Commons Sitting of 16 July 1903

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, that, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders

  839
  which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—

  EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL [LORDS.]
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time to-morrow.

  PRIVATE BILLS (NO STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, that, in the case of the following Bill, referred, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 10th day of July, no Standing Orders are applicable, viz.:—London School Board (Hilldrop Road Site) Bill.
  Broadstairs Gas Bill, Hyde Corporation Bill, Leigh Corporation Bill, Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Bill [Lords] (King's consent signified). Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  South Lancashire Tramways Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  Carmarthenshire Electric Power Bill [Lords], Fife Electric Power Bill [Lords]; As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords]; Copy ordered, "of Memorandum stating the nature of the proposals contained in the Provisional Orders included in the Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords]."—(Mr. Bonar Law.)
  Chatham and District Light Railways Bill [Lords], Rochester Corporation Tramways and Improvements Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP H).
  SIR AUGUSTUS GODSON reported from the Committee on Group H of Private Bills: That, for the convenience of parties, they had adjourned till Tuesday next, at half past eleven of the clock.
  Report to lie upon the Table.
  Willesden Urban District Council Bill [Lords]; Reported, with Amendments, from the Police and Sanitary Committee. Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to.
  Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill, with an Amendment.
  Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill; Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill; Wood Green Urban District Council Bill; Baker Street and Waterloo Railway (Transfer) Bill, now Baker Street and Waterloo Railway Bill; Walker and Wallsend Union Gas Bill; Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland Bill, with Amendments.
  Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill; Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill. Lords' Amendments to be considered To-morrow.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACTS (SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS—MEAL HOURS IN IRON AND STEEL FOUNDRIES IN SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, of Order, dated 14th July, 1903, made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department in pursuance of Section 40 (4) of The Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, extending the special exceptions as to meal hours to male young persons employed in iron and steel foundries in Scotland [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887 (PROCLAMATION).
  Copy presented, of a Proclamation, dated 14th July, 1903, revoking the several proclamations mentioned in the schedule thereto [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  ARMY (PHYSICAL CONDITION OF RECRUITS).
  Copy presented, of Memorandum by the Director-General, Army Medical Service, on the physical unfitness of men offering themselves for enlistment in the Army [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House—

  CALEDONIAN CANAL.
  Copy of Ninety-eighth Report of the Commissioners [by Act]; to be printed. [No. 259.]

  Imports.

  Exports.

  British Colonies and Possessions.

  From the United Kingdom.

  From British Possessions.

  From foreign countries.

  From all countries.

  To the United Kingdom.

  To British Possessions.

  To foreign countries.

  To all countries.

  British Colonies and Possessions.

  —(Mr. Fuller.)

  RIFLE RANGES.
  Address for "Return of the number of Rifle Ranges in the United Kingdom, giving the situation, range, and number of targets available on each Range; the number of Government Ranges that have been closed during the last year and the number that have been opened; and the number and description of Ranges being constructed."—(Mr. Warner.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Loan Fund Legislation in Ireland.
  MR. DILLON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland why the present Government, which has been in office for eight years, has never made any attempt to pass a measure dealing with the Loan Fund system in Ireland containing provisions tending to secure more regular and business-like attention to their duties on the part of the trustees and treasurers of the Loan Fund Societies.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) As already stated, the Government in 1900 introduced and passed into law a Bill framed to meet the most pressing of the difficulties of the Loan Fund system. The Act was admittedly a provisional measure, and if the Government, by further legislation, has been unable to

  TRADE (COLONIES AND UNITED KINGDOM).
  Return ordered, "showing the Trade of the various British Colonies and Possessions, inclusive of bullion and specie, with the United Kingdom, other British Possessions, and foreign countries during each of the years 1890–1900, in the following form:—
  complete the reform of the system, the hon. Member, with his experience of the time occupied in the passage during the past eight years of other and more important measures, should himself be able to supply an answer to his Question.

  Alleged Assault on Mrs. Fitzgerald.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will inquire into the circumstances connected with an assault committed by Sergeant Shelley upon Mrs. Fitzgerald, a woman of advanced years, in Kildorrery on the 28th of June; what offence, if any, did Mrs. Fitzgerald commit; and why was the ordinary course of proceeding by summons departed from in this case.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) On the date mentioned Mrs. Fitzgerald used abusive language in the public street. Sergeant Shelley requested her to desist. She threw herself on the ground and had to be removed by the police. For some time past she has indulged in similar misconduct and has been warned that persistence in it will lead to a prosecution.

  Construction of the Chiromo and Blantyre Railway.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign

  843
  Affairs whether he is now in a position to state when the Chiromo and Blantyre Railway will be commenced, what length of line is it proposed to construct, when is it expected to be finished, and what will be the cost per mile.
  (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) According to a contract concluded on 31st December last between His Majesty's Government and the Shiré Highlands Railway Nyassaland Company, Limited, the line between Chiromo and Blantyre is to be commenced with reasonable dispatch and completed within five years from the above date. It is understood that materials for construction have already reached the Protectorate. The length of line between Chiromo and Blantyre is about eighty miles. I am unable to say what the cost per mile may be.

  Trade of Somaliland, British East and Central Africa and Uganda.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what were the figures of imports and exports for the year ended 31st March, 1903, for the Protectorates of Somaliland, British Central Africa, East Africa, and Uganda, distinguishing in each case, so far as may be, figures arising from administration or construction of public works and those due to natural trade; and what proportion of the import and export figures arises from trade with the British Isles on the one hand and other countries on the other.
  (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) The figures for the East Africa Protectorate are shown in the Report by His Majesty's Commissioner which was presented to the House in June last (Africa, No. 6, pages 33–38). The Reports on the other Protectorates will be presented to the House as soon as they are available.

  Grants-in-Aid to Somaliland, British East Africa, etc.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what sums have been paid out of the National Exchequer by way of grants-in-aid or otherwise to the Protectorates of Somaliland, British Central Africa, East Africa, and Uganda, respectively, during the financial year ended 31st March, 1903.
  (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) Uganda, £135,000; British Central Africa, £50,000; East Africa, £244,000; East Africa, Supplementary, £69,600; Somaliland, £25,000.

  Indian Irrigation Commission—Recommendations.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India, seeing that the Report of the Irrigation Commission will not be in the hands of Members until the end of the month, will he state briefly the most important recommendations contained in the Report.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) No copy or abstract of the Report of the Irrigation Commission has yet reached the India Office, and I cannot therefore state what the chief recommendations are.

  Increase of Deposits in Post Office Savings Bank in India.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India, seeing that accounts in the Post Office Savings Bank of India have increased from £145,628 in 1899–1900 to £425,911 in 1901–2, can he state the number of depositor's by whom these accounts are held and the occupations followed by the bulk of the depositors.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) The hon. Member's figures are incorrect. The balances at the credit of depositors amounted on 31st March 1900, to £6,431,000; on 31st March 1902, to £7,121,000. The classification of the depositors at the latter date, as given in the Report on the Post Office of India, was as follows: Class I. Professional—A. Having fixed income, 233,108; B. Having variable income, 58,130; Class II. Domestic, 151,204; Class III. Commercial, 32,065; Class IV. Agricultural, 12,387; Class V. Industrial, 27,450; Class VI. Indefinite, 352,349, Total, 866,693.

  Capitalised Value of State Railways and Canals in India.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India, in view of a statement contained in paragraph 75 of the Indian Financial Statement for the current year to the effect that the capitalised value of State railways and canals at 25 years purchase of the net annual average revenue for the three years ending 31st March

  845
  1902, shows the capitalised value of those undertakings to be £264,065,000, will he indicate the value placed on canals as distinct from railways.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) £41,387,000.

  Indian Currency—Sovereigns and Gold Reserve.
  SIR JOHN LENG: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether the result of the inquiries addressed to the Government of India in March last will enable him now to state in round numbers how many sovereigns, British or Australian, have been paid into the Indian Treasuries for land revenue, Customs, or other fiscal payments, since those coins were made legal tender at the rate of fifteen rupees; also, for the same period, what number of sovereigns have been paid out at the same rate by the Departments for Public Works, and other local purchases of materials, for stores, salaries, interest, and other State obligations; what is now the total amount of currency reserves in gold held respectively in India and England; and what proportions of that amount

  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.)

  Provinces.

  Total Cropped Area.

  Percentage of Area under Chief Crops in 1901–2.

  1891·2. Acres.

  1900·1901. Acres.

  1901·2. Acres.

  Wheat.

  Rice.

  Other Food Grains.†

  Oilseeds.

  Cotton, Jute, etc.

  Other Crops.‡

  Burmah

  -

  -

  7,832,000

  11,835,000

  11,694,000

  0·2

  7·07

  14·0

  7·2

  1·3

  6·6

  Bengal

  -

  -

  61,227,000

  60,898,000

  59,973,000

  2·3

  60·1

  18·3

  5·9

  4·2

  9·2

  United Provinces

  41,904,000

  42,036,000

  42,621,000

  15·2

  16·7

  54·7

  1·9

  2·9

  8·6

  Punjab (including North-West Frontier Provinces)

  -

  -

  21,409,000

  28,570,000*

  18,326,000*

  33·7

  3·9

  39·7

  3·6

  5·0

  14·1

  Bombay and Sind

  27,993,000

  25,468,000

  27,062,000

  5·9

  8·7

  65·6

  6·3

  11·3

  2·2

  Central Provinces

  17,201,000

  16,210,000

  17,244,000

  15·2

  26·3

  39·9

  9·8

  6·1

  2·7

  Madras

  -

  -

  24,308,000

  27,850,000

  29,740,000

  ·1

  24·3

  56·4

  6·7

  4·8

  7·7

  Berar

  -

  -

  -

  6,676,000

  6,820,000

  7,033,000

  4·0

  ·5

  49·7

  5·9

  38·4

  1·5

  Minor Provinces

  -

  2,415,000

  5,275,000

  5,390,000

  —

  68·3

  6·6

  5·7

  1·1

  18·3

  219,965,000

  224,962,000

  219,083,000

  8·5

  32·0

  40·3

  5·5

  6·0

  7·7

  * Actually reaped areas, and excluding crop failures. † Principally millets and pulses.

  ‡ Includes sugar, tobacco, tea, fodder, opium, etc.

  consist of coins, bars, or other forms of that precious metal.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) The Government of India have informed me that the information asked for in the first two clauses of the Question cannot be supplied, as no detailed record is kept of the nature of the transactions in the course of which the Government Treasuries receive or issue gold. I am, however, still in communication with the Government of India on the subject. The amount of gold held by the Government in India is £9,740,000, and it is practically all in the form of sovereigns. In England £4,110,000 2½ per cent. Consolidated Stock is held on account of the Gold Reserve Fund.

  Area under Crops in India.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state the cropped area of the various Provinces of India for the year 1901–2 compared with the previous year, and with the year 1891–2; and will he specify approximately the percentage under wheat and the other crops in each Province.

  Motor-Car Transport in India.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that experiments are being made with automobile cars for the purpose of conveying produce and merchandise between the various villages and stations in Bengal starting from Calcutta along the Grand Trunk Road; and will the Government of India call for a Report as to how far these experiments have succeeded.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) I have no information on the subject. If the experiments are considered by the Government of India to be of importance they will doubtless see that all material information regarding them is collected by the local authorities.

  Cunard Steamship Company and the New Zealand Mails.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIES: To ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware that the New Zealand mails were due and arrived in New York at ten o'clock on the morning of Saturday the 30th May, and the Post-master of New York sent to the Cunard Steamship Company to ask if they would let their steamer "Campania," which was to leave the docks at 9 a.m. on that day, slacken speed in the river, and he would send a special tug with the mails, getting them on board by noon, and that the Cunard Steamship Company did not see their way to so act, although considerations of tide did not prevent, with the result that the mails had to remain in New York from Saturday till the following Wednesday; and if so, will he see if there can now be an arrangement with the Cunard steamship Company to provide for taking such mails on board under similar circumstances.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I am informed that if the "Campania" had waited for the New Zealand mail, as suggested, she would have been unable to cross the bar of New York Harbour until one o'clock or later, which, as the tide was ebbing, might have involved more risk than the circumstances justified, and might have
  848
  necessitated delay for the next tide. The Cunard Company are not under contract with me for the conveyance of mails from New York to this country, but they have assured me that, when their New York agents can safely detain one of their homeward-bound steamers for the New Zealand mail, they will do so. I may add that I am informed that the Company's vessels have waited for these mails on more than one occasion, and have received the thanks of the agent for New Zealand at San Francisco for so doing.

  Chinese Mails—Trans-Siberian Route.
  MR. LOUIS SINCLAIR: To ask the Postmaster-General whether, having regard to the fact that mails from Tientsin and other Chinese towns are sent to England in from twenty-four to twenty-six days by the Trans-Siberian route, whereas mails from England to those towns are sent by the Suez Canal route occupying from thirty-five to forty-five days, he will take an early opportunity of arranging for the mails from England to go by the Trans-Siberian route.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I am endeavouring to come to an arrangement with the Russian authorities to enable persons in this country to send correspondence to the Far East by the Trans-Siberian route.

  Reduction of Light dues in the United States.
  SIR THOMAS DEWAR: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, seeing that the charges made on British vessels entering United States ports are estimated to produce about £70,000 annually, and that it has recently been decided to reduce to the of 12½ per cent. the charge For light dues on all vessels entering British ports, can he see his way to communicate with the United States Government with a view to secure a compensating reduction in the charges made on British vessels entering United States ports.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I will have the figures carefully gone into and consider in conjunction with the

  849
  Foreign Office whether any representations could usefully be made to that Government on the subject.

  Total Value of Imports from Foreign Countries into British Possessions.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state what is the aggregrate value of the importation from foreign countries into the British colonies, dependencies, and protectorates, of commodities which are not produced in the United Kingdom or are exported from the United Kingdom to only a small extent; giving separately the figures for mineral oils, timber (including planks), metal ores, raw cotton, raw silk, tobacco (unmanufactured), sugar, coffee, wines, dried fruits, wheat, maize, rice, other agricultural and dairy products, and miscellaneous commodities.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The information cannot be supplied in answer to a Question. If the hon. Member will put down a Return specifying the articles for which he desires the particulars mentioned in his Question I will consider how far the Return can be granted; but its preparation in any case will take a considerable time. In the meantime perhaps the hon. Member will consult Part XXV. of the Statistical Tables relating to the Colonial and other Possessions of the United Kingdom [Cd. 1324 of 1902].

  Exports of Cotton Piece Goods in 1872 and 1902.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the length of cotton piece goods exported to foreign countries in 1872 and 1902 respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The cotton piece goods entered by the yard exported to foreign countries in 1872 and 1902 were as follows:—1872-2,205,000,000 yards; 1902-2,669,000,000. The figures for 1872 include, exports to British colonics in cases in which the amounts were too small to be separately specified.

  New Road from the Mall to Charing Cross—Date of Opening.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: To ask the hon. Member
  850
  for West Derbyshire, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, when the road from the Mall to Charing Cross will be opened for traffic.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) The First Commissioner fears that he cannot fix a definite date; the arrangements for the demolition of the houses in Spring Gardens are being made as rapidly as possible.

  Punishment of Habitual Offenders—Amendment of Law.
  MR. TALBOT: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a recent charge of Mr. Justice Phillimore; and whether it is his intention, during the present session, to introduce legislation, such as was indicated by the learned Judge, for the amendment of the law as to the treatment of habitual offenders.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas). I have seen reports of a statement made by Mr. Justice Phillimore on this subject, and I hope to be able shortly to introduce a Bill leading in the direction indicated by the learned Judge.

  Private Executions—Extorted Confessions.
  MR. H. D. GREENE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the rules under the statute directing executions to take place privately within prisons permit any official to interrogate prisoners under sentence of death with a view to extort admissions or confessions; and, if so, whether he will consider the expediency of so altering the rules as to ensure that this proceeding will not be applied in such a manner as to cause unnecessary suffering to the condemned prisoner.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) The relations between the chaplain and the prisoners under his spiritual care are a matter not dealt with, and hardly capable of being dealt with by statutory rules. In the case to which I take the hon. Member to refer, I have called for a report from the chaplain, and he informs me that Dougal had promised to make a true confession on the eve of his execution, but failed to do so. "As the last

  851
  moment approached," the chaplain says, "my spiritual anxiety became intense. I prayed earnestly with him during the last quarter of an hour, during which he sobbed, but he seemed unable to unbend and make a confession. I knew not what to do more, so, under strong impulse, and quite on the inspiration of the moment, I made the strong appeal at the scaffold." While making every allowance for the chaplain's difficult position I think the incident is to be regretted, and I will endeavour to prevent a similar occurrence in the future.
  COLONEL WYNDHAM MURRAY: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in view of the proceedings which took place at the execution at Chelmsford, whether it is part of the duty of a prison chaplain to demand a confession from a criminal when actually on the scaffold.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) I beg to refer the hon. and gallant Member to the full Answer which I have given on the same subject to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury.

  Appointment of Prison Commissioner.
  MR. TENNANT: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when it is proposed to appoint a Prison Commissioner in the room of Lieut.-Col. Garsia; and whether, in the selection of Colonel Garsia's successor, special regard will be had to experience in the Prison Department.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) I propose to submit an appointment for the King's approval in due course; and the hon. Member may rest assured that before doing so I shall give due weight to all proper considerations.

  Vivisection Experiments—Presence of Government Inspector.
  DR. SHIPMAN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many experiments under Certificate C (Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876) have been witnessed by an inspector during the whole or part of the time of the experiment.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers, Douglas.) No experiments under certificate C (which relates to experiments under anæsthetics in illustration of lectures) were reported to me as having been witnessed by an inspector in the year 1902.

  Violation of Conditions of Vivisection Licences.
  DR. SHIPMAN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he will state in how many instances, since he has been in office, the conditions of the licence issued under the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876, have been violated; whether any, and, if so, what steps have been taken to enforce the penal clauses of the said Act in any such instances.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) I am not aware of any such ii stances other than the four mentioned in the last Annual Report under the Act. All these were trifling departures, by inadvertence, from the strict letter of the law, and did not call for criminal proceedings.
  DR. SHIPMAN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what authority is it stated by the inspector, in the Return (Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876) just issued, that only four irregularities have occurred during the course of the year.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) The statement is made on the authority of the inspector as the result of his visits and his constant communication with the licence holders.

  Illness at Norwood Poor Law Schools.
  SIR JOHN GORST: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to recent outbreaks of measles and whooping cough, and excessive mortality from other causes, amongst the children of the Norwood Poor Law Schools, and to a report made on this subject by Dr. Priestly, the medical officer of health of Lambeth, in which the aggregation of children is condemned; whether any additional expenditure on the schools by the Lambeth Board of Guardians has been sanctioned

  853
  by the Local Government Board, and to what amount and whether Dr. Priestly's report can be published as a Parliamentary Paper.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) My attention has been called to this matter, and I have seen the report made by Dr. Priestly. I have been in communication with the guardians on the subject. A committee appointed by them has been investigating the matter, and I am now expecting their final report. On receipt of it I shall consider what action it may be necessary to take. I informed my right hon. friend, in reply to a Question by him on 29th June last,† of the expenditure which had been sanctioned in connection with these schools. No further expenditure has been sanctioned by me. I do not think that Dr. Priestly's report should be issued as a Parliamentary Paper at the present time.

  New Poor Law Schools for Poplar.
  SIR JOHN GORST: To ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether the Local Government Board has sanctioned the expenditure by the Poplar Board of Guardians of £150,000 in building a new Poor Law school at Hutton, near Shenfield, accommodating 900 children, who are to be housed in blocks containing sixty and thirty children each.
  (Answered by Mr Walter Long.) I have approved plans for the erection by the Poplar Guardians of new buildings to accommodate 624 children. The estimated cost of the buildings is £144,725, but I have not yet authorised the expenditure. The approved plans are for two schools. The boys' school to consist of five blocks for sixty children each, and the girls' and infants' school of ten blocks for thirty children each. In addition twenty-four elder girls are to be accommodated in the matron's block.

  Fiscal Inquiry—Decrease in Agricultural Population.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his Department is engaged in the fiscal inquiry; and if he has any official information
  † See (4) Debates, cxxiv., 775.
  854
  showing the cause of the reduction of 17,522 in the number of families engaged in agriculture between 1821 and 1831, and of 35,068 adult male persons employed in agriculture between 1831 and 1841.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) My Department are not directly concerned with the inquiry referred to, although, of course, they will furnish any information in their power that may be required in connection with it. I have no information as to the particular matter alluded to in the last part of the Question.

  Annual Leave of Customs Assistant Clerks.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that in those branches of the Customs Department where assistant clerks are employed, the clerks on the grade next above the assistant clerks are allowed thirty-two days annual leave; and that in the case of absence on leave or other causes of these clerks their duties are performed by assistant clerks in receipt of checking allowances who are granted only fourteen days annual leave; and, if so, whether he will consider the possibility of granting an increase of leave from fourteen to eighteen days, as was recently recommended to the Treasury by the Commissioners of Customs.
  (Answered by Mr. Elliot.) I have nothing to add to my answer of the 6th instant on this subject.

  Irish Land Bill—Bankrupt Owners.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether, in the case of a bankrupt limited owner whose rents were collected up to 1894 by the English Court of Bankruptcy, the bankrupt's debts being afterwards paid by an insurance company, who now collect the rents of the estate, the limited owner or the insurance company will have the right to sell under the Land Bill.
  (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) This Question could not possibly be answered without a full knowledge of the facts.
  † See (4) Debates, cxxiv., 1382.

  855
  The insurance company may be, and possibly are, mortgagees in possession, when they could sell.

  Improved Landing Facilities at Kells, Co. Kerry.
  MR. BOLAND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Congested Districts Board has given a favourable consideration to the application addressed to them by the fishermen of Kells, Co. Kerry, for the improvement of landing facilities for their boats; and, if so, whether the suggested works will be proceeded with.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The application was considered by the Congested Districts Board at its meeting today. The Board regrets it cannot at present undertake the works in question. At Loads, which is only two miles distant, the Board is expending a considerable sum in carrying out improvements to the landing place.

  Land Purchase Acts—Redemption of Tithe Rent-charges.
  MR. BUTCHER: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that on the sales of estates under the Land Purchase Acts tithe rent-charges which are payable to the State are usually redeemed at 22½ years purchase; whereas tithe rent-charges which are payable to private owners are usually redeemed at 20 years purchase; and whether he will give the reason why this distinction should be made.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The number of years purchase for the redemption of tithe rent-charge payable to the State has been fixed by the Treasury under the 9th section of the Tithe Rent-charge Act of 1900, while the number of years purchase for the redemption of the rent-charge payable to private owners has been fixed by the Land Commission for the reasons given in the judgment of Mr. Justice Meredith in Fitzgerald Estate, I.L.R.J. (1902), p. 444, to which I beg to refer my hon. and learned friend.

  Car Fare Paid by Police from Letterfrack to Clifden.
  MR. O'MALLEY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord
  856
  Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the car fare paid by the police from Letterfrack to Clifden it now 15s. per journey, whereas this fare until quite recently was 6s. per journey; and if he will state why the extra charge is now being paid.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) No change has been made in the fare (7s.) charged to the police for this journey.

  Married Non-Commissioned Officers and Officers Detached from their Regiments—Money in Lieu of Rations.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that the married non-commissioned officers and non-commissioned officers detached from their regiments are not allowed to receive money in lieu of rations, although warrant married officers are permitted this option; and whether he will cause inquiries to be made with a view to the removal of this dissimilarity of treatment, having regard to the loss and inconvenience experienced by the non commissioned officers referred to.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) It is more than doubtful if this grant would be of real benefit to the men mentioned, as they could hardly get better value by retail purchase than they get by the supply of rations in kind which are provided under a large contract. Further, the General Officer Commanding has considerable latitude for dealing with special cases under the allowance regulations. There does not appear, therefore, to be any good reason for incurring this extra public expenditure.

