or Government or Government Department which undertook the making of railways in an unkown country was perfectly certain to make mistakes, and he felt sure that the House of Commons would be the last to judge the Government so harshly necaise, ostales jad neem, ade. He quite agreed with a very great deal that had been said, and althought he did not agree with all the criticisms, he did most fully agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite that this railway was never inended to be made, and had not been made, entirely for commercial resasons. Of couse he hoped that there would be some commercial return. It migtt he that the hon. Member for Battersea knew more than sir Harry johnstone about this matter, and it was possibel that the estimates for which he was responsible were too sanguine, but if that be so, all he could say was that he agreed with the right hon. Baronet on the Front Bench opposite that the railway in Uganda was not made for commercial reasons. The hon. Member said that if the railway had been built for benevolent reasons, he desired that Great Britain should be foremost in efforts of benevolence. But he failed to see the consistency of the hon Gentleman. Didthehon. Membersuppos that if we had not gone to East Africa

  523
  it would have been left alone—that the natives of the country would have continued in a state of Arcadian simplicity? If the British Government had not gone then some other European Government would have gone there, and he was certain that the natives would prefer to be under the British Government than under any other Government. He belived that would command the assent of every hon. Member.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: They would prefer their own government.
  LORD CRANBORNEsaid that the hon. Gentleman was quite wrong. If he considered the condition of things which existed, he was confident that the hon. Member, who had a sympathetic mind, would not make such a statement. Before the white man went into those regions it was a history of lust, blood, robbery, and murder, and he did not agree with the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean that we had been a curse to the people. On the contrary, though the country had been costly to the Government, he believed that when means of this great movements was written it would be conceded that we had brought, on the whole, nothing but the blessings of peace to the people. It was siade by the right hon. Baronet that the experience of the Uganda Railway should be a warning not a underestimate an engineering enterprise. He had never heard of an engineering enterprise which had not been under-estimated; it was almost the universal esperience of privatge gentlemen, as it was of public Departments of Government. What was the position? Estimates had to be made on the materials available, and he did not think that the HOuse would like the system of an estimate tol cover all possible contingeneies. A very large sum of money would be asked for. and when the Bill came to be paid it would be found that the Government had asked too much. Besides, such a system would almost certainly lead to the
  Lord Cranborne
  524
  extravagance which hon. Member wished to avoid. the estimate must be made as accurately as it could be on the material available; there was no other means of doing it. No doubt they were making two bites at the cherry, but no more money would be spent than if the sum had been properly estimated at the beginning. Then, it was asked, why not make the railway by the assistance of a contractor? It was an old story, but the answer was that it was impossible. It was doubtful whether any contractor would have tendered for it.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONESasked if it were not a fac t that a contractor did tender, and offered a guarantee of a million sterling.
  LORD CRANBORNEsaid he was not aware of that.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid it was in the noble Lord's office.
  LORD CRANBORNEsaid that the subject was fully debated a year or ago, and no hon. Member was in explaining why contractors could not be employed than the hon. Gentleman himself. He would give the reason why a contractor could not have been employed. The railway had to made by coolie labour.
  MR. BRYNMORJ0NESsaid he denied that. The noble Lord, in the debate two years ago, referred to the Beira Railway, on which native labour was employed: and there was not the slightest reason why a contractor should not have been entrusted with the Uganda Railway, and should not have employed native labour.
  LORD CRANBORNEsaid he could not agree. The Beira Railway was the worst constructed railway in Africa.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid denied that.
  LoRD CHANBORNEsaid he did not know under what conditions the Beira Railway was made, but it had to lie renewed a few years afterwards. It was, however, impossible to make the Uganda Railway except by coolie laboui, and the Government of India would not allow coolies to be enlisted for I he work except by the British Government. Therefore, the Government had to make the railway; and that was his answer with reference to the contractor. As the lion. Gentleman the Member for King's Lynn was not present, he would not trouble the Committee with an answer: to what the hon Gentleman had said. As to the gauge, he did not deny that he regretted the gauge was not 3ft.6in., but there were good resons at the time for having the meter gauge. It was not contemplated at the time that there would be a great development of railways in the future, and for many years to come the gauge was almost certain to be broken at the Great lakes. As to the steamers, they were paid for out of the votes in supply, and the money had been granted for them. They were in a forward condition; one was on the eve of being launched, and the framework of another had been set up. The criticiosm as to the sanitary condition of Nairobi was to a large extent well founded. A great deal of the township would have to be moved to higher ground, but that did not come under the Vote before the Committee. The size of the figures in the general charges had been remarked upon, but was explained by the over-sanguine estimate of the time it would take to
  526
  make the railway; the longer the time, the larger the general charges. There were perhaps other reasons as well. The hon. Member for Chesterfield asked as to terms of the concessions in Uganda and East Africa. That was a very fair question, but hardly on the present ocassoin. He would, however, engage to consider how far the terms could be given; and if the hon. Gentleman put a question on the paper, he would be happy to answer it. As to the stores, he thought they consisted partly of construction stock and partly of rolling stock; but he would ascertain, and inform the hon. Gentleman at the next stage. He had answered all the questions which had been put, and the did not know whether hon. Gentlemen desired to continue the discussion.
  MR. WILLIAM McARTHUR ()said that the question before the Committee was one in which he had taken a great deal of interest, and on which he had always found himself in a difficulty as to the votes he had given from time to time. He joined in the criticisms of his hon, friends in reard to the details of the expenditure on the Uganda Railway; and would not enter further into that part of the question. He wished, however, to indicate the main point, which, he thought, was constantly missed by the Foreign Office and by many hon. Gentlemen. They could not occupy all the waste places of the earth, as they had been in the habit of doing for twelve or fifteen years, absolutely without regard to what, was to follow after occupation. He had felt, ever since he entered the House, that the the nation and the foreign Office and the Colonial Office had not taken a business like view of the engagements they had entered into He had found himself at

  527
  variance with certain of his hon. friends on account of the votes he had given, although they had been given by him on what appeared to him to be a most con sistent principle, viz., that they could notgo a particular point on the earth and occupy it, and then conclude that they would only have to bear the expenses of occupation,When they did that, they found themselves on a long, long road, of which they could not possibly see the end. He thought the House was being steadily drawn into all sorts of enterprises, of the results of which it had no conception when they were entered upon. What he was contending for was that the lesson of the Uganda Railway should be taken to heart by the Foreign Office, the Colonial Office, and the whole House of Commons, as being a typical example of the cases in which they had gone to particular parts of the earth thinking they could occupy them at little expense and trouble, and had found themselves committed to vast expenditure, for which they werealtogether unprepared as the natural consequence of their having gone there. They could not, having gone to East Africa, divest themselves of the responsibilities they had undertaken, not to foreign nations or Governments, but to the aboriginal inhabitants. What had happened in Uganda? They had ruined whatever native Government, bad though it was, which was there.
  LORD CRANBORNE: A very good thing too.
  MR. WILLIAM McARTHURsaid he was not defending the native Government; but, such as it was, it was ruined. They produced chaos; and, therefore, the character of this nation being what it was they had to restore order and set
  528
  up another form of government. He was not quarrelling with the noble Lord for having gone to Uganda; but what he was complaining of was that the House of Commons and the country went to Uganda without the slightest idea of what they were doing. He did not think the noble Lord would say that when they went to East Africa they understood that they would be committed to the Uganda railway, and to the civilisation of that huge tract of country. He wished to say that in explanation of the many votes he had given, because he did not think that any Government—Liberal or Conservative—was going to learn anything from the Uganda railway. All Governments would continue to make similar mistakes. His own course was to consistently support such Votes as that before the Cornmittee once the House had made the initial mistake of going to the place at all. He hoped the Foreign Office and the House of Commons would onsider that, if they touched those wild territories at all, they incurred duties and responsibilities to the native races which they could not divest themselves of. He trusted that in future the Government and the House of Commons would take into account the huge responsibilities they took upon themselves when they went with light hearts to Such places, which looked so small on the surface of the earth, and regarding which they thought their duty was over when they were occupied. They had sufficient responsibilities all over the world to tax the power and strength of this country, and he hoped the example of this railway would be taken to heart. The Government ought to make quite sure that they had established good government in their own