  Return Home of Regiments who have Served through the whole of the South African War.
  Sir ALFRED HICKMAN: To ask the Secretary of State for' War whether he can state how much longer the regiments which have gone through the whole of the war will remain in South Africa; when those regiments that have been three and a-half years under canvas will get into barracks; and whether he will arrange for wives, who have been separated from

  857
  their husbands for nearly four years, to go out to them.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The whole question of the relief of regiments is being carefully considered. Hutments are being built as rapidly as possible to accommodate the force. It is necessary to house the troops before building married quarters, but every effort is being made to meet the difficulty as promptly as possible.

  Gordon Highlanders Band at Southport
  MR. MARSHALL HALL: To ask the Secretary of State for War by whose authority the band and pipers of the 1s Battalion Gordon Highlanders were advertised to give a performance (by kind permission of the colonel and officers of the regiment) on the pier at Southport, on Sunday 21st June last; and at whose instigation, and by whose authority, the performance was stopped after the hand and pipers had actually arrived at Southport.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The Commander-in-Chief gave the orders for stopping the performance by the band because it was brought to his notice that irate money was to be charged for admission

  Colony.

  Total Exports of Colonial Produce.

  Exports of Sugar.

  Percentage of Sugar Exports to Total Exports.

  Jamaica (for the year ending 31st March, 1902)

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  1,824

  261

  14 per cent.

  British Guiana (for the year ending 31st March, 1902)

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  1,661

  1,203

  72 per cent.

  Trinidad and Tobago (for the year ending 31st March, 1902)

  -

  -

  -

  -

  1,554

  512

  33 per cent.

  Barbados

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  744

  710

  95 per cent.

  Grenada

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  301

  —

  —

  St. Lucia

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  71

  49

  69 per cent.

  St. Vincent.

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  50

  11

  21 per cent.

  Antigua

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  107

  101

  94 per cent.

  St. Kitts—Nevis

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  113

  109

  97 per cent.

  Dominica

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  65

  3

  4 per cent.

  Montserrat

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  11

  5

  49 per cent.

  * i.e., molasses and rum, and, in the case of Trinidad, "Angostura Bitters" also.

  Reprints of Discussions on Preferential Tariffs at Colonial Conferences.
  MR. FREEMAN THOMAS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will authorise a reprint to be made of the discussions at the Colonial Conferences of 1887, 1894,
  to the pier on which the band, was to play. The Commander in-Chief, while anxious to allow all reasonable facilities for recreation, is of opinion that military bands should not be allowed to accept engagements for profit on Sunday.

  General and Sugar Exports from West Indian Colonies.
  MR. LOUGH: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the value of the total exports and sugar exports, and what is the percentage of sugar exports to the total, from each of the West Indian Colonies for the year ended 31st December, 1902, in continuation of the Table for the year 1896, given on page 5 of the Report of the Royal Commission to the West Indies, or for the last year that is available.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) The following Return has been prepared with the object of affording the information asked for:—

  General and Sugar Exports from West Indian Colonies.

    WEST INDIES.
    Table showing in thousands of pounds the values of the exports of sugar (including sugar products*) in comparison with the total exports of colonial produce for the year 1901.
    1897, and 1902, so far as they refer to preferential tariffs, and of the Despatches relating thereto.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) In so far as the discussions at the various Conferences have been made public they

    859
    are already available to Members in the Parliamentary Papers which have been laid from time to time, and their republication seems therefore to be unnecessary.

  Merchandise Marks Act and Foreign Imports into the Colonies.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether in view of the fact stated in the introductory Memorandum to Parliamentary Paper [C. 8449], that a considerable proportion of the apparent increase in foreign importations is attributed in most of the colonies to the effect of the Merchandise Marks Act, he proposes to amend or to repeal that measure.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) The Memorandum to which the hon. Member refers did not state that the measure in question had proved injurious to British industries. The question of the policy of repealing is one for the Board of Trade to consider.

  British Locomotives for Canada.
  THE MASTER OF ELIBANK: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the recent successful competition in Canada of British made locomotives, he will request the High Commissioner for Canada to obtain detailed particular's of the tenders and contracts in question.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) As I stated in reply to a Question in the House on Tuesday, † the locomotives were purchased by the Canadian Pacific Railway, not by the Canadian Government, and I have no claim whatever to ask them to disclose the particulars desired. It is, of course, open to the hon. Member to ask the Canadian Pacific Railway direct for the information he requires.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  The Cape Bagging Scandal.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that two of the officers tried by Court-martial with reference to the incident at the Mount Nelson Hotel, Cape Town, while under
  † See page 571.
  860
  constructive arrest pending the holding of that Court-martial, and after they had given their word of honour not to appear in any place of public amusement, were present at the races at Ascot; and, if so, will he state what are the names of these officers; and what action, if any, has been taken by the War Office authorities for this conduct.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (MR. BRODRICK,): Will the hon. Member kindly refer to my reply to a similar Question put by my hon. friend the Member for East Finsbury on the 6th instant.†
  MR. SWIFTMACNEILLasked what were the names of the officers, and if any disciplinary action had been taken.
  *MR. BRODRICK: Disciplinary action has been taken, but I do not think it necessary to go into details.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I must press for the names. Has not one of the officers been gazetted a major?
  *MR. BRODRICK: I must really decline to be cross-examined on a Departmental question of discipline in which the Commander-in-Chief has taken action.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Was not Captain Williams one of the men, and has he not been gazetted major—[Cries of "Order."]
  MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman has declined to reply. It will be open to the hon. Member to comment upon that later.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: If I have an opportunity.
  MR. FLAVIN: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman say "Yes" or "No?"

  The Case of Lieutenant Prior.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what course, if any, he proposes to take with regard to the conviction and fine at the Marlborough Street Police-Court of Lieutenant Prior, one of the seven officers
  † See (4) Debates, cxxiv., 1386.

  861
  recently tried and acquitted by Court-martial; and whether his attention has been directed to the observations of the police magistrate, that it was painful in the extreme to be called on to say that he disbelieved on his oath the statement of a British officer, as he was accustomed to look on the word of a British officer as sacred.
  *MR. BRODRICK: My attention has been called to the case in question, and to the observations of the magistrate. The Adjutant-General informs me this morning that Lieutenant Prior has tendered his resignation, but that he will be informed that if he does not take measures to prove his innocence of the grave imputations made against him, it will be necessary to consider his removal from the Army.

  Alleged Mock Court-Martial on the "Staffordshire."
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the trial by mock Court-martial on, and the treatment by twelve officers of, a subaltern in the transport "Staffordshire," on the voyage to the Cape on New Year's Eve; and, if so, will he state what action he proposes to take in the matter.
  *MR. BRODRICK: Nothing is known at the War Office of this matter.

  Porthcawl Rifle Range.
  MR. FULLER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed to use the Porthcawl Rifle Range for field firing; and, if so, whether he can state the artillery units that are likely to use it.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY,): This range will be used for field firing, but not by Royal Artillery.

  North Devon Volunteers—Camp Allowances.
  MR. SOARES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that there is this year a reduction in the number of recruits for the Volunteer forces in North Devon, and that there is dissatisfaction amongst the Volunteers with the rate of
  862
  the pay allowed to them whilst in camp, as compared with the pay now granted to the Imperial Yeomanry; and whether he can see his way to grant an increase of pay for the time the Volunteers are in camp during the coming training in August.
  *MR. BRODRIGK: The hon. Member has been misinformed. So far from there having been any decrease there has been a large increase of recruits in every Devon Volunteer Corps except one, where there was a decrease of five men as compared with 1902. There would appear to be no reason for special treatment of the Devon Volunteers.

  South African Garrison—Linked-Battalion System.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if it is his intention to volunteer on the War Office Vote a statement as to the policy to be pursued in reference to the forces in South Africa and the linked battalion system.
  MR. BRODRICK: I am quite ready to make a statement as regards the forces in South Africa, and any other questions which may be raised on the War Office Vote.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: Does the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that the Prime Minister early in the session promised a statement on this subject before the end of the session.
  MR. BRODRICK: Yes, and I have no doubt that the question will be raised on the War Office Vote to-night. I can then deal with it. That will be the more convenient course.

  The Condemned Army Rations.
  *MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether at any time since 1899 rations supplied for the use of the Army by any of the firms named in the recent Report from Pretoria were condemned; and, if so, who were the firms, the quantities condemned, the reason for their being condemned, and whether the rations so condemned were destroyed or returned to the contractor.
  LORD STANLEY: No meat and vegetable rations supplied during the late war by any of the firms named in the Report were condemned on analysis in this country as unfit for the use of the troops in South Africa—but a large number of the so-called emergency rations were condemned — and the contractor has been required to make them good. The responsibility of the same contractor on a further consignment is under consideration.
  *MR. KEIR HARDIEasked whether any of the rations condemned were supplied by any of the contracting firms mentioned in the Report from Pretoria.
  LORD STANLEY: Yes.
  *MR. KEIR HARDIE: Will you give the names?
  MR. WEIR: Name, name.
  LORD STANLEY: The emergency rations were supplied by Messrs. Maconochie.
  *MR. KEIR HAEDIE: Has any further information on this matter been received from South Africa?
  LORD STANLEY: No, Sir; I have just been informed that no telegram has yet been received at the War Office.

  The Fiscal Inquiry.
  MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that upon 21st April, 1903, the British Ambassador in Berlin made an intimation to the German Government to the effect that he believed that, in certain events, His Majesty's Government would impose retaliatory duties on German goods coming into this country, he will say whether this statement was made with the sanction of His Majesty's Government or is now adopted by it; and, if so, what is the need for further inquiry.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I have read the paragraph in Sir F. Lascelles' despatch, of which the hon. Member gives an abbreviated version. I quite agree with
  864
  the paragraph in its original form. It expresses the belief of our Ambassador, which I also share, and seems to point to the necessity of inquiry rather than the reverse.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, in view of some of the results of the inquiry into a possible change of our fiscal system being laid before the House previously to the end of the present session, whether he will state the mode in which such inquiry is being held or will be held.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have nothing to add to what I have already said in answer to similar Questions.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIS: I have not heard the right hon. Gentleman answer any Question as to the mode of inquiry.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not aware that the Questions have been about, anything else.

  German Trade with Canada.
  MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the amount of German exports to Canada in 1897, as compared with the amount in 1902, as also the amount of Canadian exports to Germany in the same years; and if he will estimate the total extra duty paid on Canadian exports to Germany in 1902, as compared with what would have been paid had Germany retained Canada as entitled to most-favoured-nation treatment.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN): The value of German exports to Canada for home consumption in the official year 1897 amounted to $6,493,368, and in 1902 to $10,919,994, of which the value of sugar amounted to $2,390,239 in 1897, and to $3,655,570 in 1902. The value of the exports of Canadian produce to Germany in 1897 was $764,589, and in 1902 $1,298,654. The Canadian official year terminates on 30th June. It is impossible to form an estimate of the amount of the extra duty actually paid on Canadian produce as compared with what would have

  865
  been paid if Canada had received most-favoured-nation treatment in Germany.
  MR. BLACK: Has the inquiry not got that length yet?
  [No answer was returned.]

  Hong-Kong Post Office.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state the cause of the delay in the erection of a new post office at Hong-Kong.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Designs for the new Post Office were called for on the 5th December last and competitors were given to 31st March last to send in their designs. It will obviously take some time to make a final selection; and I do not think that there has been any undue delay in proceeding with this work.

  Governorship of Hong-Kong.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the approaching termination of the appointment of the present Governor of Hong-Kong and the Imperial importance of the colony in its relation to China, will he consider the expediency of appointing a governor of wide experience to succeed the present officer administering the colony.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Sir H. Blake's appointment does not expire till November, 1904. It is always my desire in recommending the appointment of a Governor for any colony to endeavour to secure the services of a gentleman of experience.

  Cable between Ceylon and the Cocos Islands.
  MR. FLOWER: On behalf of the hon. Member for Hythe, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is now in a position to announce the conclusion of the arrangements for the laying of the spur cable connecting Ceylon with Cocos Islands.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Earl PERCY,): The reply is in the negative.

  Cairo Lunatic Asylum.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of Lord Cromer's statement that the lunatic asylum at Cairo is wholly inadequate to meet the requirements of the country, will he state how many patients this asylum will accommodate, and when it is proposed to erect a new asylum.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR (for Lord CRANBORNE): I have no information subsequent to the statement in Lord Cromer's Report. The hon. Gentleman will have observed that Lord Cromer states that it is hoped that this defect will be remedied when money becomes available.
  MR. WEIR: Will the right hon. Gentleman obtain information as to the latter part of the Question?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think that that is necessary, but if the hon. Gentleman will put down another Question I will see what can be done.

  British Trade with Roumania.
  MR. HOULT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has been advised by the British Minister at Bukarest that the German Government is about to make a new treaty of commerce with Roumania; whether he is aware that German trade has secured substantial advantages at the expense of British trade; that in five years the imports of British manufactured cotton goods have fallen from 75 per cent. of the whole to 49 per cent., and that British machinery, tin plates, jute tissues, bags, cast iron, and other articles are being ousted from the market; and, if so, will he say what steps are being taken to safeguard British trade interests.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR (for Lord CRANBORNE): I understand the Roumanian Government are engaged in reconsidering their Customs tariff, but we have no reason to suppose that a special treaty with Germany is being negotiated, or that there is any intention of granting German trade substantial advantages at our expense. I am aware that there

  867
  has been a falling off in certain branches of British trade in Roumania, including the commodities mentioned by the hon. Member. Communications have passed between His Majesty's Minister at Bukarest and the Roumanian Government with a view to safeguard British trade interests.

  Government Departments and Trade.
  MR. HOULT: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now announce the complete formation of the Committee appointed to consider the position and duties of the various Government Departments, with the view of consolidating the commercial and trade interests of the country in one Department, in view of the fact that it is over four months since the inquiry was promised.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. RITCHIE,): The Committee has been completed by the addition of the name of Mr. Emmott, Member for Oldham. I hope the Committee will commence their work at once and that the inquiry will not be a long one.

  Post Office Wages—Committee of Inquiry.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if evidence regarding trippage allowances on travelling post offices would be accepted at the proposed Committee of Inquiry into the wages of postal employees.
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. AUTSEN CHAMBERLAIN,)No, Sir. The inquiry proposed is into the normal rates of wages of the classes concerned. When these are fixed it will be for the Postmaster-General to settle, with the concurrence of the Treasury, what special allowances are required to cover exceptional duties.

  Cable Charges between India and China.
  MR. FLOWER: On behalf of the hon. Member for Hythe, I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he would use his best endeavours to obtain some alleviation of the cable charges between India and China, commensurate with the reductions recently announced between the United Kingdom and China.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I have communicated with the cable company concerned, and am informed that, in view of the recent reductions to which the hon. Member refers and of others made by the company during the last few years, which have resulted in a diminished revenue, the company are unable to make any further reductions at present.

  Lord Clanricarde's Tenants.
  MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Lord Clanricarde has recently served notices to quit on tenants at Derrygoolin, Woodford; if so, will he state the amount of rent due on date of service; also, if rent had been demanded; and, if not, why were tenants served.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): Yes, Sir. Three notices to quit were served. A half-year's rent (something over £3) was due in each case. Payment had not been demanded before service. No cause was assigned for the issue of the notices. Upon application being made by the landlord for ejectment decrees, founded upon the notices to quit, it will be open to the tenants to apply for a stay of proceedings.

  Innishlyre Harbour.
  DR. AMBROSE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a copy of the resolution of the Westport harbour Commissioners, in which they state that, seeing that they are the local authority within whose jurisdiction Innishlyre harbour is to be built, they ought to be consulted as to the most suitable spot for the harbour; and whether he will see that they are consulted by the engineers.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir: the resolution has been received. The Harbour Commissioners will be consulted.

  Sligo Extra Police Cost.
  MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Government have applied to the Sligo County Council for the sum of

  869
  £1,500 to cover the cost of extra police stationed in the southern division of that county during the past two years; and whether, in view of the fact that it was owing to the action of the grand jury and against the protests of the County Council this expenditure has been incurred, he will devise some means by which the ratepayers may be relieved from the payment of this tax.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have called for a report on the facts, but have not yet received it. Perhaps the hon. Member will repeat the Question on Monday.

  Marquess of Ely's Estate.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether ouch an estate as that of the Marquess of Ely, in the counties of Fermanagh and Wexford, now in the English Court of Chancery, can be sold under the Land Bill; and, if not, will he provide for such sales being made where the owner desires to sell.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am conferring with the Lord Chancellor and Lord Advocate. The question, if a satisfactory solution can be found, is one that can be dealt with in another place.

  Irish Evicted Tenants.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether there is any provision in the Land Bill to secure that the consideration of the claims of the evicted tenants shall receive priority in the proceedings of the Estates Commission.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Bill contains no such provision.

  Royal Commission on the War.
  MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, seeing that it is practically two months since the Royal Commission on the War completed taking evidence, he will ascertain and state when their Report will be published; will he consider the desirability of this being done so as to give sufficient time for debate before the
  870
  end of the session; and will he give a day for that purpose.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Royal Commission are completing their proceedings as rapidly as possible, and hope to be able to present their Report at an early date.
  MR. PIRIE: Will it be before the close of the session?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I rather gather that will be so, but I can give no pledge or promise.

  Holiday Scheme in the Dublin Post Office.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the fact that a new leave scheme, based on an announcement made in the official circular 15th March, 1898, had been introduced this year in the Dublin sorting office; whether he is aware that this circular stated that the staff were to understand that the success of the scheme depended on their own co-operation, and that the Postmaster-General and the Secretary to the Treasury would not feel justified in sanctioning its permanent adoption unless assured that they had the co-operation of the staff; and, seeing that the majority of the Dublin sorting office staff was in favour of the scheme referred to, and that the feelings of the staff were not taken when the new scheme was being drafted for operation in the Dublin sorting office, will he state what steps he proposes to take.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The matter referred to by the hon. Member received my personal attention. The majority of the class of sorting clerks and telegraphists at Dublin was in favour of the scheme, and the scheme has accordingly been adopted.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I wish to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can now make a statement, or, if not, when he can do so, as to the probable course of business for the remainder of the session.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My review of the outstanding obligations in regard to

  871
  legislation for the remainder of the session will come, I think, better when I move the suspension of the Twelve o'clock Rule, the date for which is approaching. It will probably be in the course of next week. As regards the immediate business before us, the Irish Land Bill is down for Report to-morrow as the first order, and from all I can learn we shall be able, I think, to have the good fortune to finish that stage during the sitting. In that event I pro pose to take on Monday the Scottish Licensing Bill, the Employment of Children Bill, and the Naval Works Bill, and other business on Monday. I contemplate taking the Third Reading of the Land Bill on Tuesday.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether the Irish Estimates could be taken on Monday. We have had no opportunity of discussing them this session.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is the first time the suggestion has been made to me. I will consider it, and the House will therefore regard what I first stated as to Monday as subject to alteration in consequence of the appeal of the hon. Member.
  MR. LOUGH: The suspension of the Twelve o'clock Rule is apparently to be proposed at a much earlier date this session than in previous sessions.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member may rest assured that I have no desire to suspend the Rule prematurely. My only object is that we may arrive at the prorogation somewhere about the usual date. It certainly will not be done in any spirit of levity.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I hope that such a measure as the Sugar Convention Bill will not be taken under the Twelve o'clock Rule. This is a new measure, not the worn-out fag-end of a controversy; it is perfectly new matter, and the suspension of the
  872
  Twelve o'clock Rule ought not to be put in operation with regard to it.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I appreciate the spirit of that remark, but I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that the essence of the Bill was discussed last session. (Cries of "No, no.") I perfectly recognise that the House desires to discuss the Second Reading, and I certainly shall put the Bill down as the first order.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I was referring rather to the end than do not want the discussion to be prolonged to three or four o'clock in the morning.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: When will it be put down?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It would be premature for me to make any arrangement for the discussion on the Second Reading of the Bill until I know how many Members desire to make their views heard, and what is the degree of novelty and variety in the speeches likely to be made.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I suppose we may take it that no fresh Bills will be brought on for discussion after twelve o'clock.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Of course it is not intended to introduce any new Bills under the Twelve o'clock Rule likely to lead to controversy, but there are some measures which are uncontroversial which might be introduced. It would be, I will not say a Parliamentary outrage, but a strong measure to introduce Bills under the Rule which are controversial.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Is it proposed to star any private Members' Bills?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: This is another matter which ought to be deferred until I move the suspension of the Twelve o'clock Rule.

  SUPPLY [17TH ALLOTTED DAY].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1903–4.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £331,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Salaries and Miscellaneous Charges of the War Office, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904."
  *MR. PIRIEmoved to reduce the Vote by £100, his object being to call attention to the failure to carry out proposed schemes of reform in the Army. He regretted that under the political circumstances of the hour Army matters were receiving but secondary consideration, with the result that the Minister for War had been enabled to carry on his supposed reforms free from that criticism which should have been bestowed upon them. He had always felt that those schemes were not adapted for the country—were not wanted; and that the right hon. Gentleman had placed before the country an unworkable and extravagant scheme. The condition of the War Office at the present moment constituted a great national danger. It was a matter of regret and surprise to him not to see the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol in his place that night. They could not forget the unprecedented attacks which the right hon. Gentleman, as an ex-Cabinet Minister, last winter made with regard to the administration of the War Office, as did also the late Minister of Agriculture. It was then said that what was wanted was a drastic reform of the War Office, and the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that "this would never be obtained until they removed all those outside influences which now interfered with the management of the Army and with the selection for appointments and promotions—interference which would not be tolerated in any well organised Department of the Civil Service"; whilst the
  874
  language of the late Mr. Hanbury was even stronger and more direct. When such charges were made he held very strongly that the confidence of the public in the Army must be sadly impaired and what was even a greater, if not the greatest, asset any Army could possess, the confidence of the Army officers themselves in an impartial system of justice must also be very much at stake. These charges of undue favouritism, remained practically unanswered to this day. The only reply he had heard put forward by the Secretary of State for War, was that officers were "the architects of their own careers," while Lord Roberts had merely recommended the Sandhurst cadets not to believe all "the nonsense they read in the newspapers." That surely was not very respectful language for the Commander-in-Chief to use towards the utterances of an ex-Cabinet Minister and of the late Minister of Agriculture, both of whom must have been behind the scenes and must have spoken with full knowledge and a sense of their responsibility, and in his opinion the neglect to meet such a charge was discreditable in the highest degree, both to the Secretary of State and Commander in-Chief.
  Now, in the remarks he had to make he wished to say, as he had said before, that he made no attack on any individual officer, but only on those responsible for administration, viz., the Secretary of State and Commander-in-Chief. He intended to ask questions about certain appointments that had been made, in the hope of getting some explanation from those who were responsible for the appointments and promotion of officers. For instance, he wished to know whether there were not men in the Army more qualified by experience, service, and attainments, than General Sir Ian Hamilton to hold the important post of Quartermaster General. He maintained that the advancement in the career of this officer had been due to personal service to the Commander-in-Chief. For the ten years ending 1882 he was a regimental subaltern, and since then he had seen no regimental service. He was A.D.C. to Lord Roberts from 1882–1890, who then appointed him to the post of Inspector-General of Musketry in India, a post which he held until 1893. He confessed that in view of the training and of the post of A.D.C. held by that

  875
  officer, giving him no practical touch with men or regimental training, that was a most inexplicable appointment, seeing that there must have been hundreds of officers in India who had had regimental experience as commanding officers, and he would like to know whether that appointment was not opposed at home by the then Commander-in-Chief for some time before it was confirmed. His subsequent service was as Military Secretary and Deputy Quartermaster General, both posts at Head Quarters, Simla. There was one point also as to this officer's later service in South Africa which required explaining. In the Official Army List he is shown as commanding the Mounted Infantry Division, South Africa, April 1900 to May 1901, but this officer came home with Lord Roberts in November, 1900. Such a manner of establishing a "record" was most reprehensible, and if sanctioned by regulations, the sooner these were changed the better. He practically only commanded the Mounted Infantry Division for a few months, although given the rank of Lieutenant-General over the heads of a number of senior officers on the spot, being finally promoted to that rank over the heads of sixty or seventy major-generals. The question was whether such a career was the best to fit an officer for the onerous and responsible position he now held.
  He would pass on, more for comparison than criticism, to the case of General Sir William Nicholson, a distinguished officer with valuable Indian experience, who on appointment as Director-General of Military Intelligence, had been promoted to the rank of lieutenant-general, although he had when a colonel been promoted by Lord Roberts in 1899 out of his turn to supernumerary major-general. His predecessor, Sir John Ardagh, an officer of world-wide experience, who was retired for age, had been denied that rank of lieutenant-general after five years tenure of that position. General Nicholson was six years junior to General Ardagh in the service, and it was a grave blot on any system that it should allow the country to be deprived of the valuable services of Sir John Ardagh at the present juncture. His services might have been utilised by
  876
  the Imperial Committee of Defence, but instead of that he was sent to South Africa as a member of the Commission to inquire into the working of Courts-martial. The action of the War Office in this case contrasted very strongly with that of the Colonial Office in the case of Sir Robert Herbert, the late Permanent Under-Secretary. Surely the War Office need not have thus dispensed with Sir John Ardagh's services at the very moment the Intelligence and Mobilisation Department were supposed to be receiving special attention. The phrase of "sending Hercules to the Himalayas" was truly applicable to more recent army appointments than the one of Lord Kitchener, to whom primarily it had reference; in any case the system must be wrong that retired a valuable officer for not attaining, on relinquishing an office, the rank that was specially bestowed on his successor on appointment to the same office. He quite admitted that selection was a necessity and had many good points, but it must be strictly safeguarded. He was prepared to allow a great deal of discretion to the Commander-in-Chief, but many cases at present were inexplicable and irritating to the whole body of the. Army. It was an extraordinary thing how every one of the Commander-in-Chief's A.D.C.'s were selected for good appointments. Sir-George Pretyman, who had been unemployed for five years, and whose claims for employment must have come before and been rejected by the Selection Board for all that period, was appointed in 1899 by the present Commander-in-Chief, when he was on the point of retirement, commandant to Lord Roberts at headquarters, a post often held by captains or majors, and although he had never practically commanded in the field except a minor post on lines of communication, he had now been selected for a first-class district in India. Was that selection made by the Selection Board?
  Another case which required some explanation was that of General Sir C. Tucker. This general was appointed to the command of a division in South Africa in 1899 with the temporary rank of lieutenant-general.

  877
  He was an officer who had served all over the globe. In December, 1900, he attained sixty-two years of age, and in the ordinary course would have retired; but he was retained, presumably, and rightly in his opinion because he was a most efficient officer. That winter Sir T. Kelly - Kenny, Sir A. Hunter, and Sir N. Lyttelton all went home, and later so did General Bindon Blood, this latter after serving barely six months in South Africa, yet in the Honours Gazette all were promoted to the rank of lieutenant-general over the head of General Tucker whilst that officer was actually in the field holding a lieutenant-general's command. He considered that the promotion of these officers may have been right and proper, but it was difficult to understand on what principle General Tucker should have been superseded at the time they were promoted, as General Tucker was actually at the time in the field performing the duties of lieutenant-general in South Africa. In 1902 General Tucker was promoted to the rank of lieutenant-general, but he had lost two-and-a-half years of seniority by his supersession, or about fifteen steps. Then there was the case of Major Mackenzie, of the Seaforth Highlanders, another A.D.G. of Lord Roberts, who was appointed Governor of Johannesburg, being given local rank of colonel. At that time there were in Johannesburg, one lieutenant-general and four major-generals who by the appointment were placed under him; and one of these, Lieutenant-General Sir Herbert Chermside, was a man admirably adapted by experience in many countries to be the governor of a cosmopolitan polyglot town like Johannesburg. Lord Settrington was another A.D.C. as to whose advancement he would like to have a little information. Lord Settrington went out to South Africa as a Militia officer and A.D.C. to Lord Roberts, and no doubt rendered good service. He was afterwards posted, however, to the newly raised Irish Guards as second lieutenant, and rose to be captain in six months. It was very hard to find justification for such tremendous progress. Nay, more, it was impossible; every subaltern, not only in the Guards but in the British Army, was wronged by such an incident, and the formation of a new regiment should have been taken advantage of to
  878
  promote deserving officers. He was standing up for the unknown "Smith" in the Army, who had been sadly neglected of late years. He might give many more cases, but he hoped he would have some answer to the cases he had spoken of.
  The distribution of rewards and honours caused intense heart-burning in the men whose whole career depended upon their advancement in the service. He strongly objected to the distinction of "qualified for employment on the stall" being distributed in an arbitrary and erroneous way, as a reward, and being given for anything else than certain specified duties in the field. Such distinctions cast a baneful influence over the Army right down to all the ranks. A great deal of this was due to the want of practical, proper, and efficient working of the machinery by which the Army was organised. The War Office was choked with arrears of work which blocked its effective action. New methods had been started with new men, but there was no head control; decentralisation was not secured, and he did not believe that there was one of the six much vaunted Army Corps which could go on active service without breaking up other units. To show that decentralisation was not secured, in spite of all they had heard, he might point out that even in a small matter such as an application to travel for a few days abroad by an officer from, say, Shorn-cliffe or Chichester, the application would be sent first to the officer commanding at Shorncliffe, from Shorncliffe to Dover, then to the officer commanding the Army Corps at Salisbury Plain, and from there to the War Office, and it would come back by the same circuitous route, entailing a great waste of time. With the pros sure of work at the War Office it was impossible that the War. Office could rise to the necessity of meeting the case of modern improvements in the Army, such as the much-needed creation of a special N.C.O. training school. The result of this maladministration was also seen in the lamentable (there was no other word for it) succession of incidents which have been occupying public attention for the last year; incidents which were calculated to bring the Army into discredit in the eyes of not only the people of this country, but of the world; incidents such as the delay in the payment of the Yeomanry, the delay in the issue of medals, in the scandals connected with the Yeomanry remount

  879
  operations in Hungary, in the failure in the case of Major Studdert in Ireland, and in the disgraceful attempt to make General Truman a scape-goat, and force him to resign, when the blame for the loss of horse life in South Africa was on the Chief of Staff in South Africa and on the Yeomanry Committee, the failure and delay also to remodel the army veterinary department, which was even now 20 per cent. short of its establishment, required condemnation. These matters were due to the indecision and the contradictory action of the War Office, and to this same contradictory action and want of administrative power he directly attributed the Buller, Colville, and Kinloch cases.
  He would only touch for a moment on the Cape "ragging" case, which had done me re to discredit the Army in South Africa than anything else. He had always advocated the necessity of Courts-martial in individual cases, and if they had had Courts-martial carried on under a proper system during the last ten years such an incident as the Cape "ragging" case could not have occurred. Punishments have been decreasing, rewards increasing, with the result from this dangerous principle that discipline has been deteriorating, not improving. The War Office had been guilty of incessant changes; but changes in organisation did not necessarily carry with them an increase of efficiency. It had forfeited the sympathy of the Militia and had turned Volunteers into active enemies. It had also allowed to be carried out under the present regime objectless and expensive changes in uniform under the guise of economy. He felt some explanation was required on the recommendation of the Committee on Officers' Expenses that they should allow cavalry subalterns to consume more liquor at moss than infantry subalterns. He mentioned the case of the contaminated blankets, and the destruction of the condemned rations at Pretoria. Perhaps it was only right that he should read a letter which he had received from South Africa upon this matter, dated Pretoria, 18th June.
  "To-day's cablegrams bring in Mr. Brodrick's reply to certain Questions asked by you in the House of Commons on June 17th regarding the destruction of rations at Pretoria
  880
  in April last. I entirely agree with the position you have taken up in this connection. Such a wanton and scandalous destruction of good and sound rations, to the value of about £100,000, was sad to see, and should be the subject of most rigid inquiry. Your contention that good meat properly preserved in tins, never deteriorates is substantially correct. Only in cases where boxes containing rations have been roughly used, the tins becoming punctured, have I ever found them unfit for issue. This does not apply to the rations destroyed in Pretoria, the major portion of which was in excellent condition, and at least 75 per cent. bearing stamped impression on tins 2.5.02, and therefore could have only been in South Africa a very few months. Mr. Brodrick's reply to you that the contractors are not to blame is as generons as his statement that therations were kept longer than intended. I may mention that I was in charge of a section of wagons engaged in carting the same to the site, a few miles from Pretoria, where they were destroyed; and altogether there were engaged in the transit of these rations an average of about ninety wagons daily, covering a period of from three to four weeks. I personally superintended the loading and off-loading of the wagons under my charge, and am therefore in a position to speak as to the true facts of the case, and I have no hesitation in saying that it would have been a most difficult task to have discovered 2½ per cent. unfit for human food. I may further mention that the drivers and leaders of our transport conveying these rations, and numbering about 200 natives, lived almost exclusively on the rations in question, and certainly consumed not less than from 1,200 to 1,500 tins with no ill effects. After the destruction was completed, or supposed to have been, hundreds of rations were removed by hungry natives living in that vicinity. The modus operandi in inspecting and condemning these rations, as told to me by a gentleman who was an eve-witness, can only he regarded as farcical. The information herein conveyed can be borne out by several persons now residing in Pretoria."
  This latter was on a par with other exposures of War Office system, or rather want of it, but the country had lost £80,000 over the transaction. In any case the War Office could not escape blame.
  He had just one word to say as to the present system of recruiting. A great deal had been heard of late about good recruits, and he had always been convinced that a proper system of promoting to a commission from the ranks would go far towards success in obtaining good recruits. He had found from a Return of commissions given to the ranks that in the ten years ending in 1896, the last year we had a Royal Commander-in-Chief, the percentage of commissions given to men from the ranks was 4·5, but in the last eight years, from 1896 to 1902,

  881
  that percentage had fallen to 2·6. If they wanted good recruits they should encourage the system of giving such commissions, and he advocated a 10 perentage as a fair one; but this fall in the number of such commissions under a Conservative Government showed what a hollow pretence real reform was likely to assume. He understood other Members were going to touch on the ludicrous exposure in this House of the Somaliland operations. The Secretary of State seemed alone blind to the comedy of his action, but it was a very serious matter to the country. There had been a grave loss of life, an expenditure of £500,000, and an annual expenditure going on at the rate of £50,000 a month. Owing to these lamentable facts coming before the pub-lie they were losing confidence in the administration of the Army—and, above all, in the Secretary of State for War. Economy and efficiency were considered incompatible, with the result that neither were obtained, and the War Office had come to regard the public purse as a milch cow that could not run dry. It was because he looked upon the whole situation as a very serious one that he now begged to move.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A (Salaries) be reduced by £100, in respect of the Salary of the Secretary of State for War."—(Mr. Pirie.)
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,)said he did not rise for the purpose of following the hon. Member throughout the whole of the somewhat discursive oration he had made. He thought a speech which attempted in the course of half an hour to touch on almost every question of Army administration, including Somali land, appointments at the War Office, rations of the troops, decentralisation, and a number of other topics, could not be described otherwise than as giving a discursive view of what had taken place. He rose, before they went to more serious topics which might be introduced, to enter his protest against that part of the hon. Member's speech in which he made a formal indictment of the Commander-in-Chief and the appointments made by him to the War Office. He did not suppose that those observations would be taken in this House for more than they
  882
  were worth, which was the expression of opinion of an individual Member. But those observations went out to the country, they were reported in the Press, and if he were not at the earliest moment to make an emphatic protest and express his desire to controvert in every respect what had fallen from the hon. Member he should be wanting in the duty which he discharged to this House. To show, he would not say the prejudice in the sense that the hon. Member had deliberately abandoned a fair and impartial treatment of the matter, but to show the prejudiced aspect which the whole subject bore in the hon. Member's mind, he could not do better than to take two appointments, the only two on which he proposed to comment, in regard to which the hon. Member had attacked the position of the War Office—the appointment of two most distinguished officers, Sir Ian Hamilton and Sir William Nicholson. The hon. Member said that the record of Sir Ian Hamilton was one purely of personal interest to the Commander-in-Chief. That was not only not the truth but it was the absolute reverse of the truth. Sir Ian Hamilton undoubtedly served the Commander-in-Chief as military secretary in India. He was also selected by Sir George White, and asked to take the same post on his stall which he had held with Lord Roberts, and at the urgent request of the new Commander-in-Chief Sir Ian Hamilton did so. He himself happened to know, for he was then in India, that at the moment Sir Ian Hamilton urgently desired to return home. Sir Ian Hamilton was appointed, not by Lord Roberts but by Sir George White, to the position of Inspector-General of Musketry in India, and the qualities which he showed in that capacity were so exceptional for the position that he was appointed, not by Lord Roberts, nor by Sir George White, but by Lord Wolseley, to the chief post at the School of Musketry at Hythe. From that post he was selected, not by Lord Roberts but by Lord Wolseley and Sir Redvers Huller, who at that moment, he thought, had not gone out himself, to proceed to Natal and to form part of the Natal field force. In that capacity he commanded a brigade at Ladysmith, and he consequently commanded a division during the campaign in South Africa. He returned with Lord Roberts, and as between the date of his return and the

  883
  absolute date of the abandonment of his command he, like other officers, was allowed two months leave. He then became military secretary to Lord Roberts; and he was, with the universal assent of the whole country—there was never an appointment which gave greater satisfaction—sent as Chief of the Staff to Lord Kitchener, and practically he exercised the control of Chief of the Staff for eight months over an Army of a quarter of a million of men. On coming back he was employed at the War Office in the post which was previously held by Lord Wolseley, Sir Redvers Buller, and Sir Evelyn Wood; and he could only say that that was a good omen for Sir Ian Hamilton's future advancement, as it was an indication of services which were exceptional, even in a campaign in which many exceptional services were rendered. He must say that to represent the appointment of an officer of that distinction in the field, whose qualities had been proved and acknowledged by all those who served with him in South Africa, as a personal selection for personal services to the Commander-in-Chief was an unworthy representation to proceed from a Member of this House.
  With regard to Sir William Nicholson, he could only say this—it was not necessary for him to speak his abilities in this House, they were known to all Members who had to do with India long before they were known to those who served in the War Office, who were not in immediate contact with him. Sir William Nicholson was a member of the Defence Committee, and as a member of that Committee he had been brought in contact with leading Cabinet Ministers and with the leading members of the sister service. He undertook to say that there was not a man sitting on that Committee who would not say that it was impossible to deal with Sir William Nicholson without feeling that he was a man of the very first ability, knowledge, and application. The hon. Member had instituted a comparison, which he thought was wholly undesirable, between Sir William Nicholson and Sir John Ardagh, who had done excellent service in the capacity and in respect of the subjects with which he was charged. They all knew that the post of Director-General of Mobilisation and of Military Intelligence
  884
  had been immensely developed, his responsibility had been greatly enlarged; and he was glad to say that by a recent decision of the Treasury, on their application, his staff had been greatly enlarged. When that change was made, and these fresh responsibilities were placed upon Sir William Nicholson, he was given a seat on the War Office Council, and, like every other officer holding that position, he was given the rank and pay of lieutenant-general. The denial of that rank to Sir John Ardagh was not due to any disregard for his qualifications. It was given to Sir William Nicholson because the post he held was a much more important one. The hon. Member had represented that General Tucker had been in some respects a victim of some want of regard on the part of the Commander-in-Chief.
  MR. PIRIEasked whether it was not the fact that General Tucker had been superseded.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid it was impossible to undertake, when an officer was selected for promotion for his services in the field, that he should not go over the heads of other officers, of General Tucker, as it happened, was made knight commander of the Bath in the Gazette in which two other officers were made lieutenant-generals, and he was subsequently made lieutenant-general for his services in the campaign. He was quite certain that General Tucker would be the last man to say or to suggest that his treatment had been otherwise than handsome. He would leave these subjects, and only on this ground—they had given a pledge to the House two years ago that all appointments of officers should be made with a view to their command in the field, and, as far as he knew, that pledge had been kept in every single particular. He was prepared to vindicate every appointment that came under his own personal control in the sense of putting the seal on what had been brought before him by the military authorities. He could assure the Committee that these imputations of favouritism, not one of which had ever been made good in or out of the House, gave the utmost pain, not merely to the Commander-in-Chief,

  885
  but to the officers associated with him, and to the officers unnamed on whose behalf they were professed to be made. He had never heard of, and he did not believe there was, in the Army any feeling but one of confidence that every endeavour was made to take the best men. Of course, after a campaign there must be disappointments: but all he could say was that officers who had been preferred after this campaign had not belonged to one school rather than another. They had been selected indiscriminately from among men who had the best Indian reputations, the best Egyptian reputations, and the best peace reputations in Great Britain. He hoped that these efforts to disparage the judgment, and, more than the judgment, the integrity, of a great soldier like the Commander-in Chief would not be repeated.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid that the right hon. Gentlemen had had brought to his notice the feeling of indignation which was often caused by the selection of officers for promotion. He did not agree with his hon. friend in introducing particular names to the Committee; but it was unquestionable that a great many of the appointments made by Lord Roberts in connection with the war had caused the greatest offence to, and deepened the ill-feeling of, many deserving officers in the British Army. He deprecated the introduction of names in the strongest possible manner; but he would say that Lord Roberts' appointments had not always been free from the suspicion of favouritism.
  Passing from that point, he thought the Committee were entitled to a pronouncement as to the policy of the Government with regard to the permanent garrison in South Africa. The proposal, first made in The Times, was that one Army Corps should be permanently stationed in South Africa, and called part of the home garrison. Three points were urged in favour of that policy. The first was the strategic mobility to be gained thereby; the second emanated from the Colonial Office, and suggested that the "three-year-old" soldiers should be invited to settle in South Africa as colonists; while the third, which probably
  886
  came from some ardent supporter of War Office reform, urged that South Africa was a better training ground than Great Britain could possibly be. Upon the last point contradictory statements had been made from the Treasury Bench, for while in April, 1902, the Secretary of State for War declared that no men were sent out not properly trained, in March of this year the Financial Secretary to the War Office stated that South Africa was considered a very suitable training ground for the young soldier. The War Office might have changed their policy, but those statements were clearly incompatible. He believed that for the purposes of mounted infantry and cavalry drill, South Africa was an admirable training ground, because of the distances and areas it afforded, but with regard to artillery the advantage was not so certain, and he seriously doubted its desirability as a training ground for the infantry The large area necessary for mounted forces was not required for infantry, and the character of the ground in South Africa was so unlike the enclosed regions of this country that the officer entrusted with the duty of training the men would be set a task entirely different from that involved in manœuvring in an enclosed country. That difference was recognised by the writer of the series of articles in The Times. It was untrue to say that infantry could not be trained in England just as well as anywhere else. He did not know whether the Financial Secretary had read the interesting critique in The Times of this morning on the manœuvre at Aldershot. He took it that the writer of the critique was the gentleman who animadverted upon the individual composition of the brigades which took part in the recent Aldershot review. The writer pointed out that over a considerable open space of ground a division was manœuvred in accordance with the most recent developments of military drill, in the style and upon the theory adopted with such conspicuous success in the German manœuvres four years ago. If it was possible so to manœuvre infantry that they were concealed from the observation of the defending force, the manœuvring of the soldier depended not so much upon the ground which he occupied as upon the intelligence of the

  887
  officer who directed the operations. If the quality of the directing officer was improved there would be obtained on the part of the private soldier a skill not hitherto secured in this country. The Times critic also noticed that the noncommissioned officers and men showed an intelligent interest in the maps of the surrounding country which had been provided for them. If that were so, the Army had made a substantial advance in the right direction. Another consideration in connection with the permanent garrison in South Africa was that the cost of the soldier in that country was so much greater than in England that it would materially increase the expenditure on the Army. A man in South Africa cost £25 more than in England. It appeared, therefore, that the proposal would afford no advantage from the strategic point of view, greatly increase the cost of the troops, and, without providing colonists for South Africa, cause considerable difficulty in the provision and maintenance of the reserve. When the proposal was made to send certain reservists to Canada, it was thought by the War Office that we should have a claim on their services in time of war, but the Canadian Government entirely repudiated that view. The same thing would probably happen in South Africa. Thus there were several serious arguments which could be advanced against the proposed retention of an Army Corps in South Africa as a part of the home garrison.
  Another matter upon which he desired information was the future policy in Somaliland. According to the Secretary of State, seventeen officers and 340 men had been killed, the Vote for the campaign was practically exhausted, and further supplies would have to be asked for. What was the quality of the troops that had been engaged? In reply to a Question, the right hon. Gentleman had stated that no native levies would be employed in the field, and yet in every action natives had been given the most prominent share of the fighting. According to the correspondent of the Daily Telegraph, these men had not completed even a native recruit's musketry course, and a great part of the losses sustained by Colonel Plunkett's column was doubtless due to the fact that the native levies
  888
  could not aim straight. Moreover, since that reply, fresh levies of these men had been made. He wished to know something about the troops to be employed in subsequent operations. The whole of the operations in Somaliland had so far been directed, to driving our enemy out of another country into British territory. When this expedition began its operations the Mullah was outside British territory, but he had since entrenched himself in British lines,, and his presence there was viewed with great anxiety by the inhabitants. "Was the War Office going to establish a permanent force in this territory or were they going to have these expeditions every year? They had appointed a competent officer to take command, and they had been told that an advance was shortly to begin. If the result of that advance was to be that the enemy was to be entrenched more strongly in our territory than before the advance, then he hoped some other means would be adopted of driving the Mullah out of our territory, and of securing protection for the tribes to whom they had promised adequate protection. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give some reply to the question raised with regard to this South African garrison, and also with regard to this expedition which had proved so costly and had upset all the optimistic statements made by the right hon. Gentleman at the commencement of this session.
  *MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid he thought the Committee would be disposed to agree with the right hon. Gentleman in deprecating the introduction of personal matters which figured so very largely in the speech of the hon. Gentleman who opened the discussion this afternoon. The hon. Member occupied some time in discussing patronage in the Army and Navy. In this country they had committed themselves to the policy of selection, and he thought on the whole it was agreed that that was the only method by which they could arrive at the one most important thing, namely, getting the right man in the right place in the hour of need. Just as it was useless to interfere in matters of selection when there were no grounds for believing that there had been an actual corruption at work, so in regard

  889
  to the question of the administration of discipline it was not wise to interfere without there were definite grounds to show that the forms of law and justice had not been accurately followed. In so far as criticisms had been made upon matters like the Colonel Kinloch case, he wished to point out that they had not been directed at the legitimate exercise of the discretion of the Commander-in-Chief but only at what was conidered to be a departure from the recognised form of law and justice and an illegitimate exercise of that discretion. The most extraordinary thing in the speech of the hon. Member opposite was the example he took to illustrate the evils of selection. He should not have thought, on the face of it, that there were two officers in the British Army whose appointments had given more universal satisfaction than the appointments of General Ian Hamilton and Sir William Nicholson. He apprehended that it was the general opinion of those born in the service that there were few men more fitted to deal with the great matters of policy and administration, transcending and extending beyond the ordinary limitations of strictly professional training, or more fitted to rank as military statesmen, who could take part in the Councils of National Defence. He rose chiefly for the purpose of expressing the hope that they should not consume this day in discussing these comparatively small personal matters. He hoped they would not spend a long time in discussing the procedure at a Court-martial of which they had heard a good deal. There were an immense number of important matters which a great many hon. friends of his were very anxious to have information about. Some of those questions had been touched upon by the hon. Member who spoke last, and he appealed to the Secretary of State for War to give them as much information as he could as early as possible in the debate, because he thought that would curtail the discussion and make it more fruitful, and prevent them from straying on wrong lines. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to tell them something as to what he intended to do in regard to the troops in South Africa. Did he intend to keep the present garrison permanently there, and what would be
  890
  the increased cost of that alteration in the distribution of their military forces in South Africa? He should also like to know a little more about the popularity of the service in South Africa as compared with the popularity of the service in other parts of the British Empire. If South Africa was going to be a permanent station for such a large force they could not go on keeping the troops under canvas or under rudimentary temporary shelter. Of course that would react upon the question of cost. Besides that, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to tell them something in regard to the progress made with recruiting. He was rather inclined to think that some of the figures the Secretary of State for War had given had hardly tended to reassure the House that the right hon. Gentleman's anticipations at the beginning of the session had been borne out by events. They wished to know how the recruiting had been affected by the new conditions as to character and standard which had been introduced, and they also wanted to know the number of re-engagements or proportion made under the new system of pay.
  MR. BRODRICK: There are no statistics available yet.
  *MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid if there were no statistics available of course they could not have them.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid the recruits who were taken for three years under the new system began to engage in April last year, and until April next year they had no opportunity of knowing that they would re-engage for another period.
  *MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid he thought that was a very favourite date. He understood from that answer that there would be no difficulty in obtaining the information he had asked for. Then there was the question of the artillery guns. That was a matter which had attracted great interest both inside and outside the House. It was an extraordinary thing that, although they had only a small Army, it was not well-armed, and