  529
  territory before there was any thought of further annexation or expansion in other directions. Before adopting such a policy they should make quite sure that they had done the best they possibly could for the welfare of the territory over which they had assumed responsibility.
  MR. WEIR ()said he was opposed to the policy of scuttling out of Uganda, a policy which (was sometimes advocated. He believed that would be an absolute calamity. They were now in possession of Uganda, and if Great Britain had not been in possession, the Germans and Portuguese would have been there. It was therefore better for the people that Britishers should be there instead of Germans or Portuguese. Would the people of Uganda be better oft'if they were left to themselves? lion. Members are no doubt aware that horrible acts of cruelty are perpetrated by the native chiefs upon the natives. It was a, blessing for those natives that a Power like Great Britain was there to protect them. He would not go into the questions raised in the Report, because the noble Lord had admitted that mistakes had been made, and he supposed there always would be mistakes in the opening up of such a country as Uganda. What he had risen for was to say how much he objected to the adoption of a policy of scuttling out of Uganda. Being in Uganda they should now stop there, and do the best they could for that country. This railway was essential, but he was disappointed at the bad management in regard to its construction. The noble Lord had stated that no contractor would have undertaken the construction of this line, but an hon. Member had already
  530
  told them that some substantial firms would have willingly taken the contract. He considered that there was something very wrong at the Foreign Office in regard to the construction of this railway, and the noble Lord should look into the matter in order to see if it was not being managed by a number of incompetent men. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea had spoken about the nuts and bolts which were stolen by the natives. Of course, they expected a certain amount of that kind of thing, but the discipline must have been bad, or probably there was none, otherwise there would not be such an enormous loss. The noble Lord had stated that there had been some difficulty in getting out the quantities.
  LORD CRANBORNE: The survey was not completed at the time, and therefore it was not possible to get out quantities.
  MR. WEIRthought it was a very bad system that the Foreign Oftice should undertake the construction of the railway at all, and it would have been far better if a contractor had taken the work in hand Two years ago the noble Lord told them what a charming country Uganda was, and said it resembled Scotland with its mountains, its lochs, and its moors. They had just heard about the scarcity of water in Uganda, but he would remind the noble Lord that there was no scarcity of water in Scotland. He thought it would be a good thing if the noble Lord would go to Uganda, and then he would be able to tell the Committee whether it was really a Country of the desirable character which he represented it to be two years ago,

  531
  His object in rising was ot emphasise the fact that as they were now in possession of Uganda they should stop there, but they ought to be more careful in the expenditure of money. he hoped the noble Lord would be able to tell something about the progress of the railway northwards.
  MR. LOUGH ()said that he would not trouble the Committee with the details about engines, and whether they should have a contractor or not, or whether the right gauge had been adopted. Those details were a little wearying, and he was content to leave them altogether alone. He thought the Government had fared very badly in the criticisms which had been made. No doubt his railway was as made as any such tremendous enterprise could have been done under the circumstances, and after all they must not forget that right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench were responsible for starting this railway. He thought it was time that some attempt should be made to grasp the great principles of this subject. He was glad to hear his hon. friend on the Front Opposition Bench remark that they would have to look at the principle of this matter very soon, and he invited the Goverment not to occupy other territories without having first had experience of Uganda. He asked the Government not to reply to their criticisms in such speeches as the noble Lord had made. The Government ought to grasp a little more boldly the great questions of policy which were involved, and they ought to know exactly what was going to happen. There had been a most beautiful book published by Sir Harry Johnston which
  Mr. Weir
  532
  was beautifully illustrated and which would put anybody in possession of as many facts as ti was possible to get from any book on this subject. One part of the book was devoted to animal life and the other to the various tribes to be seen there. These might be interesting facts to those who kept the Zoological Gardens, but they wanted to get at something about the commerce of the country, in order that they might see what prospect there was for an investment. This question was treated in Sir IIarry Johnston's book in a very short chapter, in which the writer was perfectly candid. and in which he gave a most admirable summing up of the whole situation. He said that so far as mineral resources were concerned they had not discovered any so far. Then he proceeded to treat other great articles of commerce. He mentioned coffce, and said that a few pounds had been discovered and there was a good climate for its production in Uganda. How anyone could think that they could produce coffee in competition with other parts of the world he could not understand. Sir Harry Johnston admitted that there were no passengers or goods to be carried, and was that the best thing the Government could tell the Committee as to the prospects of Uganda? Sir Harry Johnston's conclusion was that they must go on with this expenditure for about ten years, but he was not quite so much of a jingo in his talk as his hon. friend who had just sat down. He admitted that they must stay for ten years adn then he said their expenditure would have been something about £11,500,000 expanded upon the Protectorate altogether. What were they to get back? They were now asked to