  891
  although it was such an expensive Army, it was practically without quick-firing guns.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: The guns do not come upon this Vote.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEasked if they would be in order in calling attention to the answers given by the Secretary of State for War to Questions put to him upon this subject.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: I cannot keep in my mind all the Answers given on the Questions put, and I cannot quite see in what shape the right hon. Gentleman proposes to raise the question. I am perfectly clear, however, that no discussion in regard to the supply of these guns can be permitted on this Vote.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsubmitted that the hon. Member for Oldham had not entered upon any technical discussion with regard to the need of guns, but had only referred to the refusal of the Government in regard to those guns.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: My interruption was of a precautionary character.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEpointed out that there was part of this Vote devoted to the pay of the Inspector-General of Artillery, and surely it would be in order on that particular item to discuss the question of guns.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: The question of guns must be raised on the Vote for guns. Vote 9 is for guns, and that obviously is the place where everybody will expect the discussion to come.
  *MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid he should be the last person to attempt to draw the discussion out of the channel in which it should properly flow, but if the right hon. Gentleman could give them any information he would relieve the very considerable apprehension which existed in the minds of many hon. Members in regard to this topic. It would also be very interesting if the Secretary of State for War could,
  892
  without entering into any details, let them know what he proposed to do with regard to the Intelligence De partment. If those matters had not the same relative importance as they had at the beginning of the session, it was because they had been overshadowed by the introduction of other graver subjects, and expelled by the forebodings of change which pervaded the political arena. The matters he had mentioned vitally affected not only the efficiency of the Army but the safety of the country, and he was sure his hon. friend would endeavour to do his best, and give them as much information as he possibly could.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the hon. Member for Oldham had put some most necessary questions, to which it was essential that they should have answers in the course of this debate. Many hon. Members would be disposed to agree with him in regretting that his hon. friend who opened this debate should have taken as his example the appointment with regard to musketry instruction of Sir Ian Hamilton, whose interest in the subject was beyond dispute, in fact he was a man who had throughout his career given more time and thought to that problem than any other man in Europe.
  MR. PIKIEdissented.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that if his hon. and gallant friend had attacked the political speeches of Sir Ian Hamilton he might have had something to say for himself, but if his attack was on his appointment to his present post that was a mistake, if he would allow him to say so. With regard to Sir William Nicholson there was one fact which was I not mentioned by the Secretary of State, and which was material to his present appointment, and that was that he held the same position in India. He was secretary of the Mobilisation Commission in India, and anyone who knew the work done there would know that Sir William Nicholson had transcendent qualifications for the post he now occupied. He was glad that the hon. Member had moved a reduction of the salary of the Secretary of State, and he should support him if

  893
  he went to a division. His hon. friend the Member for Oldham had asked a number of questions in regard to recruiting, and he had raised in brief form reminiscences of those interesting discussions which they had earlier in the present year. The hon. Member had truly said that events had occurred which had distracted the immediate attention of the country from Army questions. If there was anyone pleased at the raising of financial issues it was the Secretary of State for War, for the Colonial Secretary was a lightning conductor for the right hon. Gentleman. It was probable, therefore, that hon. Members who were now discussing Army questions would not receive the general support in the country which they might have expected had these other questions not been raised.
  They wanted to put some definite questions to the right hon. Gentleman. They wanted to know both the condition of recruiting and also the bearing of the present position of recruiting upon the condition of his Army Corps as shown by the figures laid before the House a few months ago. He should not like to make himself responsible for the criticism on the recent Aldershot review, and on the field state of the troops which took part in the review. But he thought the Committee would expect to have from the Secretary of State some account of the reasons which led to certain battalions having to leave so large a proportion of their men off the field and outside the review. He should also like to ask the Secretary of State not only with regard to the number of recruits but also what were the medical reports as to the ability of the recruits to stand the strain of the work in the first few months—work which though hard was very light compared with that which recruits did in Germany and France—and under which a terrible proportion of the troops were breaking down, He should like the Secretary of State to tell the Committee something in regard to the problem presented with regard to the food of the men- His own belief was that the right hon. Gentleman would have to increase the quantity and quality of the food of the recruits, and that the principle which was laid down in regard to the food of recruits for the Navy—which was more considerable than the food of
  894
  the Army and which was for that reason less requisite in the case of the Navy—would have to be applied to the Army. It was this—
  "The ration should be sufficient in itself to satisfy all reasonable requirements of the men and to maintain them in a fit state of health."
  They had not reached that point and he thought it had a greater bearing on the recruiting problem than the question of pay. The second question asked by the hon. Member for Oldham had reference to re-engagements. He wished to know whether it was possible to give the Committee any information on that point, it was not at the end of three but at the end of two years that the men had to make their choice, and he should have thought that the Inspector-General would have been able to tell the Secretary of State as to the reengagements. Moreover, there was a pretty large number of three-years' men before the new scheme was brought into force. He thought their experience of the present rate of re-enlistment of three-years' men would have an important hearing on the question of re engagements, in regard to which the hon. Member for Oldham had asked for information. He was glad to find a less determined tone on the part of the hon. Member for Oldham in favour of the Army Corps in South Africa than he had noticed in his suggestion some months ago.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLwas understood to demur.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the Committee had undoubtedly never been in possession of the facts which were really necessary to enable them to make up their minds on the questions which were put by his hon. friend the Member for Bristol as to cost, which had assumed such prominence in the remarks of the hon. Member for Oldham. He asked the Secretary of State whether they might consider that he had not changed his position. If no change was to be put forward before February or March next-year it was unnecessary to discuss the matter now, but if there was the slightest chance of the Army being organised on new lines the Committee ought to have it thrashed out, and they

  895
  ought to know the arguments for and against the scheme. As long as the Government needed 30,000 troops in South Africa and intended to reduce them to 15,000 that was no change. That was the intention expressed in the House last year, and again this year, but when the Government make up its mind that a single man was to be kept in South Africa beyond the necessities of South Africa that was a change. If there was a change it ought to be very fully explained to the House and debated by the House. He did not know whether this was a matter that had been settled, or whether it was the subject of inquiry by the Government. The Prime Minister, three months ago, undoubtedly led the House to believe that the matter was under inquiry by the Government, and he promised a statement upon it. When they asked when they would have an opportunity of discussing it the right hon. Gentleman said this Vote would give such an opportunity. They were, therefore, thoroughly justified in asking if any change was to be made before March next. If so the Committee should be told. The hon. Member for Oldham asked definite questions as to the cost which would be involved by keeping an additional number of men in South Africa beyond the needs of South Africa. On the question of cost the Secretary of State seemed to have changed his figures during the last few months. When the right hon Gentleman was asked on 10th of March as to the additional cost of keeping men in South Africa he said that it was from £20 to £25 per man. But the other day when he was asked a similiar question he said that 30,000 were kept there at present but that it was the intention of the Government to reduce the permanent garrison to 15,000. The other day the Secretary of State was asked as to the additional charge for keeping troops in South Africa and he said the extra cost at the present time was £45,000 per week. That appeared to him to work out a wholly different figure and make the additional cost far greater.
  MR. BRODRICK: Let me say to the right hon. Gentleman that I endeavoured to give some idea what the permanent cost would be for keeping troops in South Africa, but that is
  896
  complicated by the very large amount for I transport.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid those figures would give a total of £2,340,000, and it was an enormous sum for 30,000 men. The Secretary of State had explained that the discrepancy could be explained by the cost of transport. He wished to point out the enormous importance of the question of transport. I The South African troops were to be short service troops—three years men. Raw recruits were to be sent out. The question of transport would therefore; assume a very serious aspect. India had complained that she had to pay a great deal for transport, but what would it be in the case of South Africa if they had three years' service men? This question of transport bore on every other question; involved. They had been told that it; would be possible to make the change with advantage to India because troops would be more easily sent from South Africa than from home. If they were three years' service men they could not be sent to India as organised units. Before being sent they would have to receive their reserves from home. He could not help thinking that the scheme had not been thought out, and he was sure the Committee would be greatly interested in hearing what the Secretary of State had to tell them about it. His hon. friend the Memberfor Bristol had admitted that up to a certain point South Africa would be an excellent training ground for troops. Undoubtedly, but there was one point which was never sufficiently remembered in this connection. It was that long before the South African war complaints were made again and again on the Medical Vote of the enormous amount of typhoid fever in South Africa, and if our young troops would be subject to typhoid attacks that would be a great drawback to the country as a training ground. Whatever proposal the Government had to make on this point, they must deal with the question of length of service, the question of reserves, and the popularity of service in South Africa. They must tell the House whether there was any proposal in connection with India reliefs to accompany any proposal in regard to South Africa. A year and four months

  897
  ago the Secretary of State for War was asked whether he had the consent of the Government of India to the charges then made, or whether the Government of India had been consulted about the changes in recruiting, and they elicited the fact that the Government of India had not been consulted, and that the Government of India had protested. But the papers showing the vehement nature of there protests had been kept back from the House for a year and more. These papers showed an overwhelming case against the Secretary for War and the Cabinet. When hon. Members on that side of the House used the word "regret," they were told that they were moving a vote of censure on the Government. The Government of India had, therefore, passed a vote of censure on the Secretary for War and the home Government, because the Viceroy telegraphed to the Secretary for India on 8th March, 1902—
  "We desire respectfully to express our regret that the Government of India were not given an opportunity of stating their views before decision was arrived at, and that we received no official intimation until it was on the eve of being announced to Parliament."
  The Secretary for India himself took up the protest of the Government of India, and on 22nd April, 1902, he used these words in a letter from the India Office to the War Office—
  "Lord George Hamilton … shares the regret of the Government of India that it was not found possible to adopt a procedure under which both the Council of India and the I Government of India might have been afforded time and facilities for investigating and discussing, from the Indian point of view, the effects of the new system of recruiting."
  In fact, the Secretary for India had made out an overwhelming case against his colleague the Secretary for War and the whole Cabinet, and it was curious that the right hon. Gentleman should have dissociated himself from the action of the Secretary for War and adopted the view of the Indian Government. He was not going to discuss the opinion of the Lord Chief Justice on the point. That would be raised on the Indian Budget; but personally he did not differ from it. What he blamed the Secretary for War for was, that the right hon Gentleman had placed the Government of India in that position.
  He wished to endorse what had
  898
  been said by the hon. Member for Oldham in regard to certain points on which we were behind every other nation in the world in spite of the enormous expenditure on the British Army. It was impossible to stand up against the Secretary for War when he said that he could not make certain changes on account of their cost. But there were a number of changes which the poorest countries in the world were able to make, but which we could not make on account of their cost. The hon. Member for Oldham had given two instances. The first was that the War Office were continuing the practice of drawing on the line battalions for the mounted infantry instead of creating a separate corps of mounted infantry, He could not conceive of any sane man depending on obtaining an effective body of mounted infantry under the present system, which was rotten. Then the supply of horses and mules for transport had never been sufficient. Again, it was said that the adoption of quick-firing guns could not be carried out on the ground of cost. He would observe the ruling of the Chairman on this question of guns, but their attack was on the Secretary for War and the Financial Secretary to the War Office. Years ago they pressed the predecessor of the present Financial Secretary on this point. They showed him that our guns were antiquated even long before the war, and the answer of the right hon. Gentleman was almost exactly word for word that of the present Financial Secretary. Since that time the two last great Powers to adopt quick-firing guns were the United States and Russia. Long years ago, Switzerland, one of the smallest and most economical of States in Europe, had adopted them, and ages ago they had been adopted in France and Germany. Yet nothing had been done by this country. He would not deal with the technical points that there had been no real conversion of our guns into quick-firing guns. There had only been an alteration of the breach arrangement from one side of the gun to the other, while the spade attachment did not make the gun into a quick-firing gun. We were now behind every other nation in the world. The difference was such that a battery of six of our guns

  899
  was only equivalent to one gun employed by the other nations. That was given on the authority of an eminent United States officer. He believed that we must save money on the Army expenditure, and that that must be done next year. That could only he done by the changes pointed out so well by the hon. Member opposite. It would be more necessary for the Secretary for War to make these savings on a large scale, because it was necessary to make these changes, in our guns. So long as the Secretary for War and his advisers clung to the linked-battalion system he would not be able to show the saving on expenditure which the House would insist upon. If the Secretary for War had moved within the last four months to replace the linked-battalion system, and that of small, ill drilled depôts by large depôts, there might have been some hope for him and for the country, but if he stuck to the old system it was impossible to imagine that the right hon. Gentleman could show that economy by which he could expect to get Estimates through the House.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid that the House would sympathise with him in attempting, within a reasonable compass, to make a reply. The right hon. Gentleman had appealed to him to do something to save himself, but if, in the past, he has done many things which the right hon. Gentleman had asked him to do he should not have escaped shipwreck. He had fought many questions against the right hon. Gentleman from that side of the House, and he was bound to say that year after year he returned to the charge with unerring pertinacity, and made the same discarded suggestions. But although he hoped he had not been impervious to one of his suggestions—viz., that of short service, he had not seen in the right hon. Gentleman's speech a tone of absolute certainty even as to the result of that operation. And, indeed, he thought he was more confident about it than the right hon. Gentleman. Many subjects had been discussed that afternoon, because it was said for three months they had enjoyed immunity from criticism in consequence of the discussion of the great new scheme of the Colonial Secretary. He admitted that the Secretary for the Colonies had added that to the numerous other services for which
  900
  the country was indebted to him; he had redeemed them from the folly and absurdity for which every nation in Europe was laughing at us. As a distinguished German statesman a few days ago said—
  "Our nation took fifteen years to remodel our Army, and your Army has been torn to pieces over a, scheme which has been only fifteen months under trial."
  He thought they should be able to show-that this breathing space had been turned to some account The hon. Member for Oldham asked some questions as to how recruiting was going on during this period, and he was sure the Committee would watch with great interest how recruiting was going on, and what the position was in regard to it. They were in a very special position in regard to recruiting in the present year. In the first place, they had the Army, for the first time, quite full, and, in fact, over-flowing. Is March last, when they had to demobilise after the war, they found the cavalry 5,000 to 6,000 above strength, and the field and horse artillery 3,500 above strength—a position in which this country had never been before. That necessitated their practically closing recruiting for the cavalry and the other mounted arms. They had also raised the standard all round except for the infantry of the line, in respect of which they had taken no "specials." That was a very large general change; but, in addition to that, a considerable change had also been made in requiring and demanding characters from the men. The first effect of that change was to cause men who had the slightest doubt about their character not to present themselves, and he was not at all certain that some of those who refrained would have been very eligible recruits, because it was almost impossible to interpret a regulation of that sort in too strict a manner. But the net result had been that they had not only been raising their standard and diminishing the attractions in the shape of bounties but the Committee would readily see that the raising of the standard in itself shut out from the Army a great deal which they had a right to expect. On the other hand the men growing up would be available next year. The net result was not altogether unsatisfactory. The number of recruits taken for the infantry of the line from the 1st January to the 1st July, 1902 was 11,121. This,

  901
  year the number was 13,023; therefore there was a gain on the infantry of the line of about 2,000. On the cavalry of the line there was a loss of about 3,000. The total number of recruits from the 1st January to the 4th July, 1902, was 23,500, which was the best year they ever had; and the number taken this year was 20,500. Therefore, while there was a gain on the infantry of the line of 2,000, there was a loss of 3,000 on the whole.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: Was that for the half year or the whole year?
  MR. BRODRICK: For the half year. The recruits taken during the same period for the horse and field artillery were in 1901, 12,482, in 1902, 9,600; and, owing to the changes he had mentioned, only 7,100 this year. It was too early to draw any lessons from these figures, but he did not think there was anything in them to cause apprehension. If they were to take no "specials," and were to insist upon character, there would be a decrease of wastage. In addition to that, they knew that of every 100 men who came to a station and asked to go into the cavalry sixty or seventy walked away at once when they were told the cavalry was not open. Therefore they might assume that when they again opened the cavalry they would have a considerable addition to the number of recruits. In any case they were committed to the experiment, and certainly so far the class of recruits they had taken had given every satisfaction. General French had told him the other day that he was highly satisfied with the recruits recently received at Aldershot, the Commander-in-Chief spoke very highly the other day of the recruits at Colchester, and he had had similar reports from other stations. It was absurd to throw stones at the Secretary of State for War because recruits would not come in voluntarily at a time when trade happened to be brisk. They had no reason to entertain serious apprehension in this respect.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid nobody blamed the right hon. Gentleman because recruits did not come in. Criticism had been directed to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman had formulated
  902
  a scheme which required a great many more recruits than could be supplied annually.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid he was not referring to his hon. friend, but to the fact that he constantly saw the smallest class of "specials" called after his name. This was a curious phenomenon, because on no occasion in the last seventeen years had he ever voted for having "specials," or been willing to decrease the standard. On the contrary, he had raised the standard. With regard to the Aldershot review, it had been suggested that regiments were either very short in numbers or were not on parade at all. That was perfectly true. The review had been erroneously called a review of the 1st Army Corps. It could not be that, because a large number of the troops of the 1st Army Corps had only just come home from South Africa.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLasked where was the 3rd Division.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid four regiments of the 5th brigade had been home under two months, or just over that. A very large number of the men were on furlough, and to bring them back for the sake of a parade would have been very hard. That brigade was 3,320 men strong, and he thought it would be admitted that it was a very tine brigade. Then two brigades of artillery, one of which belonged to that division, were practising at Okehampton, and it would have been undesirable to bring them back from the ordinary practice of the year simply for a parade. The 14th Hussars returned recently from South Africa, and were utilised for keeping the approaches to the ground and for escort duties, and 1,800 men were employed in keeping the ground. He admitted that some of the Line battalions were short in numbers; but the pressure on the Lines had been enormouse in the last few years, and it must be remembered that of the Line battalions sixteen had been formed in the last four years. One of the battalions in which there was a shortage of men was that of the Manchester regiment, If the expectations of the military authorities as to the possibility of maintaining the 3rd and 4th battalions of this regiment were disappointing, they would have to consider the position of this regiment. For the moment, as two

  903
  of the battalions had been on active service and the remaining two had only just been raised, they had to face a shortage in some of these battalions. He would go carefully into the position with regard to the 3rd and 4th battalions before the next Estimates. A very important point had been raised with regard to the artillery, and he hoped he might be allowed to say a word on the question of policy. The right hon. Member for Forest of Dean spoke extremely strongly about the present artillery, and there was, he knew, a general desire in the House to hear that the Government had adopted a new and better gun, a more powerful gun, and a more quick-firing gun.
  MAJOR SEELY: A quick-firing gun.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid the eighteen batteries that they had could not be described otherwise than as quick-firing.
  MAJOR SEELYsaid the quick-firing-guns were an infinitesimal proportion of the whole.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid they had 108 quick-firing guns which they could not leave out of sight altogether. He only wanted to be perfectly fair. There was no Member of that House who had given the time to this question which it was his duty to give. From the moment he went to the War Office in 1900 he exercised his influence, so far as a civilian could, and applied himself to this question. He saw Lord Roberts on the subject on the very day he arrived from South Africa and asked him to appoint a Committee and to take whatsoever steps he thought best immediately to obtain a gun that would be more suitable. With that view, before anything had been done, he took a sum in the Estimates of that year. On January 23, 1901, a few days after Lord Roberts came home, a special committee, composed of artillery officers who had commanded brigades and batteries during the Boer War, was formed under the presidency of Major-General Sir George Marshall, who commanded the artillery, to consider the whole question of bringing our horse and field artillery equipment up to date. On May 8 of that year the Committee
  904
  rendered their first Report, specifying the conditions as to increased range and weight and the nature of the ammunition which they would recommend. The details were referred back to the Committee, and on receiving their Report the War Office at once communicated with Messrs. Armstrong, Messrs. Vickers, Messrs. Hotchkiss, and the ordnance factories, and invited them to submit designs of guns and howitzers which would fulfil the conditions recommended by the Committee. At a later date another firm asked to be allowed to submit designs, and they were supplied with a copy of the conditions. One of the firms asked to compete declined to send in any designs, but in October of that year designs were received from Messrs. Armstrong, Messrs. Vickers, and the ordnance factories. There were numerous details which had to be discussed, and at the earliest moment after the settlement of the details each firm was asked to submit specimens. These specimens of guns were not delivered until August or September of last year. In the interval he repeatedly called the attention of the military authorities responsible, and also of the manufacturers, to the desirability of pressing forward the production of these guns. The guns were tried last year at Shoe-buryness, and later on they were all tested at Okehampton, when Lord Roberts went down to see the results. These results were highly satisfactory, but there were again details which required adjustment. The moment those details were adjusted they gave an order to Messrs. Armstrong and Messrs. Vickers for four complete batteries of quick-firing guns for both the horse artillery and the field artillery. He had pressed by every means in his power for the production of these guns, and they were promised that they should have these batteries in August. When they were received they would be tested at once, and as soon as possible a decision would be given in regard to them. He knew that two years and a half seemed an enormous time to take. It was difficult to expedite the designing and manufacture of these guns, and to press the military authorities to come to a decision which would cost the country from £2,000,000 to £4,000,000, when

  905
  they were not satisfied that they had got the best available weapon. If they got, as they believed they had got, substantially a good gun—a heavier gun than those at present in use, a far quicker firing gun for the field artillery, and a better gun in all respects for the horse artillery—he would take care to sweep away any minor difficulties and get to work as soon as they could.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEasked whether the right hon. Gentleman could say what the then Financial Secretary meant in June, 1899, when he said experiments were being conducted at that time with a view to the introduction of quick-firing guns.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLasked whether the right hon. Gentleman could say when he expected that these four specimen batteries would be ready, and when he expected that the re-armament of the artillery would be begun and completed.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid he was chary of giving figures. As soon as the designs were settled he would endeavour to get a contract. When he had got a contract he would know approximately when the re-armament would be completed. The hon. Member might rest assured that the brigades which required the guns earliest would have them. With regard to the right hon. Baronet's question, he was not at the War Office in June, 1899, and did not know what the then Financial Secretary had in his mind at the moment. He wished to say a word about the Intelligence Department. At the beginning of this year General Nicholson had at his disposal twenty-eight officers. They had gone most carefully into the additional work he had to do. They had applied to the Treasury, and ten additional officers had been selected for this work. He had every reason to believe that General Nicholson was perfectly satisfied that this provision would enable him to carry out his duties.
  The hon. Member opposite asked him for some account of the probable position in Somaliland, and referred a little disparagingly, he thought, to what he considered the failure of the optimistic statements he had made with regard to that campaign.
  906
  He thought the hon. Member did him scant justice in that respect. His optimism consisted, first, in telling the House that it was impossible for the military authorities, in initiating an expedition by a small force in that vast country, to undertake that we should capture the Mullah; that all they could say was that there was a most certain way of crippling his resources on the one hand, and of driving him from his position, in which he threatened both our sphere and the Italian sphere, on the other. And, so far as the campaign proceeded, he represented that it had carried out the intentions of those who advised them to undertake it. General Manning, by his advance, first drove the Mullah from the position in which he had been dwelling in perfect security and raiding the native tribes, and then drove him right into Abyssinian territory. The Abyssinians, so far as they could judge—for in all those questions they had to depend to some extent on native information checked by their own officers—on two separate occasions gave the Mullah a very serious blow. The Mullah, he thought, lost over 1,000 men in each fight. The effect was to drive him, with greatly reduced forces and means of subsistence, right across our line of march to the position he now occupied in the north-east of Somaliland.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: In our territory.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid he might mention, as corroboration of the view that the Mullah had had a serious blow, that since he was driven right along our line of communications he had made no effort at attack on any one of our posts, or on any one of the forces passing to and fro. General Egerton was now in touch with General Manning, and they had every reason to believe that with the reinforcements he could command, and the increased transport that had arrived, he would be able to strike a fair blow at the Mullah in an improved position. He could not, of course, go into the details of what it was intended to do, though, as he said before, it was not proposed to undertake enterprises involving a vast expedition or great expense. But the necessary reinforcements had been ordered, and, to a largo extent,

  907
  had arrived, and in General Egerton they had a commander in whom they had the fullest confidence to carry out, with the larger force, whatever steps might be necessary.
  He passed from that to the main question on which the interest of the Committee was centred, with regard to South Africa. The force in South Africa, which stood at this period last year at about 230,000 men, had been reduced to 32,000 or 33,000 men at the present date. They had had to undertake the building of huts for a large number of these men who had been under canvas for three years, and whom, for their comfort and health, it was desirable to get into permanent buildings as soon as possible. But, as the right hon. Gentleman had pointed out, the First Lord of the Treasury indicated some time ago that they would be prepared to make a general statement of the position as it now presented itself to them, and, in doing so, they had taken care to obtain the best advice from South Africa. The Cabinet had considered what force they were prepared to keep there. There were two standpoints from which they had to investigate the question. The first was the Colonial standpoint—what was necessary in the interests of South Africa. The second was the Imperial standpoint—what was necessary in the interests of the Empire at large. It had been urged, rather unduly he thought, that in the schemes which had been put before the House for an increase of the Army, but little attention had been paid to naval and Imperial considerations. He did not think that was altogether correct. At all events, the institution of the Defence Committee, which the present First Lord of the Admiralty and he welcomed perhaps more than any other two members of the Government, and which they had some share in establishing, had certainly strengthened their hands in working their Departments together with due consideration to the force kept up in India and in other British possessions. He could only say, as far as he was concerned, that he approached the question without any predisposition one way or the other. At the same time, he would say one word in deprecation of the extreme views which had been put before the country in favour of the
  908
  dispersal of the British Army all over the globe in time of peace. The British Army, whatever its intentions in time of war, was not to be kept up on a voluntary system if they were going to order every man to spend five, or even four, years out of the seven outside this country. The general system of the organisation of the Army—he was not now talking of linked battalions or any other system—had been to secure that the soldier, who when he went abroad mostly served in warm, if not tropical, climates, should be retained for the benefit of his health as well as for the benefit of his entourage as near as possible for half of his service in England; and, so long as they kept it, as he hoped they might keep it, a voluntary service, so long must they endeavour to have regard to the wishes of their recruits in that respect. There was one other consideration. Colonial service generally was not, at all events in the past, altogether the best service for the purposes of discipline. They put men who were very highly trained in the middle of a population that was not very highly trained. They put men who were subject to discipline in the midst of a population which lent itself much less to discipline than the population which surrounded them in this country; and he did not think that any dispersal of our Army was therefore an advantage.
  Now, with regard to the advantage, to the Army itself. It had been urged upon the Government that South Africa was a better training ground, that it gave them better health, and also—and this was a very important consideration for the Committee—that the portion of the force which they kept in South Africa was placed where it could be most easily utilised in that portion of the Empire which was most likely to be attacked. On the other hand, there were considerations which should not be lost sight of by the Committee. In the first place, any addition to the force in South Africa must keep a larger force out of England. Then there was the expense to the officers, who could not live as cheaply in South Africa as in England; and then there was the extra expense to the country involved in keeping a force

  909
  abroad. It would not do for hon. Members to run too far away as regarded the extra advantages of training in South Africa. If they could keep the whole force in South Africa concentrated, they could teach their generals and field officers a great deal they could not teach them in this country. But if they sent troops to South Africa they must to some extent scatter them, and scatter them at very great distances; and then in some respects the advantages of training would not be found to be so very much greater than they were in this country in the neighbourhood, for instance, of Salisbury Plain. All these considerations had been before them. The Defence Committee had also considered the matter, and had come to a resolution, from the point of view of the defence of India. Looking at all the probabilities, they desired, if they could, to avoid anything which would increase the number of men permanently retained in India, which was not only a great strain on the resources of India, but was a great strain on our resources also in keeping the men here who were to replace them. And yet it must be obvious that the defence of India, if ever it was attacked, would require reinforcements from this country or from other British possessions. Under these circumstances the Defence Committee recommended that a considerable number of men should be held in South Africa available for service in India in case of emergency.
  They had considered the force in South Africa from the two standpoints he had mentioned, and the force for which they had decided to provide accommodation in South Africa would amount to 25,000 men. They proposed to maintain there four cavalry regiments, twelve batteries of field artillery, two batteries of horse artillery, fourteen battalions of the Line, and four garrison regiments. With regard to the garrison regiments a great deal had been said as to their cost. It must be remembered that a garrison regiment had no linked battalion at home and that it did not require a depôt. A man who joined was trained, and there was no difficulty whatever in the man being sent off at the earliest moment to join his battalion, He believed that for South African purposes it would
  910
  be impossible to have better troops than the garrison regiments. He had had the advantage of seeing the general officers under whom four battalions had served ever since they were formed, and they said that in every respect they had found them admirable soldiers. He was afraid he was one of those heretics who believed that a man who had looked after himself and was generally medically fit was just as good a man between thirty-five and forty as he was between twenty-five and thirty. It was urged against them that they had inordinate families, but from the point of view of settlement in South Africa, that was a great advantage. They would have to spend something additional in providing married soldiers' quarters in South Africa, a considerable sum, but he believed it would pay them well. He believed they would be the nucleus of a most admirable body of soldiers; the engagements of the garrison regiments were short, and there would not be the same incentive to desertion as there was in the case of men who had perhaps six years to serve. Opportunities would, they understood, be forthcoming for the employment of a good many men, even in Government positions, who might be quartered in South Africa. At all events, they thought it desirable, in respect of this force to try, in the first instance, the experiment of sending four garrison battalions. Of these troops some would be held definitely available for Indian service in case of emergency. This being so, he would be asked with regard to the extra expenditure which was caused by this force The figures which the right hon. Gentleman quoted were not conclusive at the present moment. The right hon. Gentleman included what was now very great—namely, the cost of mobile transport in South Africa, not merely transport to and from South Africa. Their estimate for the future was that the extra cost in South Africa of 25,000 men would be something like £1,500,000 per annum.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLasked whether that was 25,000 instead of 15,000.
  MR. BRODRICK: That is the whole extra cost of 25,000.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Extra over what?
  MR. BRODRICK: Extra over the cost in Great Britain. He was taking into consideration simply the cost man for man; what, would be the cost of the establishment in South Africa as compared with troops if they were at Aldershot. He had given round figures. Of course in estimating that they must remember that even before the war we had a considerable garrison in South Africa, amounting at first to 3,000 or 4,000, and ultimately, before 1899, to 6,000 or 7,000 men. Of course the extra cost of those men must be deducted from the £1,500,000 if they wished to estimate our present increased expenditure. But in addition to that, and in addition to the fact that the scheme of 1901 contemplated 15,000 men in South Africa, they were not unhopeful that they might obtain some assistance in this matter. If a considerable body of troops was held in South Africa, in a good climate, to avoid the extra expenditure of keeping them constantly standing idle in India, in a worse climate, he thought they might fairly ask some contribution from India [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh, oh"] towards the extra cost of maintenance in South Africa, where they were available in case of emergency, as compared with their maintenance in this country, where they were less available.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANasked whether the force in India would be reduced.
  MR. BRODRICK: No. It had been recognised, as the right hon. Gentleman well knew, for years past that in case of emergency it would be necessary to reinforce India from this country. They were taking a timely step in a manner which they thought would cost least and would be of the greatest advantage to the Empire, by placing us in a position to meet an emergency if it arose.
  MR. BUCHANANasked whether the Government of India had been consulted.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid that communications were passing with the Government of India, and the hon. Member would understand that he had not given any pledge in the matter. What he had stated was that they considered themselves entitled to ask the Government of India for some contribution in regard to the men kept in South Africa especially for Indian service in case of emergency.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEasked whether under these circumstances these troops would be on the home establishment.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid he was coming to that. There was the question of the colonies themselves, and he thought that nobody could doubt that the maintenance of so considerable a force in South Africa would be of the greatest material benefit to South Africa itself. A force so kept for Imperial service, with the large expenditure incidental to the maintenance of any force anywhere, would naturally contribute considerably to the prosperity of these colonies, and, again, that was a matter which must be considered in regard to the extra expenditure which was incurred, and it would no doubt be the subject of consideration by those concerned.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Six shillings a day!
  MR. DILLONasked whether the colonies were to subscribe.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid there was no part of the United Kingdom, not excluding that part which the hon. Member so ably represented, which had not raised a difficulty over the withdrawal of a single corps quartered in its neighbourhood. Everybody knew that the presence of a body of troops in any neighbourhood was held by those most immediately concerned to be greatly to the advantage of the neighbourhood. With regard to the question of home or foreign establishments, that was a point which they had carefully reviewed. He noted that the right hon. Gentleman opposite looked to a day when the whole system of the Army might be changed;

  913
  he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman might be at the War Office, and not himself, when that was attempted; he fancied the right hon. Gentleman would find that it was not quite so easy a thing to adapt to all the requirements of the British Army any new system. The right hon. Gentleman opposite, who had had experience, knew that the abuse levied on successive Secretaries of State for War for the imperfections of their system might be disregarded because it was hereditary. But in this matter they did not wish to attempt to impose any hide-bound retention of old ideas or of a east-iron system; they recognised that South Africa had differences as compared with other stations abroad in which troops were quartered. Something-had been said about health statistics. It was quite true, as the right hon. Gentleman had said, that there had been a great deal of enteric in South Africa, and that in some stations it had ranged up to thirty-eight, thirty-five, thirty-four, and thirty-one per 1,000, while in India it had ranged up to twenty-three, in Egypt twenty-three, and in the Mauritius seventeen per 1,000, and so on. But of course the sanitary position in South Africa had not been that of a permanent force kept in barracks, and they had every reason to believe that the sanitary condition in the cantonments would be very different when the arrangements were completed. It was admitted that apart from the number who did contract disease, the development of the young soldier in South Africa was very marked. Therefore he thought they were entitled to regard our regiments in South Africa from a different standpoint from those which were either locked up in coaling stations in tropical climates or which were doing service in India, where they were bound to be over twenty years of age. They proposed, therefore, to treat the fourteen battalions of the Line placed in South Africa on the principle of sending to them, as soon as they were trained, recruits from the depôts, and in so doing he by no means excluded the idea of large depôts in tins country. His objection had always been to small depôts. They proposed, therefore, to treat them as neither sending drafts to other regiments nor as receiving drafts from other regiments. They would be in a climate in which, as at home, they could receive
  914
  their recruits very soon, or as soon as they were sufficiently trained. He was afraid that time did not admit of working out exactly the system under which the thing would be done, but that was the general view they had.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid there was one very material point. Would those troops which would be earmarked for India be troops which could be sent to India without receiving reserves, and, if so, on what system?
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLurged his right hon. friend to say whether he proposed to reduce the strength of the battalions at home by the fourteen battalions which would be in South Africa. Otherwise they would be merely increasing the expense and burden of the Army without any corresponding reduction.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid that the ingenuity of his critics prompted them to put questions which he was just about to answer. With regard to what the right hon. Gentleman said, the South African regiments would be maintained at a higher strength than the home establishment, and those required for India would go at a lower strength. They would have a sufficient number of picked men to go with them. In sending troops to India in case of emergency they had got to consider not what troops they were wanting to employ on the North-West Frontier, but what troops they required to replace the garrisons in the plain from which the troops at the front had been withdrawn. It was not necessary, there fore, that the troops which were sent should be at the highest possible strength and immediately fit for the field.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid his question was as to the bearing of the proposal on the reserves at home.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid the position of Line battalions would be this; there were 156 Line battalions altogether, and fourteen would be in South Africa. Out of the 142 remaining seventy-one or seventy-two would be abroad and the remainder at home; the former would have their links at home. It was unlikely that there would be any room for that considerable reduction for which his

  915
  hon. friend looked in order to reduce our fighting strength by ten, twelve, or fifteen battalions. The position would be that South Africa stood by itself, and the remaining battalions abroad would be supported by the links at home. With regard to cavalry he did not think he need say anything, except that their equilibrium would be maintained; there would be fourteen regiments abroad and fourteen at home. He commended this scheme to the careful consideration of the Committee. They had this advantage, among others—that the huts they were erecting in South Africa would not render unnecessary barracks already constructed at home. They would have to ask the House under the Works Loan Bill for a sum which was required to complete these huts in South Africa. These huts would, in any case, be required for the temporary garrison and pro tanto the erection of huts in South Africa was not so expensive as the erection of barracks at home. It only remained for him to say one word with regard to the popularity of the South African service. It was very difficult to give a judgment on that point at present. The conditions hitherto had been very unfavourable. It had been impossible, from the circumstances of the case, to make the soldier as comfortable in the past as he would be in the future. They were making great efforts as regarded expenditure, both in recreation and housing, to improve the conditions. Extra rations were given in South Africa and extra colonial pay was given to the officers, and it might be necessary to ask the Committee to increase these items.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNER: Are they included in the £1,500,000?
  MR. BRODRICKsaid he had taken a liberal allowance under the present expenditure in case they should require to spend more. All the questions he had referred to must be considered. They could only lay down a standard which they believed it was necessary to maintain at the present time. There were many subjects for future consideration. Whether recruiting suffered materially owing to any particular decision, whether engagements were
  916
  reluctantly made or not, whether there should be a large number of troops at a particular station, were all subjects which must come before the War Office, but so far as they could see, in adopting the plan he had sketched, they were taking not only the wisest solution of the present situation but also making a permanent contribution towards the ability of the Empire to meet the claims made upon it. He had endeavoured to make it clear that they had to approach the whole subject without any prejudice and with no undue regard for existing arrangements; but, generally speaking, the proposals they made would work in entirely with the arrangements made for the organisation of the home Army.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid he had never listened to a more interesting statement than that made by the right hon. Gentleman; but he thought that hon. Members on both sides of the House would wish to know a good deal more about the scheme and to see how the figures looked when put on paper before they expressed any settled conviction or committed themselves to a definite opinion. The right hon. Gentleman's statement was, he thought, more interesting, if it were not more important, from a psychological point of view than it was from the point of view of its matter. He had never heard a more interesting development of opinion. It seemed completely analogous to another development which was, or had been, going on under their eyes in this country on another question. A statesman or a Minister started with an opinion. He was a strong advocate of this theory or of that, but he had a colleague who was not, and in order to ascertain which was to prevail an inquiry was instituted, and the result was that probably some hideous compromise was effected which would have all the evils of both theories. The right hon. Gentleman had himself opposed this policy of keeping troops in South Africa. In introducing the Estimates he made what was to his mind a most convincing exposition of the objections to that course. The right hon. Gentleman had even repeated some of them that day. For instance, there was the cost. The extra cost was to be £1,500,000 a year. When the country was gasping for a

  917
  reduction in military expenditure, the first thing that was done was to add £1,500,000 to the expenditure by this South African hocus pocus. Then there was the misleading character of the climate of the country, the misleading idea of the sort of lessons that might be drawn by our commanders and our troops as applicable to other climates, other countries and other conditions. There was a certain question of health, the question of popularity, whether the troops would contemplate with any great satisfaction the prospect of being quartered in South Africa instead of in Yorkshire or Devonshire. Then there was another question, to which the right hon. Gentleman had not referred. The moving influence which had altered the right hon. Gentleman's opinion was the North-West Frontier of India. What a useful thing the North-West Frontier of India was! These troops were to be kept in South Africa in order to furnish the rapid reinforcements that might be required when the North-West Frontier was attacked. The same reason was given for the adoption of the Army Corps system, although he could not see what the one thing had to do with the other. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman one question. How were they to be conveyed from South Africa to India when they were required?
  MR. BRODRICK: I will answer that question at once. We have satisfied ourselves that between South Africa and India transports will be practically immediately available.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: More easily available than in this country? He would like to see the proof of that before he formed an opinion. But in the meantime these troops were to be maintained in South Africa at an extra cost to some one of £1,500,000. The right hon. Gentleman calmly suggested that India should pay a portion of this. He had had a pretty long experience of this question of India and Imperial expenditure. In the old days we were always able to meet India on this ground—"You have nothing to complain of. We have to keep up a large Army for the purpose of garrisoning India, but, when you are in any considerable
  918
  danger or emergency, you can call on the whole forces of the British Empire, and therefore the bargain is a good one for you, and you should not complain if the force we find you is rather expensive." But what had we been doing of late years? We had not been maintaining a reservoir of troops for India, but India had been made a reservoir for our purposes. The shoe had been on the other foot. We had drawn on India for any service. When hard up for a battalion we went to India, and therefore he said the old argument, which he used to think a very good one, was gone, because now there was a complete partnership in that respect.
  MR. BRODRICK: There is one point which the right hon. Gentleman has not taken into consideration in connection with this matter. This country keeps a Reserve now of 65,000 men, which will in two or three years amount to 100,000 men, towards which India does not contribute a farthing. Yet every man of them is required to go to India in case of emergency.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid he was arguing on the present state of things as between India and this country. He was only pointing out that the argument by which the particular adjustment used to be defended by the War Office and the Treasury was no longer an argument that could be used against India. There was but one quarter of the world which came with advantage out of this proposal, and that was South Africa. The hon. Gentleman had very candidly stated that the maintenance of this large body of troops in the South African Colonies would no doubt cause a great expenditure of money there, and be of great benefit to the population. Any one could see that. Though he was very glad to see any good thing happen to the South African Colonies, he did not think that ought to be an element in the matter, and he was a little afraid it might have turned the scale in judging the expediency of the course which had been adopted, to know that it would have a beneficial effect and be popular in the South African Colonies.

  919
  He began by saying they could not pronounce a definite opinion on a proposal of this sort until they had the facts and figures clearly before them. It was a new idea to maintain a mongrel force in South Africa, not the same as an ordinary colonial garrison, and not the same as the ordinary force at home, but something between the two. He did not exactly understand what was meant by a British regiment being definitely assigned to Indian service, as contrasted with other regiments; but he thought it was a very serious departure from the principle followed with great advantage for many years, of keeping our troops in the main at home and of keeping no more abroad than was necessary for the peace garrisons of coaling stations and other places where a garrison was required. This was a great new departure, and it ought to be looked on with the gravest apprehension and hesitation by those who really wished to see the Army, he would not say kept on an economical footing, but reduced to a more economical footing than it was at present.
  The right hon. Gentleman's speech had so completely absorbed all other subjects that he should only say a word or two about some observations which were made by his lion, friend who opened the debate and which were resented in some quarters because they introduced the names of individual officers. He did not understand his lion, friend to make any accusation against any of those individual officers, or deny that they were distinguished and excellent officers. His hon. friend merely brought forward in the House what everyone had been saying in the street outside, that there had been a tendency to promote a certain class of officers to high command at the expense of others. He had heard the same thing again and again before, and he thought that so far from being resented as a slur upon the high officer and distinguished soldier to whom naturally those criticisms went home, he thought it was only most natural that that officer should unavoidably have a habit of employing officers whom he had tried himself, and whose excellence and efficiency he was thoroughly acquainted with. He remembered the time when they heard of nothing in Army circles but the Ashanti ring.
  920
  It was all Lord Wolseley's friends, and if an officer was not a friend of Lord Wolseley he never could have a look in. If there was a new war in any quarter of the world it was always the old gang who went out. What was the reason of it? It was because they had been tried and found to be efficient officers. But it was a thing to be avoided. He had spoken of it as a natural, and in that sense a harmless, tendency on the part of anyone, but it was a very injurious thing for the Army when that sort of idea got into the minds of men, and therefore he hoped that even the moderate words of his hon. friend, and the fact that what had been bruited about in the country had been heard in that House might not be without some effect in causing even greater care and discretion to be used in selecting officers for those high places upon the efficiency of which so much depended.
  *MR. BECKETTsaid he thought the discussion would show that the great interest taken in Army Organisation was not obscured by another question which had been recently raised. He had heard the statement of his right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War with very great satisfaction, though he could not say with altogether unmixed satisfaction. He was glad the right hon. Gentleman had quite abandoned his non possumus attitude and had to some extent listened to their persuasions. He was like the lady written about by the poet who—
  "Whispering I'll ne'er consent, consented."
  The right hon. Gentleman was moving, slowly and reluctantly, but along the right path, and he trusted that before very long he would make further advances and end by being the greatest reformer of them all. At the same time he thought the concessions the right hon. Gentleman had made were somewhat open to the charge mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition—viz., that they were in the nature of a compromise combining the disadvantages of two conflicting policies. He thought the Secretary of State for War would have done better if, while accepting part of the views of his critics, he had made up his mind to swallow them altogether. The right hon. Gentleman had charged them in the only note of passion which arose in his

  921
  speech and which was rather reminiscent of earlier debates, with the folly and absurdity of attempting to remodel the Army system, and yet he had himself taken over what was supposed to be the climax and coping-stone of their foolish and absurd proposals—viz., that these divisions should be permanently located in South Africa. He had adopted the recommendation that an Army Corps should be established in South Africa; so far, so good, but then came the question: under what conditions was it to be located in South Africa? He was not going to argue the question for or against, because his right hon. friend was convinced that on the whole the advantages outweighed the disadvantages. As to the question of cost he was told that there would be an increase of £1,500,000. Certainly he should view such an increase with nothing but repugnance, and any proposal of that kind that came from the Government for increasing the Army Estimates by £1,500,000 for any purpose whatever would meet with strenuous opposition, lint, while the right hon. Gentleman had adopted this part of their scheme, he had omitted the other part of it, which was the more essential part of the two. What they proposed was that he should establish three divisions in South Africa, reckoning those three divisions as part of the home establishment, and striking off the home establishment the corresponding number of troops. Therefore if 25,000 men were to be located in South Africa, a like number ought to be struck off the home establishment in England. When he reckoned the cost it would stand in this way. If 25,000 were struck off the home establishment, reckoning the cost at £110 per man, which he believed was the approximate amount, there would be a saving of at least £2,000,000. Setting that saving against the extra cost of £1,500,000 there would be a balance in favour of this country of £500,000, and, therefore, this question of increased cost would cease to trouble the ratepayers, or those who wished to see the Army run on more economic lines. He thought personally that it would be an undoubted advantage to India to have these 25,000 men in South Africa, and he believed that was the opinion of the military authorities in India. He was also glad that the right hon. Gentleman had come
  922
  round to the opinion that the question of transport did not offer any insuperable obstacle, but undoubtedly the question of cost would have to be considered. He believed that his right hon. friend refused to adopt the proposal to diminish the Army by fourteen battalions at home, simply because he saw, as other people saw, it would knock the bottom out of his Army Corps scheme. The right hon. Gentleman stuck to his Army Corps system with pathetic affection but he ventured to think that such was the criticism levelled against it that it would not long survive his right hon. friend's term of office. If he would reduce the Army Corps by fourteen battalions he could then establish the natural territorial arrangements of the Army in this country in which the Regulars and Auxiliaries were massed in certain districts and were organised in divisions, a division being an appropriate unit for the distribution of the British Army.
  He welcomed the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman to abandon the linked battalion system and to establish large depôts in their place. He had been asked whether the recruits were to be ear-marked for South Africa, and whether there would be special depôts for sending them out to that country. He admitted that the question of recruits was an awkward one. Some recruits might be ready to go to South Africa. He had been told by officers who understood recruiting extremely well that most recruits did not care a straw where they went, and that they would as soon go to South Africa as to Salisbury Plain. They could only judge by results. Another point was that if they reduced the home establishment by these battalions they would be able to reduce the recruits by a corresponding amount, and as they reduced the amount, so they would improve the quality and standard of the recruits. The difficulty of recruiting had arisen from the fact that they were demanding more recruits than the country was able to supply. The normal number of recruits formerly required was 35,000, but his right hon. friend asked for 50,000, and in order to get the men he had to raise the pay and reduce the term of service. If he would still further raise the rate of pay and reduce the term of