  533
  grant a further sum of £600,000, and it had been admitted that they would not get back a penny. Sir Harry Johnston had urged them to try and tempt a few colonists out there, and then he said this money should be capitalised, and the Colony should begin to pay interest upon it. It would be impossible to get any colonists to go out there upon such terms, and the whole burden of this expenditure would be a dead weight upon the Colony. It was quite time the Government took this matter seriously in hand. There was one figure which went right to the heart of the question. They had now spent £7,000,000 upon the Uganda railway.
  LORD CRANBORNE: No it is only £5,500,000 altogether.
  MR. LOUGHsaid it would possibly be £7,000,000 before they had finished They had now spent £6,000.000, and they were getting no revenue from it. Sir Harry Johnston admitted that there was no revenue to he obtained from Uganda. In sixty years of railway development in Ireland, the House of Commons had spent £3,000,000.
  LORD CRANBORNE: What Sir Harry Johnston says is that we shall begin to get our money back at the end of ten years.
  Mr. LOUGHsaid they had spent already in Uganda on railways twice as much as they had spent in Ireland, although in Ireland they had been reaping a revenue all the time. They were
  534
  now spending £380,000 a year in Uganda, and the total amount that was coming for traffic, including all the Protectorate charges, was only £80,000, so that was a loss of £300,000 a year on the railway. If they were to stop in Uganda, he thought they should manage their business more economically. Last year the gross expenditure was £366,000, and this year it was £380,000. The amount granted in Ireland was £130,000 a year, so that in Uganda the sum was three times as much, although no taxation was collected at all in Uganda. He asked the Government to submit some bold policy to the House on Thursday next, because a loss of £300,000 a year was no joke. They were annually losing money in these unfortunate railway enterprises, from which he could see no good result at all likely to come. They should never mind morals and lessons, but they ought to be practical and make some sane proposal to the House. The prospects were bad this year, and the last year for which the figures were given was worse than the year before. The traffic, was not extended in proportion to the number of miles ot the line which had been completed, and although the capital expenditure was increasing, and also the annual expenditure, yet the traffic was diminishing. He appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to the noble Lord to think over whether they could not hold out some word of hope to the poor taxpayers of this country. [Mr. RITCHIEdissented.] It was a common thing for right hon. Gentlemen to meet these arguments with a shake of the head, but he sincerely trusted that this expenditure in Uganda would rapidly

  535
  diminish and that before long they would see some good result from what they had been doing there.

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Duke, Henry Edward

  More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire)

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Morton, Aylmer

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Mount, William Arthur

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Murray, RtHnA. Graham(Bute

  Atkinson, Rt.Hon. John

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Murray, Charles J.(Coventry)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Flower, Ernest

  Nicol, Donald Ninan

  Balfour, Capt. C.B. (Hornsey)

  Forster, Hennry William

  Palmer, Walter Salisbury

  Balfour, RtHnGeraldW (Leeds

  Foster, PhilipS.(Warwick, S.W.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Banbury,Sir Frederick George

  Garner, Ernest

  Percy, Earl

  Bentrick, Lord Henry C.

  Godson,SirAugustusFrederick

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Bignold, Arthur

  Greene,Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  pretyman, Ernest George

  Bond, Edward

  Hamilton, RtHn LordG.(Mid'x

  Purvis, Robert

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon Chas. Thomson

  Brodrick, Rt.Hon. St. John

  Heath,ArthurHoward(Hanley

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Round, Rt.Hon. James

  Brothernton, Edward Allen

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Seely, Maj. J.E.B.(Isle of Wight

  Butcher, John George

  Johnston, Heywood

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Cavendish, V.C.W (Derbyshire

  Kemp, George

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

  Chamberlain, RtHnJ. A.(Wore.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Lawerence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Lawson, John Grant

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H.A.E.

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Long, Rt.Hn. Walter (Bristol,S

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Lucas,Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Lucas,ReginaldJ.(Portsmouth

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

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Milvain, Thomas

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Doughty, George

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Douglas, Rt.Hon. A. Akers-

  Mosntagu, Hon. J. Scott(Hants.)

  Hoodand Mr. Anstruther.

  NOES

  Burns, John

  Levy, Maurice

  Tully, Jasper

  Caldwell, Jemes

  Lough, Thomas

  Weir, Jemes Galloway

  Crener, William Randal

  M'Kenua, Reginald

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Rigg, Rihchard

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Mr. Brynmor Jones and

  Griftith, Ellis J.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Mr. Thomas Bayley.

  Original Qustion put, and agreed to
  Resolved, "That it is expedient to authorise the issue, out of the Consolidated Fund, of a further sum not exceeding £600,000, for the purposes of the Uganda Railway."
  (11.30.) The Committee divided:— Ayes, 91; Notes, 14. (Division List No. 622.)
  Resolution to be reported upon Thursday.
  Mr. SPEAKER,in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 16th OCtober last, adjourned the House without Question put.
  Adjourned at twenty minutes before Twelve o'clock