  923
  service, he would get 100,000, but the question was what sort of recruits would he get. The right hon Gentleman had told them that he was satisfied with the recruits that were coming in this year. He himself had been told by an officer that he was not at all satisfied with the character of the recruits that came in, but Returns showed that the height of recruits was continually diminishing and that the standard of physique was continually deteriorating. He did not know what magic there was in the scheme of his right hon. friend, by which he could add inches to the height and chest measurement of recruits. On re-enlistment at the completion of his two years term of service, a soldier, if he extended the term would get 6d. per day extra. It was very likely that they would get men who would extend the term of service at the end of the second year, but at the end of the third year they might be quite incapable of going abroad or to India. Was there a sufficient number of men who applied to be taken on for extended service, because, if not, the whole system would break down.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid he did not think his hon. friend was in the House when he touched on that point, and stated that they could not judge of that until 1904, because the recruits only joined in 1902.
  *MR. BECKETTsaid he wished to ask two questions with regard to the internal organisation of the War Office. They were told that various reforms had been carried out in pursuance of the recommendations of the Committee. One of those recommendations, he understood, did not work well, and that was the substitution of military for civilian clerks. He was given to understand that there was a considerable amount of friction in the War Office, because of the employment of military clerks in work for which they were totally unfitted; and he was told that the correspondence, instead of decreasing had vastly increased. Then he was given to understand that not much had been done in the way of decentralisation. Commanding officers were not given any greater discretionary powers than before; and they had to apply to the War Office precisely as often as in
  924
  the days gone by, and they were not allowed discretion in spending even the smallest amount of money. In fact, the recommendations which were the foundation of the scheme of decentralisation, had not been carried out.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid it was understood that tin1 foundation of the proposals of the Government in regard to the Army was that we should have 120,000 men ready to send abroad; and the Prime Minister when he was questioned as to the reason why so many men were required indicated that it was for the defence of the Indian frontier. That afternoon they had been, told by the right hon. Gentleman that, in addition, 130,000 were necessary in depôts for home defence, and now there were to be fourteen battalions in South Africa on special service.
  MR. BRODRICK: No, the fourteen battalions are to be in South Africa instead of being kept at home.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: Then there will be less than 130,000 kept at home?
  MR. BRODRICK: The men who are in South Africa would have been otherwise at home. There is no alteration in the total number of 130,000.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid he had not assumed that 130,000 were unnecessary. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman opposite in supporting the addition which had been made to the South African garrison, because he believed that the troops were better placed there than they would be at home. On the other hand, it added £1,500,000 to the cost of the Army. The introduction of new railways would probably reduce the cost of living, and that would reduce the £1,500,000 also. He regretted very much that a proportion of this additional cost, amounting to £700,000 had been put on India without the Government of India having been consulted, and against their protests. He hoped that a halt would be called—after serious consideration between the War Office and the Indian Government—in imposing on India some of these doubtful forms of expenditure. As to the

  925
  point mentioned by the hon. Member opposite regarding the unreality of the devolution given to the Army Corps, he had had the same complaints made from all and sundry quarters. He saw the other day a statement that it would be three or four years yet before the new War Office premises were ready for occupation. If it were finished a good board-room might be set apart where a War Office Committee could sit and make proper arrangements for devolution, which had not yet been given, although promised, to the Army Corps commanders. He would be the last to suggest that the appointments to the higher posts in the Army had not been well disposed; but sufficient initiative had not been entrusted to the great men to whom these appointments had been given. Unless much greater initiative were granted to these officers economy would not be attained. Reference had been made to Salisbury and Aldershot. He believed that the policy pursued at Salisbury was likely to be a complete success, but he was very doubtful regarding Aldershot. The whole available ground for the exercise of the troops was being so much built upon that there would be little land loft on which to manœuvre large bodies of men, and the result would be that millions of money would have been spent in vain. He most earnestly repeated that devolution should be made real, and that the general officers in command in these great encampments should be entrusted with adequate authority to take the initiative. He should like to hear that an addition had been made to the staff of the Intelligence Department, and that the question of quick-firing guns had been properly dealt with. He looked with alarm on all the additional sources of expenditure mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War.
  SIR FREDERIC RASCHsaid he wanted to say half a dozen words with reference to the recent parade at Aldershot. He could not help thinking that with an expenditure of £31,000,000 the War Office authorities could have provided a better parade than was shown on that occasion and subjected to foreign
  926
  criticism. After all, 16,000 men did not make an Army Corps; nor were the men paraded, especially the Infantry battalions, fair specimens of the average British soldier of the Line. He could not understand why recruits enlisted within the last six months had been put on the ground. No doubt the War Office had got a better class of recruits since the issue of the last new regulations. One could see that from personal observation, and he had it also on the highest authority that that was the case. But the right hon. Gentleman must know that some of his smaller recruits were called "Brodricks." He remembered that in the old days of the autumn manœuvres, instituted by an eminent predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman, an objectionable sausage was issued to the troops which was called the "Cardwell Sausage." He thought that if the War Office desired to have an adequate display on some future occasion, free from the criticism of foreign military experts, they could not do better than parade a couple of battalions of Guardsmen—he supposed they could get 800 men out of the four Regiments of Guards stationed in and about London—on the Horse Guards parade ground, and tell the foreigners that the paucity in the number of troops was to be accounted for by the insufficiency of the area of ground at their disposal. He did not understand the references of the Leader of the Opposition regarding expenditure. They could not make omelettes without breaking eggs. Neither could he understand Gentlemen below the gangway opposite. They appeared to desire that the troops now in South Africa should be brought home, and that their place should be taken by an Army Corps from this country which would not be replaced here. He thought hon. Members opposite had not grasped the situation. There were difficulties in the way of keeping an Army Corps in South Africa. What was a, British Army Corps? It was composed mainly of what he might call babes and sucklings, who could not be sent out of the country. Suppose an emergency arose elsewhere, 15,000 men might be sent to meet it, leaving behind 15,000 babes and sucklings to keep order in the

  927
  Transvaal and Cape Colony in the event of a rising.
  With reference to the Reserves, if they sent the Reserves out with the First Army Corps, they would not get any Reserves in the future. If the Reserves were sent out, how would they be able to get the Reserves to join the service battalions. He humbly submitted that that was not the proper course to pursue in connection with South Africa. If the North Atlantic and the Mediterranean were held to be unsafe for the transhipment of troops, surely they were equally unsafe for the transhipment of Reserves. If they had an Army Corps in South Africa it would be a local corps with different pay and allowances. The War Office ought to consider very seriously what Mr. Private Atkins thought of the matter. If he were sent to South Africa he would be expatriated, and deprived of all the amenities, male and female, he enjoyed at home. If they were to have a voluntary Army they should sugar the pill. With reference to the quick-firing guns referred to by the hon. Member for Oldham, the hon. Gentleman knew a great deal, but he did not think the hon. Gentleman knew everything. The history of the matter appeared to be this. In 1898, the German Government determined to reorganise their field and horse artillery, and they did so with Krupp guns. In 1899, the French Government, who had used quick-firing guns since 1886, also reorganised their batteries with new guns with what were technically called deformation carriages. Directly that was done, the German Government saw they were premature and again they reorganised their horse and field artillery. He did not think that the British War Office had been particularly slow in the matter. He thought the War Office was right in taking time. He did not see how it could have done otherwise unless it let the country in for very considerable expense. It was almost impossible to obtain details of the French guns. During the Chinese Expedition, the French were so jealous of their guns that they placed sentries about them, and the same applied to the manœuvres of the French Army. In this matter the right hon. Gentleman
  928
  and his Department had shown a great deal of masterly inactivity; and a considerable saving had been effected by the delay.
  MR. HARWOODsaid he rose to call attention to the way in which the War Office dealt with canteens. His excuse for raising that matter was that it was of much more importance than would be thought by those who did not understand the matter. The canteen system had a great deal to do with the physical enjoyment and the moral welfare of the soldiers. The Government, he thought, quite recognised that. He recognised that it was a difficult matter to deal with, and that the problem had not yet been satisfactorily solved. The Government acknowledged that they had been drifting in the wrong direction in this matter, and all who had studied it knew that the canteen system was going from bad to worse. They were gradually getting into the grip of the monopolists and the soldiers' welfare suffered. The Government had appointed a Committee, but he was not going to complain that the Government had not adopted its recommendations. What he did complain of was that the Government had abandoned the whole problem. They had taken their hands off the oars and they had let the boat drift on to the cataract. It would have been far better if they had not touched the matter at all, because the abuses might become far greater now. It was a thousand pities that the Government had promised to do something, and then with cowardice had abandoned the whole matter. He wanted the Committee to realise what a very important matter this was. When one heard of a canteen he was apt to think of it as a low drinking place. But it was very much more than that. It was not a place which a soldier might frequent if he chose, but a place he must frequent. It was an institution which went to the very heart of his physical welfare and his daily life. It was not merely a drinking place, but a grocery stores. It was the shop for the soldiers' wives, and in many places it was the only shop they could frequent. The soldiers' wives and families depended on these stores. It was also the refreshment house for the soldier. Reference had been made to the food supplied to the

  929
  soldiers. He thought the Committee did not quite realise that the soldier was bound to go to the canteen or to somewhere else for some of his food, because the food that was allowed him was not sufficient. The food which the Government gave the soldier was barely sufficient to enable him to continue to keep up his condition; but it was not sufficient to enable him to build up his condition from the age of eighteen. They not only wanted to keep the soldier going, but they wanted to build him up. The canteens were to the soldiers what the "tuck shops" were to the public schools. He did not want to create disaffection against the Army in the country; but the Committee would be surprised to learn that the food supplied to soldiers was lower in England and Scotland than that given to convicts and paupers. Last of all they realised that the soldier's life required to be something more than it had been in the past. They realised that they wanted a better class of men, and they could not expect to get them unless they could afford them some social amenities in the shape of clubs and places to which they could go to write letters, etc. Therefore, the canteen should be the germ of something much better than a regimental institution.
  How were these canteens managed? They were managed in two ways. There was the regimental system of management and there was the tenant system. The tenant system meant letting out the canteen to some large contractor by whom a lump sum was paid at the rate of so much per head, which amounted to £20 per 100 men per month. The profits thus derived amounted to £1,400 a year, which was more than £2 per head. By letting out these canteens to contractors the War Office gained easiness of management, business management, and a lump sum of money free from anxiety and difficulty. This temptation was too much for Army officers; it would be too much for him (Mr. Harwood) and the result bad. But more and more the canteens were being put-under the tenant system, and, if the thing went on as now, it would not be very long before practically the whole of the canteens came under the tenant system.
  930
  He wanted the Committee to face the fact that there were two enormous evils appertaining to the canteen tenant system. One was that it was practically a monopoly. This business, like all other businesses, had more and more a tendency to get into the hands of the few, and it was given in evidence before the Committee that two-thirds of the canteens under the tenant system were now in the hands of one firm, which was not to the advantage of the soldiers. He had seen a letter in the papers that day from that firm, which would probably before long have the control of all the canteens, in which they said—
  "They had no other cutlet for goods a little bit out of condition beyond the tenant canteens."
  That was a large firm which told the Committee they had a large general business. But the soldier was to be put into the position that he was to be at the mercy of a large monopolist firm which said that "the tenant canteen was the only outlet for goods which were a little out of condition." They knew what a little out of condition meant. He (Mr. Harwood) stood there on behalf of the soldier, and he said that to place a soldier in that position—first, to compel him to go to the canteen, and then to adopt a system of a firm of monopoly capitalists without competition was grossly unfair to the soldier.
  There was another thing which was more important. It was acknowledged by all the contractors who had had to do with this business that they depended for their profit on the sale of drink. They were driven to give these rebates, amounting to as much as £20 per 100 men per month, and they made it almost entirely out of the sale of the drink. They had every motive to press the sale of drink, because out of that alone could they make the reflate which they had to pay. It was grossly unfair to the Army that the soldiers should be brought into contact with such a system as that. Witness after witness before the Committee stated that young recruits were great eaters; that they learned to drink afterwards. When they took young men at an age when their characters and habits were unformed, the authorities took a moral obligation upon themselves.

  931
  They were bound to take all the precautions they could to prevent these young men being subjected to temptations which they themselves would not allow their own children to undergo. What had the Government done in this matter? He admitted they had many good intentions which, however, he feared only went to pave that road they were all told to avoid. He feared the Secretary of State was not the Hercules to clean this Augean stable, because in the Army Order issued in June this year, although be said the administration or the canteens should be delegated to officers commanding the Army Corps, he further stated that they might be conducted either on the regimental or tenant principle. What an absurdity it was to give a choice of these two systems when everyone knew what the result would be. Except an officer had a passion to become an amateur grocer he would not undertake a job of this kind. They would hand it over to a tenant who would guarantee a lump sum. They would hand it over to the tenant monopolist. They would retain no command at all except over the rebate. The soldiers might very well ask what became of that sum of money, which amounted to over £250,000 a year. Some of the older officers had pointed out what might be done with it. Lord Roberts in India, and Lord Kitchener in Egypt, had both set an example. Both those officers gave evidence before the Committee that the buildings of the canteens were a disgrace and that no one could expect civilised soldiers to go to such places, and that they ought to be put into good order. Here they had a great fund for that purpose, and both those officers recommended that it should be used for the purpose of rebuilding the canteens. But the War Office said—"Oh no, you must not do that."
  He appealed to the Government to have some courage in this matter if they bad none in any other. He appealed to them to regard the possibilities. The tenant system was the system in the Army up to 1856, when those who knew what occurred pointed out that the soldiers were not treated fairly, and this House gave up £26,000 a year canteen pay on the condition that
  932
  the tenant system should not be longer tolerated on account of its evils. The Government now pocketed the £26,000 a year and allowed the tenant system to continue. The right hon. Gentleman must not disguise from himself this fact—that what he was going to do by this Army Order was to put all the canteens into the hands of one firm, the name of which was well known to the right hon. Gentleman. No doubt there would be nominal contractors, but it would be a syndicate and under that syndicate the private soldier would be robbed and demoralised. That was the natural conclusion arrived at from the facts. He was not a tee-totaller and would give every facility to the men to get what they wanted so long as it was not abused. But the Committee had a great obligation to see that these men were surrounded with as good conditions as possible for the benefit of their moral and physical welfare. When spoken to by parents who desired their sons to enter the Army he, and be had no doubt other hon. Members had done the same, had been obliged to advise them not to subject their sons to these temptations. He wanted to see the Army like the army of Rome in its best days, an honorable career to which fathers and mothers were proud to send their sons. But that could not be so until the canteen system was put on a proper basis; until the Army was purified from the temptation of drink and the temptation of immorality.
  *MR. LLEWELLYNdid not know the source from which the hon. Member for Bolton derived his information, but, going by his own experience, he thought the picture drawn by the hon. Member was very wide of the fact. The system referred to, if not carefully watched, was undoubtedly open to abuse. But it was most carefully watched, and he believed that in every regiment where a choice could be made between a regimental canteen and one provided by a contractor, the commanding officer would be only too glad to have his own canteen. The life of a soldier was very different now compared with a few years back. There were many places other than the canteen in which the soldiers could get their enjoyment—institutes, reading-rooms,

  933
  and so forth, to all of which the men had access, and of which they readily availed themselves. Another matter to which he desired to refer was the obligation recently imposed upon recruits to produce a written character. Nobody wanted bad characters in the Army; they upset the regiments and everybody who had to do with them; but at the sametime, if this rule were rigidly adhered to the country would lose the services of many good young fellows who would make excellent soldiers. He understood that the rule was not working altogether satisfactorily. Many well-behaved young fellows lost their character for the moment by a slight slip or a small offence, but under this regulation they had all to be rejected if they endeavoured to enlist. By all means let really bad characters be kept out of the Army, but let the matter be done in a practical and not a sentiment way.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLdesired to call attention to a matter affecting the morale of the whole Army. He did not intend to refer to the system of "ragging" generally, but to one particular case which was more serious than the ordinary instances with which the Committee were familiar, inasmuch as the victim was not a brother officer, but a civilian. The Cape "ragging" case, to which he referred, had been condemned by every independent journal in the Empire. Even such papers as The Timer; and the Daily Telegraph had to take refuge in silence; the case was too strong for them to attempt any defence. He would bring the matter to issue by basing his observations on a reply given by the Secretary of State for War immediately after the verdict in the case, viz.:—
  "No further action will be taken by the War Office in respect to these officers; they have been tried and acquitted on the charges advanced by Mr. Stanford subsequently to the verdict of the civil Court, and it would not be in accordance with justice or precedent to go back on other charges for which compensation has been paid in a civil Court, and since which the officers have been re-employed in the field."
  He desired to traverse all the statements contained in that reply. What were the admissions made by these officers?—That Mr. Stanford was a man
  934
  with whom they had been on terms of social intimacy; that this "ragging" incident was not a freak undertaken on the spur of the moment, but a deliberate action; that Mr. Stanford was stripped to his shirt; that he was placed on a table in a public room and photographed in a degrading position to make him look ridiculous; that he was taken out in public view and ducked in a fountain; that they cut off part of his hair and moustache; that he was rapped with a cane until he signed a document exonerating the officers; that two of the officers gave to their commanding officer false accounts of the transaction; and that they instructed their solicitor to inform Mr. Stanford's solicitor that the whole affair was a farce which nobody enjoyed more than Stanford himself, and that providentially they had this document which exonerated them. Yet, after that, they submitted to a verdict of £1,500 against them and £2,000 costs rather than have the matter brought into Court. Those facts were all taken practically from their very words in the witness box.
  There was another thing that would appeal to even man who possessed a spark of manly feeling. Stanford said it was a cowardly thing for ten men to set on one, and he offered to fight any three of them, and he protested against the outrage. Much obloquy had been cast upon the gentle-men who formed the Court-martial, but he did not think it was sound because they found that the graver charges were not proved. He had looked into the matter most carefully, because he entertained some doubt as to whether this was a proper question to bring forward, and he might say that he had consulted several authorities on constitutional evidence, and they had told him that since the time of Mr. Cardwell the War Minister was directly responsible to the House for all acts of discipline. Therefore, Lord Roberts must consider whether these men, who had no respect for themselves or their profession, who had acted with calculated rowdyism and deliberate brutality to a poor, defenceless man, who lied to their superior officer, should; retain the commission of the King and

  935
  still be regarded as officers of the Army. Lord Roberts must consider whether the admissions made by these gentlemen were compatible with the character of British officers, and whether there ought to be such a wide contrast between military and civilian standard of behaviour. The honour of the Army was the honour of the nation at large, and discredit upon the Army was a reflection upon the character of the nation to which that Army belonged. Mr. Gill, the counsel for these men, argued to get them the benefit of the doubt upon the charge of indecency. He said that Stanford might have been subjected to a mock Court martial, roughly handled, assaulted, put into the fountain, but all those matters would not justify the Court-martial in bringing home the charge of indecency to the prisoners. That might be so, but those facts would justify Lord Roberts in saying that if the British Army was to consist of men of honour those men should not stay in it. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman dealt with him quite fairly or courteously in regard to the Question he put that afternoon. On the eve of this Court-martial when these gentlemen were under arrest they gave their word of honour not to appear in public places, but nevertheless two of them appeared at Ascot on the eve of the Court-martial. The right hon. Gentleman said the Commander-in-Chief had taken disciplinary action in the matter, but he declined to give the names of the officers concerned. One of those officers was Captain Williams, who presided over the mock Court martial in Cape Town. What disciplinary action had been placed upon him who, he believed, was one of those who went to Ascot contrary to the King's regulations. Only in yesterday's Gazette he noticed that Captain Williams was promoted to be a major.
  MR. BRODRICK: The hon. Member is mistaken about Captain Williams being at Ascot.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLasked why the right hon. Gentleman had not told him so at once. He wished to know if he was mistaken in regard to the Captain Williams whose name appeared
  936
  in the Gazette as having been promoted. He took it that that was true. Therefore this officer did not care much about disciplinary action. Captain Williams was rather worse than the others. He had not the excuse of youth, for he was thirty-five years of age. He instituted the Court-martial, presided over it, and took the photograph. [A laugh.] He did not think such brutality was a matter for laughter. [Renewed MINISTERIAL laughter.] This question ought not to be a laughing matter, and he was quite serious. He should like to know how any hon. Member would like ten men to set upon him. The Major Williams who had just been promoted to be a field officer was the gentleman who drew up the paper that Stanford signed, and which it was said he signed voluntarily. It was tins officer who said that in order to overcome Stanford's objection to signing the document that half his moustache was cut off. Counsel put to this officer the following questions—
  "You have said that drink was not forced down Stanford's throat in order to revive him. As a matter of fact was smoke blown up his nose?—Possibly smoke was blown in his face.
  "For the purpose of insulting him?—Yes.
  "Was he before this paper was signed beaten with a stick?—Not beaten. I saw him rapped with a cane.
  "You said in your statement to the commanding officer, 'he was not beaten or any violence used. He signed this paper voluntarily, and he was told that he might go when he had done so?'—He was not beaten with a stick. He was rapped with a cane, but in no sense hurt.
  "Is that what you call signing a paper voluntarily?—Perhaps I ought not to have used the expression. His hands were not guided. My object was to show the Secretary of State that Stanford was not speaking the truth."
  Then came Captain Hayes, of the 3rd Dragoon Guards, who was cross-examined, and said—
  "He knew Mr. Barclay, of Johannesburg. That gentleman was present at the mock Court-martial as a spectator. Before Stanford signed the paper which had been put in, he was not subjected to various acts of violence, but half his moustache was cut off, as well as patches of hair from his head. The witness did not see him rapped with a cane."
  In reply to the letter from Stanford's solicitors claiming damages this witness's solicitor wrote that the whole affair was a bit of fun in which none joined more heartily than Mr. Stanford, who as a further proof of his concurrence joined in

  937
  the signing of the verdict of the sham Court-martial. This document was afterwards found on the floor and brought forward as Stanford's confession. In the light of the evidence which came out at the Court-martial the ordinary "hooligans" became respectable people.
  He did not know any of these men, and he had no personal feeling whatever with reference to them. He thought Lieutenant Prior by his conduct had placed himself out of Court. The hon. Member trusted that after such acts as that officer was proved to have done, no Court-martial of honourable men in this country would ever give back his sword to any officer when they could not give him back his honour.
  Ho sometimes thought there was a public opinion in the House of Commons somewhat different from the public opinion outside, and he desired to remind hon. Members of the comments which had been made on the subject of these disclosures in the Press. In one journal the suggestion was made that the charge was so drawn that the accused officers might be acquitted. He would quote certain journals which were not particularly favourable to his colleagues, and which had treated him with no great courtesy. Here was what the World said—
  "The Court-martial at Wellington Baracks throws disagreeable light upon the character of the men who may possibly at no distant time hold high posts in the Army. The powers of favouritism and of social influence which have placed them where they are, will probably help them to rise over the heads of men who have no other qualifications than those of brains, of industry, of love of their profession. The seven men who have been acquitted, though by a nice and significant distinction not 'honourably' acquitted according to the usual phraseology, of conduct unbecoming officers and gentlemen, will go back to their respective regiments. How will they be received there by their comrades? As heroes emerging from unmerited obloquy, or as culprits who have got off more easily than could have been expected? What will be their influence over the noncommissioned officers and men? Lord Kitchener has been obliged to promulgate an order denouncing the conduct of soldiers in India who maltreat natives, which be requires to be read periodically before the men by their officers. Tie deterioration of the manners of the rank and file probably but reflects that of too many officers."
  That was the testimony of a Conservative Journal. He would read two letters
  938
  which had appeared in the Daily Mail. In a letter signed "Civilis" the writer said—
  "When Lieutenant-Colonel Kinloch was cashiered for permitting 'ragging' Mr. Brodrick established for the War Office: he principle of condemning a man out of his own mouth without trial. Why should that principle not be put in force all round? Is tae verdict of the 'mock Court-martial' which acquitted them to be regarded as of more value than their own confessions on oath? We are periodically shocked at the ruffianly conduct of German officers towards civilians. If Mr. Brodrick brands these 'raggers' as gentlemen and retains them as officers, what protection can civilians expect against cads in uniform? What would have been their fate think you at any Police Court in London?"
  In the other letter this was what an "Australian officer "said—
  "Not the least scandalous fact in connection with the 'ragging' Court-martial is that the indictment was so drawn by the War Office as to render an acquittal certain. It would be interesting to know who was responsible for the preparation of the papers, and how it came about that, as I am informed was the case, insufficient time was given to the Treasury to go into the case. As a Colonial, I deeply deplore the effect which this disastrous verdict is likely to have in the colonies. The Australian papers have for months been full of jibes against the British Army and the manner in which justice is administered in it. This affair will add fuel to the flames of resentment and deepen the bitterness against the British officer. Lt is cruel injustice to the thousands of upright and hard-working officers in our Army to find the conduct of such men as the seven prisoners in the 'ragging' scandal placidly approved by a Court of officers."
  On 1st July the Daily Mail contained the following paragraph—
  "Four Hampshire yokels were charged at Winchester Assizes yesterday with an offence which the defending counsel observed would hi other circles he described 'ragging,' an explanation which was received with laughter from the public and from the Junior Bar, which included Mr. Brodrick, a relative of the War Minister. The 'ragging' aspect of the case was heightened by the presence of a number of other yokels at the time of the attack. It appears that a married man went courting a girl in another village and the villagers, apparently inspired by military examples, decided to execute the punishment they thought fit upon the social offender. They waited until he had bidden the young-woman 'good-night,' and then caught him outside the village, knocked him down, dragged him along the road for a hundred yards, threw him into a ditch (where one of them jumped upon him) and then pulled him out and threw him like a bundle over a hedge. The four prisoners pleaded guilty to assault, and Mr. Justice Laurence, observing that the worst feature was that several of them set upon

  939
  one man at the same time, sent the two elder, aged twenty-six, to prison for six weeks, and the two younger, aged nineteen, for a month."
  The Army and Navy Gazette said—
  "To the practised mind the verdict falls short of full acquittal. The Court is satisfied that the prisoners were not guilty of the charges preferred, and so certified their opinion that they guardedly and significantly abstained from using the well-known expression 'and do honourably acquit them of the same.' This is very much what obtains in the Scottish Courts when a verdict of 'not proven' is given, and with the same somewhat lame conclusion the seven incriminated officers must rest satisfied."
  The Broad Arrow spoke still more strongly on the subject.
  He asked the Secretary of State for War a Question a few days ago with reference to the imprisonment of a Boer officer at Trichinopoly. The right hon. Gentleman was not there, but his substitute gave an answer in that breezy manner which always suggested "On Stanley, on!" that this man had been imprisoned for fifteen months with hard labour for complicity in disturbance among the prisoners of war in camp. As the Committee knew this matter was brought, or rather came, before the civil Courts. Mr. Stanford issued writs against these gentlemen who, did all in their power to avoid service of the writs. An effort was made not to allow evidence to be taken on commission, and a motion was made by Mr. Schreiner, a former Premier of the Colony, that a commission to ascertain evidence should be issued. One witness swore that the defendants had boasted to him that the trial would never come off, because martial law was supreme, and that Lord Kitchener would never let it come into the Supreme Court, and that they would snap their fingers at the Supreme Court. Colonel Cooper's evidence was that he himself was staying at the Nelson Hotel, which was his usual residence; that he was military governor of the Cape Town district, and that he had everyone in his power. He said that the night after the dance he had been informed that Stanford had been ducked in the fountain. He made inquiries and found that no complaint had been made to the police about the matter. Then on cross-examination Colonel Cooper said that he did not report the matter officially. He
  940
  left Cape Town on the 11th April, and no papers had been forwarded to him with reference to the case. He had seen a notice of the proceedings in the public press. On 9th November he reported the farts to the authorities. In that report Colonel Cooper said that he thought Stanford had probably brought on himself whatever treatment he had received. The commanding officer desired to hush up the conduct of these young men to Stanford. How was that to promote good feeling between the colonists and the mother country? These occurrences took place between 11 o'clock on Christmas eve and 6 o'clock on Christmas morning.
  Now while this orgie was going on in Cape Town, and these atrocities were being committed by these officers, nearly all of whom had been mentioned in despatches, what was going on in the Transvaal? At two o'clock on Christmas morning a Yeomanry camp of four companies on a high kopje at Treifontein was successfully rushed by De Wet with an overwhelming force. Six officers (including Major Williams in temporary command) and fifty men were killed and about the same number wounded, and about 200 British prisoners were taken, but some returned. What a contrast between the shame of the orgie at Cape Town and the heroism of the kopje! It could not have existed in any administration except that of the right hon. Gentleman—an administration which had been one tornado of scandals and blunders. The editor of the Broad Arrow began a leading article by saying
  "It is idle to suppose that a scandal which was common talk at the Cape was a hidden mystery to the authorities at Pall Mall."
  The head of the War Office did not wish to know anything about it. Having obtained information from a gentleman whose name if mentioned would, from his antecedents, command the highest respect, he on the 6th of August, 1902, asked the right hon. Gentleman if he would make further inquiry and offered to give him fuller details. What was the right hon. Gentleman laughing at? The right hon. Gentleman ought to be very much ashamed of himself. This was not a matter for laughter. On the 6th of August the right hon. Gentleman gave an answer which showed his horrid

  941
  callousness in reference to the duties of his office. He said—
  "I will make no inquiry about it. Lord Kitchener was there and I have full confidence in Lord Kitchener."
  Then he remarked that Lord Kitchener was in this country, and would the right hon. gentleman not inquire from him, whereupon the right hon. Gentleman in his forcibly feeble manner said "No, Sir;" and the hon. Gentlemen behind him cheered He very rarely looked up to the Peers Gallery, but on the very next day he happened to glance up at that Gallery and saw Lord Kitchener sitting there, whereupon he gave Lord Kitchener the full details of this occurrence and having done so he walked across the floor of the House, and handed the Papers to the right hon. Gentleman. He believed Lord Kitchener had never heard of that transaction except what his Lordship had heard from him, during his almost providential appearance in the Gallery, that night. He had left outside altogether the charges of indecency, and he had proved that on the admission of the officers themselves they were not fit persons to remain in the Army. Now he came to the charge of indecency. [Interruptions.] This matter would not be hushed up, Mr. Avory was the counsel for the Treasury at the Court-martial, and in his summing up speech made the astonishing, the amazing, statement which would take every lawyer's breath away. [Ironical laughter.] Yes, anyone who knew the facts. Mr. Avory said—
  "The Treasury was not responsible for the form of the charge which was settled before it came into his hands. And, speaking for himself, he was not prepared for one moment to admit that conduct such as had been described in the case might not constitute disgraceful conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman within the meaning of the 16th Section of the Army Act. Conduct such as had been described was most certainly calculated to bring contempt upon the red coat, and everything that was calculated to do that was certainly conduct which was calculated to bring disgrace on the Service. But as the charge was drawn up and placed before the Court, he admitted that the Court must find under it some kind of indecency amounting to scandalous conduct—"
  And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.
Gas and Water Confirmation Bill [Lords]; Read a second time, and committed.
EVENING SITTING.

  SUPPLY [17th ALLOTTED] DAY.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1903–4.
  Motiom made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £331,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge for salaries and miscellaneous charges of the War Office, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904.
  Whereupon Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A (Salaries) be reduced by £100, in respect of the salary of the Secretary of State for War."—(Mr. Pirie.)
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL, continuing his speech, said the War Office framed a charge of indecency in order to obtain an acquittal. On 5th May the War Office telegraphed to the Officer Commanding in South Africa to know whether Mr. Barclay would come over and give evidence, and on 6th May they received a telegram from the Commander in South Africa stating that he would not. They knew that a charge of that kind could not be sustained without corroborative evidence, and yet they handed that charge to the Treasury on 17th May, the day after they knew that Mr. Barclay, who could give corroborative evidence, was not coming from Johannesburg. The consequence was that a sham Court-martial was held, and the men were acquitted, not honourably, but owing to a deficiency of evidence. The War Office had in their possession at that time the evidence he should now produce. The War Office framed the indictment under Section 16 of the Army Act, and drew it with the object of securing an acquittal. Had

  943
  they proceeded, as he suggested they ought to have done, under Section 14, there must have been a conviction on the admissions made by the officers themselves before the Court-martial. He had the whole of the evidence given in the civil trial at Gape Town, and also the evidence of Mr. Barclay taken on commission in Johannesburg. Mr. Barclay was present at the mock Court-martial, and was a witness, not for Mr. Stanford, but for the incriminated officers. He would not read the whole of the evidence for the sake of the morality of the people, but he would show that there had been abominable misconduct, and the War Office had shielded these men because of their social influence. The hon. Member proceeded to quote portions of the evidence taken on commission, and at one point declared that he would not read a certain question and answer, because "in all the literature of obscenity he had never met its equal."
  MR. BRODRICK, interrupting, asked the hon. Member if it was desirable to further deal with a statement which he admitted he could not read out to the House, or which, at least, it was undesirable to read out to the House. Could not the hon. Member give them a brief résumé of the proceedings, and then say what he wished to say?
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid that the right hon. Gentleman was too clever by half. He would do nothing of the kind suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. If the right hon. Gentleman thought he could destroy debate in that House, he was greatly mistaken, and he should do whit he intended to do, even if he were dragged out of the House. He should not follow the right hon. Gentleman's example of seven years ago, when he got the galleries cleared and told a story of horrible indecency in order to destroy a doctor in the Army. The doctor was in a humble position, but now the right hon. Gentleman was endeavouring to shield these people because they had some social position. That House, despite the efforts of the right hon. Gentleman and of his companions, was still a place of freedom of speech and debate. If the right hon. Gentleman were not so great
  944
  a man, he should say it was really rather curious that he should attempt to deny him—
  MR. BRODRICK: I rise to order.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I will not yield to you.
  MR. BRODRICK: I rise to order. I made no suggestion—
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: There is no point of order, and I will not yield.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to state his point of order.
  MR. BRODRICK: My point is this. Is the hon. Gentleman in order in occupying the House with this long explanation of what he believes me to have said and done on an occasion some seven years ago?
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: That is no point of order.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! It is a point of order. The right hon. Gentleman is right in asking whether what the hon. Member is saying is relevant or not.
  MR. BRODRICK: The point I desire to submitis this. The hon. Member is reading at great length from a document and commenting upon it. If he is in order in doing that, on which I wish for your ruling, I desire to ask if the hon. Member is in order, after a very long speech, in taking up the time of the House in explaining to the House what he believes me to have said and done on a previous occasion.
  MR. FLAVIN: You do not like to hear too much of the truth.
  *MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the latter part of the hon. Member's observations was certainly not relevant. The hon. Member is entitled to occupy the time of the House, but there are certain limits to the patience of the Committee—[MINISTERIAL cheers]—and I hope the hon. Member, who has already occupied an hour and a half, will endeavour to bring his remarks to a conclusion.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid he was perfectly in order and was perfectly within his right in exposing a great scandal in that House. The Government had no power over the House except by their closure, and let them use that if they liked to prevent him from exposing this scandal. A very great wrong had been done to an individual. He had never seen Mr. Stanford, and he had had no communication with him, but he believed that he was a deeply-wronged man. At the Court-martial he was not allowed to speak to his counsel, and horrible accusations were made against his character. He was called "Matilda" in court, and subjected to other horrible indignities. A travesty of justice had been enacted by the Department of which the right hon. Gentleman was the extremely incompetent head. This horrible and stupendous outrage, and all the circumstances attending it, had been deliberately kept from the public, as many other outrages had been, not for public but for political reasons by the Secretary for War. He accused the right hon. Gentleman of this perversion of justice, for he had deliberately done his best to burk every means of communication in reference to the scandals of South Africa.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid it was only out of respect to the Committee that he proposed to address a few words in reply to the far too long oration of the hon. Member. He could not help feeling that that speech was rather an abuse of the time of the House of Commons. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Hear, hear!"]
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLcalled the attention of the Chairman to that expression. If he had been irrelevant it was the Chairman's duty to call him to order. The right hon. Gentleman had no right to ay that.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: I am sorry the hon. Member should feel so sensitive after having just called the right hon. Gentleman incompetent. Every Member of the House has a right to form an opinion whether the hon. Member's speech is an abuse or not.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid he took abuse from the hon. Member as a compliment. He considered it an abuse of the time of the House of Commons to speak for an hour and a half on a subject of this kind, when there were a hundred other topics on which hon. Members, with a real acquaintance with Army subjects, were anxious to speak. The hon. Member had occupied something like one third of the time of his speech declaring that hon. Members were laughing, and to other matters which had nothing whatever to do with the subject. He spoke without any feeling whatever in regard to this matter, and he did not propose to imitate the tone of the hon. Member. He proposed to say one or two words in reply to the indictment which he held had entirely and wrongfully been addressed to him. In the first place he had been exposed to criticism because this case was again brought to public notice, and because of the sentence of the Court-martial. He was ready to take full responsibility on both those points, although, in fact, he was responsible for neither. The person who was mainly responsible for any event which had taken place in this connection was the hon. Member's client, Mr. Stanford.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: You have no right to call him my client. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Order."] Withdraw that expression.
  *MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is entitled to raise a point of order, but he is not entitled to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Mr. Chairman, you well know the relations between client and counsel; I have never seen or heard from Mr. Stanford, and I have had no communication with him, and yet the right hon. Gentleman spoke as if I were a barrister who had been feed. He must instantly withdraw.
  *MR. CHAIRMAN: The phrase is very often used in this House, and does not necessarily convey what are generally supposed to be the relations between the client and his solicitor or barrister. It is a phrase which is constantly used, and I do not think the hon. Member need take offence at it.
  MR. FLAVINsaid it was a different matter when the word was applied by a paid official to an unpaid legal gentleman who had a very correct feeling. [OPPOSITION cries of "Withdraw."]
  MR. BRODRICK: I have not the least intention of withdrawing.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLagain interrupted the right hon. Gentleman.
  *MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member is not entitled to interrupt. He was listened to with great patience, and the least he can do now is to listen to the right hon. Gentleman's reply.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid he had listened to the hon. Member for an hour and a half whilst he read a number of statements, He listened to him with patience and without interruption.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: It was very kind of you.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid this question was only one amongst many which the House of Commons desired to discuss, and he did not see why hon. Members who had a real acquaintance with subjects connected with the Army should be debarred from discussing them by this question. These regrettable proceedings took place on December 24, 1901, in Cape Town in regard to Mr. Stanford. He had been censured for not taking action earlier, and it had been said that the War Office had deliberately remained in ignorance of what had taken place. Mr. Stanford had his own remedy. If Mr. Stanford had desired to take his military remedy he would have applied to the officer commanding in Cape Town and placed his case before him. But he did nothing of the kind. He went to solicitors and sued these officers in a civil trial, and accepted from them £1,500 and a full apology. The case, therefore, never came before the military authorities at all, and consequently he had had no power of dealing with it any more than any Member of that House. The case might then have remained in abeyance if it had not been for the hon. Member opposite, who had interfered in so many cases where statements had been made against officers in
  948
  South Africa with inadequate information, and he took no notice of the hon. Member's intervention. Had he done so he should have been showing great disrespect to officers of importance and high character whom the hon. Member had frequently impeached in that House by question and innuendo in a manner which he thought was quite unworthy and without the smallest foundation. He had it in his mind that the hon. Member repeatedly attacked Lord Methuen in that House. Having such proceedings in his mind, he replied to the hon. Member that Lord Kitchener would no doubt take notice of any disorder, and if he could not deal with it himself would report thereon to the Commander-in-Chief.
  On December 22, 1902, Mr. Stanford, after having got an apology and £1,500, went out of his way to bring the whole matter to his notice, and he wrote to him a letter in which he said he was sorry he had not done what he previously had been advised to do, and requesting him to receive a statement of the maltreatment he had undergone. In regard to such a letter the Secretary for War had only one course to take, to reply that he was ready to receive any statement; and he subsequently received the statement, which covered not merely maltreatment in the ordinary sense of bullying and assault, but imputations of grave acts of indecency which any officer or gentleman would desire to repudiate. He then took the only course in his power, and he handed the letter to the Adjutant-General in order that the military authorities should take what steps they thought desirable; the officers were called on for an explanation, and that explanation was at variance with Mr. Stanford's statement. There remained then nothing for it but either to investigate the matter, or to take action without investigation. He felt unhesitatingly that investigation was the only thing which would be possible, or fair to the officers, some of whom had been actively engaged since the civil trial. The inquiry might have either been one which would not necessarily have been public, or a Court-martial, which would have been public. A Court-martial had power to subpoena witnesses, and consequently that form of inquiry was decided on by the military authorities, and all those officers were brought to a Court-martial. The hon. Member complained that the

  949
  officers were not tried for the bear-fighting which took place, but only on the graver charges of indecency. But Mr. Stanford went to the civil Courts and obtained his remedy for the bear-fighting. In his opinion it would be a very grave injustice if a man were to be allowed first to seek his civil remedy, and then some time afterwards, after the defendants had been risking their lives for their country, to proceed against them in other ways. The Secretary for War had no power whatever in a Court-martial.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Who makes the charge?
  MR. BRODRICK: That power lies not only by custom, but by law, with the Adjutant-General. He hoped the hon. Member would curb his impatience a little. The Adjutant-General drew up the charge, the Court-martial tried the case, and the Adjutant-General submitted the verdict to His Majesty, without the intervention of the Secretary of State at any stage. He was, in fact, in no way responsible for it. The Court-martial found the officers not guilty of the charges submitted; and, that being so, it was not the War Office that was in fault, but Mr. Stanford, who went for damages, but did not come to the War Office for the punishment of these officers at a time when they could be dealt with. He got the damages in May and did not write to the War Office till September. He deeply regretted these proceedings having taken place, and, after the verdict of the Court-martial, that the hon. Member should have thought it necessary to bring the case before the House. As far as Lord Roberts was concerned, and he himself was concerned, they had not only taken the only just course, but the only course open to them. They secured for Mr. Stanford a full and impartial investigation. Mr. Stanford's word was not believed and the word of the officers was believed. ["No."] He must remind the hon. Member who interrupted that in one important fact that Mr. Stanford brought forward—namely, that he had to keep his bed for many days after the events of which he complained—he was proved to have misstated the fact by the evidence of the doctor whom he called in, and who found him within a short time walking about in the
  950
  hotel. It was not for him to say whether the rest of Mr. Stanford's evidence was more credible than that; but it seemed reasonable to conclude that the Court-martial might have felt that, when they were trying officers, as it were, for their lives, they were bound to give full credit to the fact that the main witness had himself misstated his own case.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: That is not so.
  MR. BRODRICKsubmitted that the action of the hon. Member was unwarranted, because the present Commander-in-Chief had shown himself sedulous to a degree to stop improper conduct of this kind on the part of officers. Even with the hon. Member's censure before him he said unhesitatingly that he thought a great distinction should be drawn between schoolboy noisiness among young officers in a regiment and really grave offences. They ought not to be severe over mere youthful exuberance of spirits; but the Commander-in-Chief had really shown that when such exuberance of spirits degenerated into bullying or a system of ill-treatment of any individual he was determined to put an end to such conduct. The Reports now sent in during the first three years of an officer's service as to whether or not a young officer was suited for the profession, made ill-treatment and bullying absolutely unnecessary. Such representations had been received by the War Office, and carefully acted upon, as had in many instances conduced to the great advantage of officers. He protested against individual outbursts of high spirits being made the subject of philippics against the whole British Army, more especially when they were absolutely untrue and uncalled for. Upon all really serious matters, the Commander-in-Chief had taken every action which lay in his power. He submitted that in this case not only was the right course taken, but the only course that was possible or open to them to take in the matter was taken, The officers who composed the tribunal did their duty, and the case was tried in the fairest and openest manner. He believed that the verdict on the evidence brought forward showed that there was the strongest reason for

  951
  believing that these young officers had not been guilty of the graver charges made against them.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid he was very much surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that he was in no way responsible for what took place in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman was responsible for everything that took place in the Army, although it might be done by someone else. He was the only representative of the Army, and if Parliament was to have any control over the Army, these matters must be raised in the House. This method must always be recognised, unless they were going to lay it down that the Army was entirely independent of the House of Commons. With regard to the charges brought against these officers, when the right hon. Gentleman said he thought they had cleared themselves entirely of those charges, he did not think he was quite right. If he remembered aright there was an application made to send out a Commission and it was refused. He agreed that on the evidence before the Committee the officers were properly acquitted, although had the case been before a Scotch Court the verdict would probably have been "Not Proven." Putting aside the indecency, he could not understand why a charge was not made against them from the facts they had themselves admitted. It was rather a stretch to say that the conduct which took place was mere exuberance of spirits or pardonable excitement. He had looked through the evidence. Had it been mere exuberance of spirits, and the man had been merely ducked in a pond, it would be different, but here the man was positively tortured for three or four hours, according to the officers' own evidence, and at the end he was compelled by force, majeure to sign a document to the effect that he deserved all he got. The right hon. Gentleman had explained his position, and defended the War Office on the ground that Mr. Stanford sought his remedy in a Civil Court before going to the military authorities. Surely the fact of damages in a civil action did not exonerate the officers from the charge of having behaved contrary to what an officer and a gentleman ought.
  MR. BRODRICK: I pointed out that since the occurrence, these officers had been employed in the field, and there is a well-understood custom that officers who subsequently risk their lives in the field should not have old charges raked up against them.
  MR. LABOUCHEREthought it was a bad usage. He believed that the only reason why the facts did not come out in the newspapers at the Cape was that a person connected with the censorship was sent round to the offices of the newspapers, whose conductors were told not to allude to them. That was unduly interfering with the liberty of the Press, for it was desirable that the Press should take up a case like this so that the right hon. Gentleman might be able to know what was going on abroad. He denied entirely that the offence to the Army was washed out by the fact that an action was brought and damages recovered in a civil Court, and he would like to point out that the charge of indecency was not withdrawn on that occasion. He believed that in this matter the officers of the Army as a body, who were most careful of the honour of the Army, did not quite take the view of the right hon. Gentleman. He was surprised at the complaint of the time taken by the hon. Gentleman, who did not consume more time than was absolutely necessary to lay the case before the Committee. The Secretary for War had tried to get out of specific charges by somewhat generalising, and he had not made out his case. It was felt that something had gone wrong in this case. It was admitted that this bullying and torturing went on for three or four hours, and the public were surprised that in no sort of way under military discipline were those, who had themselves admitted what they did, to be made responsible and punished. The War Office regulations, it should be remembered, were intended for the benefit of the Army and for the public good; they were intended to punish officers—as the ordinary law was intended to deal with criminals—not as an act of vengeance but in order to deter others from pursuing the same course. He was sorry the right hon. Gentleman had not promised to give further consideration to the case, in view of the fact that it had undoubtedly excited strong public feeling. There was no need

  953
  for vindictive punishment, but he would not have thought it impossible to take the two ringleaders and invite them to leave the Army, and to punish in some minor disciplinary manner the others. He was sorry the right hon. Gentleman had not said that some further consideration would be given to this mutter in order that public opinion might be satisfied. With the encouragement of the right hon. Gentleman Lord Roberts would, he felt sure, take some steps to vindicate public justice. He was surprised that Captain Williams, who presided over the mock tribunal, and had since admitted at the Court-martial a great deal not to his credit, should have been made a major; Lieutenant Prior was told that he could not resign till there had been an inquiry. As these two men were a good deal older than the others, something ought to be done to punish them. Stanford had been brought to him by an Irish nobleman, whom he knew in the sort of way that a humble person like himself knew an Irish nobleman, and who said Stanford was a relative. Mr. Stanford was not the style of man he particularly admired. He appeared to be one of those hangers-on in society, with some sort of position, who, like some gentlemen in England, got up parties and talked to ladies about their dresses. Although he was that sort of man, it did not follow that everything should be believed that was said by officers against him. Mr. Stanford's lawyer, Mr. Hawksley—an eminent lawyer connected with the Chartered Company of South Africa—thought he had been very ill treated, because these officers had been allowed to make any sort of charge against him and his character and he had had no opportunity of reply. He had received the invitations which were sent from Government House after these occurrences. One of the allegations was that Stanford had been turned out at, he believed, Admiralty House; but the answer elicited by an inquiry on this point was that he had not been turned out. Then there was the affidavit of the gentleman who was at the head of the Uitlanders' Committee. He had stated that Stanford was perfectly respectable, and that he would not have the least objection to his being on friendly terms with his own
  954
  wife and daughters. It was hard on this man that he should not have an opportunity of rebutting allegations which were ruinous to him. It appeared that since he had been in London he had been ordered to clear out of a restaurant by an officer, and that his presence was also objected to at a ladies military club to which he was taken by a lady. If the right hon. Gentleman could find some way of arranging an informal inquiry as to whether the despicable light in which Stanford had been regarded by society officials at the Cape was justified by facts he would only be performing an act of justice.
  MR. BRODRICK, referring to the promotion of Captain Williams, said that in the event of the Court-martial having found a verdict of guilty, the gravest sentence that could be pronounced—removal from His Majesty's service—would have been pronounced. These officers ran that risk, and in view of the decision of the Court-martial the Commander-in-Chief had no power whatever to take any further action. If the Commander-in-Chief had stopped Captain Williams's promotion he would have been punishing him on account of something of which he had not been found guilty by the Court-martial. On the other hand, he did not think anything could show the Committee how strongly the Court-martial and the Commander-in-Chief felt with regard to misconduct of this description, and he particularly desired to guard himself against in any way being supposed to justify conduct of this discription by the statement he had made that afternoon. As to Lieutenant Prior, who apparently had been guilty of another assault, and whose word had been called in question by a magistrate, his papers had been refused, and he had been informed that his removal from the Army must be considered unless he could clear himself of the very serious imputation made against him. It was out of his power to comply with the request that he should endeavour to clear Stanford's character. He knew nothing of him. He did not know on what ground any evidence as to Stanford's character was produced before the Court-martial, unless it was to enable the officers to show that they had received provocation. Of course, he was not responsible for that. He must say that,

  955
  having first brought his whole case before them, and then having written to the papers and said that he did not wish the matter to be pursued, Stanford had put himself in a very difficult position with regard to the War Office. He had really only himself to thank for the position in which he found himself.
  MAJOR SEELYhoped the Committee would pardon him for directing its attention for a moment to the very momentous declarations which had been made as to the retention of an Army Corps in South Africa. He asked the noble Lord to make one or two points clear in regard to the forces to be stationed in South Africa. Hon. Members on that side were much disappointed that no undertaking had been given that the forces at home should be reduced proportionately with the increase of the permanent garrison of South Africa, for they believed it would be possible to strengthen the Army while reducing the establishment. He wished to know were the garrison regiments which were to be placed there to be taken from the places where they now were, or were they to be fresh regiments formed for the purpose?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY,): The present ones.
  MAJOR SEELYsaid that in that case the question arose, what would be put in place of them? He was disappointed that there had been no promise of a reduction, because we needed the money. The result of the announcement made that day was that we were going to be involved in an expenditure of £1,500,000 per annum more than we now spent, minus whatever the Indian Government might give us.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid that what he stated was that the extra cost of 25,000 men in South Africa as compared with 25,000 men kept in Great Britain would be £1,500,000 annually, but he added an important proviso. From that sum must be deducted the extra cost there was before the war of keeping a garrison in South Africa, and the extra cost of any
  956
  garrison which it might be resolved to keep there after the war. The Government provided in their scheme of 1901 about £600,000 towards this object, so that the extra amount involved would not exceed £900,000.
  MAJOR SEELYsaid he was grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for explaining this to the Committee; but at any rate there would be an increase in the expenditure, although it had been hoped that possibly this plan might have resulted in a slight diminution, and he thought it was reasonable to ask whether it was not even more important to devote this increase to more important subjects. They were grateful to know that the Intelligence Department was to be increased, but there was the matter of the guns, as to which he thought the Committee would be glad to have some further assurance. No one in the House supposed that the right hon. Gentleman and the noble Lord were not extremely desirous that the country should have quick-firing guns; but, when the right hon. Gentleman asked by what method they could proceed to get these guns without further delay, he would answer that they could proceed by the same methods as those adopted by foreign Powers. The position was exactly the same now as it was four years ago when the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman said the matter was being carefully considered. He thought the time had now come when the House of Commons really meant this thing to be done; and he was encouraged in that belief by the fact that the Service members, a body not prone to attack unduly in these matters, had unanimously resolved that it was expedient that the Committee should at once be informed that the matter would be carried through, that a date should be given, and, further, that delay was dangerous. He would ask the Financial Secretary whether his own military advisers did not admit that a grave national danger was being run by permitting our small Army to be armed with a worse weapon than that of the great armies of the Continent.
  SIR A. HAYTERthought the Committee ought to have some

  957
  official denial of the statement made by the hon. Member for Whitby that the system of decentralisation was practically being given up, that the powers of the general officers commanding corps were being limited, and that the correspondence was increasing rather than diminishing. He desired to ask how the system of sending auditors from the War Office to take financial control of the separate corps was working; the great object of the system, to his mind, being that the officers should be taught not only to take the financial control but also to take over the supplies and keep the accounts. He further asked whether the audit by the financial controller in the Army Corps was regarded as final, or whether the accounts would come up again at the War Office. As to the Remount Department, he reminded the Committee that in 1898–1899 it consisted of eight persons, with an expenditure of about £100,000 per annum. In 1901–1902 the expenditure had risen to £7,000,000, and the Committee would be amazed to hear that only seven persons were added to control that large expenditure, while for the first six months of the war the Department was not strengthened by a single officer. This probably was a cause of the breakdown of the Department. It was true that something had been done in the way of reorganisation. Six officers had been selected to go about the country buying horses wherever they could, and four others had been sent abroad to ascertain where the best supplies could be secured. He desired to know how the new system was working, and whether the officers would tabulate the information they obtained.
  MR. GUESTthought that all who were concerned in the criticism of the War Office some months ago must have listened with pleasure to the conciliatory tone of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon. Personally, he cordially welcomed that speech, as it afforded a complete justification of the criticisms which were advanced earlier in the session. In the matter of the Intelligence Department, the Secretary of State had given an almost satisfactory answer, and in
  958
  regard to South Africa unexpected success had been achieved. Some Members were rather afraid of the expenditure which these 25,000 men in South Africa would involve, but he was inclined to regard the matter in a more sanguine spirit, believing that when the right hon. Gentleman came to consider the ways and means by which his proposal could be carried into effect he would very likely be driven to the reduction at home which he now seemed so loath to concede. There were already indications pointing in that direction. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to appreciate the fact that it would be difficult to ask Parliament for a larger sum than was now granted, for he had surmised that India would be under a debt of gratitude or a pecuniary obligation to this country, and he had not obscurely hinted that the colony itself might be invited to subscribe something for this piece of colonial preference. It seemed likely, therefore, that force of circumstances would drive the right, hon. Gentleman to effect some of the economies in the home establishment which had been so strongly urged upon him during the course of the present session. Moreover, there might take place in the home establishment, an automatic reduction which would be beyond the control of the right hon. Gentleman. The Secretary of State was very sanguine as to recent recruiting. He had stated with considerable, and perhaps pardonable, pride that the recruits for the infantry of the Line bad risen from 11,000 in the last half-year to 13,000 in this. But those figures would hardly bear investigation. On March 18 the right hon. Gentleman promised that he would not knowingly enlist men under eighteen years of age or of bad character. Between that date and June 20 the number of recruits was 4,719, which left 8,500 for the period not covered by the promise. If that proportion was maintained, it was obvious that instead of the number of recruits which had been obtained during the last half-year being maintained there would be a great falling off. With regard to the question of re-engagement, he wished merely to insist once more on the point which had been frequently urged—viz., that the voluntary enlistment system

  959
  would never give the number of recruits necessary for the ambitious Army Corps scheme of the Secretary of State, and the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be realising the fact, for he had practically given up the system of linked battalions. The fourteen battalions in South Africa were not to be linked, and in some cases the linked battalions in connection with the seventy-one battalions in India might be abolished. He was very sanguine, therefore, that when the questions of money and of men came to work, as they assuredly would, and the reserve was built up, the right hon. Gentleman would come to see that, without diminishing the fighting strength of the country, it was possible and expedient to make some reduction in the establishment now kept on a peace footing.
  *MR. KEIR HARDIEsincerely hoped the Government would reconsider the idea of imposing any extra burden on India, as the natives already had as much as, and in some cases more than, they could bear. In any event, he hoped the Committee would be given an opportunity of discussing the proposal in all its bearings. Reference had been made to the difficulty of finding men of sufficient physique for the Army. That was undoubtedly a very serious matter, but it was not to be remedied by an increase of sixpence a day in the soldier's pay, or by physical training after the men had joined the Army. Each of those courses was very good in its way, but it would be necessary to begin with the children, to see that they were properly fed, and that the fathers earned sufficient wages to feed them properly, so that when they grew to manhood they would have the necessary physique. He desired to call attention to the recent destruction of provisions at Pretoria. It appeared that, in consequence of complaints as to sickness among the troops, it was decided to have samples of the rations analysed. A case containing twenty-eight tins of meat and vegetable rations was analysed, and the doctor found seven of the tins to be blown and their contents decomposed, while the contents of the remainder showed signs of decomposition. The result of the Report was that 59,620 cases of these rations, amounting to a total of 1,665,382, tins were destroyed. That was a very serious matter from two
  960
  points of view. The first was that the health of the troops might be very seriously affected if these poisoned ration were consumed; and the second was that it involved an imposition on the public purse, if it could be shown that the rations were knowingly supplied either improperly tinned or of inferior quality. He had no information to enable him to judge as to the quality of the food which had been destroyed; but all the evidence went to show that the tinning had been defective. He knew it was said that soldiers always grumbled when they were asked to live upon tinned rations, and that it was in consequence of such grumbling that the food was destroyed. It was also alleged that these particular rations were knocking about in South Africa for a number of years, and that they became decomposed through old age. But the Report to which he referred completely disposed of both these statements. As regarded the first, the men did not complain until sickness was very general: and with reference to the second statement it was shown by the stamps on the tins that four-fifths of the rations destroyed had been delivered in South Africa within six months of their being discovered to have been decomposed. Therefore, it could not be alleged that decomposition was due to old age.
  Now he came to a point in which not only the House but the whole country was interested, and that was who was responsible for such a danger to the health of the Army and such a probable loss to the public purse. In the Report, the names of eight or ten firms were given, but only two supplied any considerable quantity. A London firm supplied 15,547 cases and Maconochie Bros, supplied 20,510 cases, the other firms ranging from 86 cases to 4,512. The Committee was entitled to some explanation as to why these two firms supplied such a large proportion of the actual goods in stock. The information which he was able to gather was to the effect that certain of the firms named in the Report had an equal capacity for production as the two favoured firms, and their reputation for quality equalled, if it did not exceed, the two particular firms to which he referred. He thought, therefore, they were entitled to know how it came

  961
  to be that such a large proportion of the condemned goods was supplied by a firm which, according to admissions made in reply to questions addressed to the War Office, should not have been specially favoured. As to the question of responsibility, he understood that such goods, before leaving this country, were supposed to be submitted to a test, and that any defect of quality would probably be discovered before they were shipped. If that was so, they were driven back on the conclusion that the rations became decomposed as the result of defective turning or some other deterioration in the tin. It was noticeable that in every case iron was found in the rations, and unless it could be shown that in some way or another iron was produced by a combination of meat and vegetables they were driven back on the conclusion that the tin was not of a quality which should have been used for the purpose. He was informed that the making of the tin in which the rations were put up had a great deal to do with the matter. He had endeavoured to ascertain from practical workmen engaged in the trade what was the reason for the presence of iron in the food, and he was told that by a comparatively recent process the tins, instead of being made as formerly by hand, were blocked out by machinery; and that as a consequence the surface of the tin was broken, and when hot food was brought into contact with it, corrosion set in very rapidly, and that that accounted for the presence of iron in the rations. Practical workmen said that after the tin had been blocked out the surface should be retinned and in that way corrosion rendered impossible. He hoped that the Committee would see how far that was correct, in order that a quality of tin might be obtained which would not corrode, even though it might cost more.
  In reply to Questions asked in the House it was admitted that one of the firms who supplied the rations had been under suspicion, to put it mildly, for a considerable time. He referred to the firm of Maconochie Brothers, the head of which was the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire. The War Office admitted that 365,000 cases supplied by this firm as emergency rations had been previously condemned, and that in 1900 other goods supplied by the firm were also condemned. In this connection it was worthy of note
  962
  that when the "Discovery" was sent out on her Arctic Expedition, the only tinned food that went wrong during the voyage was that supplied by the firm of Maconochie Brothers. Therefore, they were entitled to ask how it was that a firm which had been under suspicion for at least three years was still retained on the list of War Office Contractors, and had a larger proportion of orders from the War Office than any other firm. The matter was one which demanded investigation. The other day he put a Question to the Secretary of State for War as to how the tins had been sealed up; and the right hon. Gentleman seemed to treat it as a matter of no account. There were two methods in which tins were sealed. One was by soldering, and the other was by turning the flange over and clinching it by machinery. He was informed that the manner in which the tins were sealed was responsible for the blown condition of the rations destroyed at Pretoria; and they were entitled to know whether the health of the troops was to be sacrificed in order to increase the profits of this firm. Government contractors should in all cases be above suspicion, and more particularly when a Government contractor was also a Member of this House. Then there was a double obligation on him to see that he gave full value for the money he received, and that the quality of his goods was such as to set an example to other contractors. He hoped the War Office would be able to give the Committee an assurance that no further orders would be given to this firm, which had been under suspicion for at least three years, and whose goods had been found to be unfit for human use on two previous occasions, until at least there was an investigation as to who was responsible for the imputation under which the firm rested.
  MR. CUSTsaid he ventured to utter a word of warning with reference to recruiting. They had heard from the Secretary of State for War that quality was even more important than quantity, and that he proposed to insist on character as a preliminary to recruiting. He certainly agreed with the right hon. Gentleman. But he saw it was proposed to receive

  963
  as recruits boys who had served their time in reformatories. No doubt was it possible that boys who had been sent to reformatories as a result of youthful indiscretion might make excellent soldiers, as an early incursion into crime was often induced by a superabundance of courage and adventure. He would ask, however, the Secretary of State to consider what effect that would have on the sources from which recruits with a cleaner record might be expected. They had heard a great deal about how one bad character spoiled the whole tone of the regiment, and how one crime in a regiment could make it unpopular to recruiting, and he therefore thought that if it were known that recruits were being drawn from boys who had been cradled in crime it would render recruiting unpopular. Knowing what he did of country life he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider his scheme. There was another point which he would wish to mention. They were told that some record of character should be presented on enlistment, but when a record of character was demanded it should be of some value. He had seen a circular—he felt sure it could not have been issued with the cognisance of the right hon. Gentleman—giving the official interpretation of the regulations to which the right hon. Gentleman had alluded that evening in such moving terms. That circular stated that the character of recruits might be obtained from any responsible person, and need not necessarily be written. For instance, the circular continued, a verbal report to the effect that nothing was known against the recruit was sufficient, and it was added that a written character from the employer need not be insisted upon when such verbal reports were obtained from other sources. He admitted that was a very generous provision, though scarcely consistent with the statements of the right hon. Gentleman in the early part of the session, and also to-day. He would ask if the right hon. Gentleman was aware of such an amusing interpretation of his excellent intentions. He felt that a word of reassurance on this matter would be of considerable comfort to the Committee.
  *MR. MACONOCHIEsaid he was indebted to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil for having given him an opportunity of showing the matter to which he drew the attention of the Committee in its true colours. For many years this particular form of food had been used in every campaign in every part of the world, and approved by general officers, the present Commander-in-Chief, and officers, and soldiers. In every instance it had received great praise. No matter who manufactured it the name was given to it of the original inventor. He might explain to the Committee the method in which the testing and examination of this particular form of food was done by the War Office. In the first place an independent inspector visited the factory of any firm manufacturing this class of food. He went at any hour, day or night, and took samples when he wished. That was not all. When the goods were packed he frequently took samples; when the goods went alongside the ship, another inspector took samples, which were taken to Woolwich. They were again taken and placed in the hands of the first analysts of this country, who tested them as to the quality of the tin plate, and also as to the quality of the food, and if any manufacture did not come up to the standard it would have been promptly rejected. It was a great pity, he thought, that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil did not study the subject somewhat more before he tackled it. In the first place the particular form of drawing he spoke of had been in use for something like fourteen years, and the particular method of closing had only been in use for three or four years, and could be used by any manufacturer at a nominal royalty. There was nothing whatever, so far as he knew, to prevent anyone using it. The particular form of tin complained of by the hon. Member had been tested to the extent of 370,000 tins by a well known Chicago firm, and it had been adopted by them. As to discolouration and the effect of tin upon food, it must be remembered that these foods—fresh meat and vegetables—had been used in West Africa, the Soudan, India, and China, and had always been highly praised. This particular quantity that had been complained of was probably the tail end of 30,000,000 or 40,000,000 supplied by Scotch and

  965
  English contractors. If the hon. Member would go down any day to any factory he would find discolouration caused by heat, which was used to create a vacuum, or rather sterilisation. This was a well-known fact to anyone who knew the business. No matter how carefully preserved the foods might be they did, to a certain extent, deteriorate after a certain time in a tropical climate. If they took the trouble to examine a tin of mutton or beef they would find if it had been in a tropical climate nine or twelve months a redness appeared where the meat came in contact with the tin, showing that more or less it must have absorbed some iron. He did not think that in the short time he had been a Member of the House he had ever seen a more dastardly attack on a Member that had been made on him that night. He said so advisedly. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil wrote him a letter saying that he intended to mention his name. He told the hon. Member he would give him any information he might desire and then the hon. Member calmly told him that since he was not paying the union rate of wages—
  *MR. KEIR HARDIE: I rise to order. I expressly informed the hon. Member that that was no part of my complaint. It is a fart all the same that he employs boy and girl labour when other manufacturers employ men labour, which may account for the different quality of the goods supplied. I expressly said to him that that was no part of my case against the firm, and that it was purely as a Member of this House, desirous to see honest treatment in connection with public Departments, that I intended to call attention to the matter.
  *MR. MACONOCHIEsaid he turned to the hon. Member and said that his firm used modern methods in their manufacture; that they never were known to grind the faces of their workmen; and that they would undertake to prove that, although they used machinery their men for years past had earned much higher weekly wages than the workers in any other house doing the same class of work. The Committee would notice that the hon. Member had been careful to mention the name of one English firm and the firm with which he was connected, but carefully refrained from mentioning firms
  966
  in Aberdeen who employed the men who had instigated him to bring forward this matter.
  *MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid no one had instigated him to make the attack. He had neither been approached nor had he approached any one connected with any firm in relation to this matter. The only person he had seen was the secretary of the Tin Makers' Trade Union.
  *MR. MACONOCHIEsaid there never had been more care exercised by the War Office in testing all the food products which were sent out. He was perfectly confident that the firms mentioned in this complaint had nothing to fear. He had not the slightest doubt that many of them made great sacrifices, and laid by their own special work, to do the work they were called upon to perform.
  LORD STANLEYsaid he would answer some of the questions which had been raised in the course of the debate. First of all he would deal with what fell from the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight on the question of guns. The remarks of his predecessor in office had been quoted, and it had been inferred that, as no result followed then, so there would be no result now. But it should be remembered that shortly after those remarks were made the war broke out, and the matter was for a time at a standstill. But since the war came to an end inquiry had taken place, and trial had been made of quick-firing guns by separate firms and by the ordnance factory, and there had been a conference of manufacturers with Government experts, and a specification had been made adopting the best portions of several guns; and now the War Office had ordered a battery from two firms, and he believed that in the result they would have a gun infinitely superior to any now in existence. The two batteries would be tested equipped as they would be in time of war. He hoped that next month they would have two complete batteries which they could test one against the other. They would then in a short time be in a position to lay their decision before the House and the country. No one could realise more fully than his right hon. friend that there

  967
  was grave national danger in not having these guns; but his right hon. friend could not commit the country to a large expenditure of money for the rearmament of the artillery until he received from his military advisers an assurance that the gun which they asked him to have made was one which was calculated to fulfil all their requirements.
  With regard to the auditors, they had had three reports from each general officer commanding the Army Corps, and each of them spoke very highly of the work done by the auditors in their district, who had not only carried out the audit but had given much excellent financial advice. The audit was final as far as the War Office were concerned. They were now considering whether certain other duties could be devolved upon the auditors, and also whether they could send out more auditors. With regard to decentralization, general officers commanding did not in many cases realise how much they could do without referring to the War Office. Many of the questions which were sent up for decision were being sent back with an intimation that it was within the province of the general officers concerned to decide them. The general officers were gradually finding out how much power they possessed, and the War Office were considering whether they could give them even more power than they had at present.
  As to the destruction of rations in South Africa, the War Office had done all they could to ensure that the goods sent out were of the best quality. They had inspectors at the places where the goods were manufactured, and when the goods were sent to Woolwich inspectors took tins from almost every consignment for examination. Not only the goods, but also the tins, were sent to the Government analyst for analysis, and there had not been a case in which the analyst had not been able to make a most favourable report. The question of the destruction of rations was one on which a definite statement could not be made at present. The first notice the War Office had of the destruction was by seeing it in the public Press. They at once telegraphed out for a full report. They found from that report that, as there was a certain amount of sickness which was attributed to defective rations, the general officer commanding assembled
  968
  the Board, with the result that the Board ordered the destruction of a large quantity of rations. The rations were accordingly destroyed. The hon. Member for North Aberdeen had said that during the time of the destruction it was noticed that the natives took away rations, and that they probably suffered no ill effects.
  MR. PIRIEsaid he stated what purported to be the account of an eyewitness.
  LORD STANLEY: Even it there was a suspicion that some of these rations were good and ought not to have been destroyed, be thought, in view of the report, the general officer commanding would have received the censure of this House if he had not destroyed them. The question of personal liability was not one which could be gone into at the present moment, It would probably have to be considered from the legal point of view, and any statement now-might prejudice their own case and be unfair to those with whom they were dealing. It was only right to say, however, that the various firms who furnished them with supplies during the war undoubtedly did their best to keep them well supplied with the best article, and that they should take into consideration that goods which had to go through the tropics and then up country, and had to be left out in all weathers, were not so likely to keep as those which were carefully stored at home.
  As to the question of recruits, he could assure his hon. friend the Member for Southwark that neither his hon. friend nor he had seen the document from which he quoted, nor were those at the War Office who were in charge of the Department which would issue such a document able to identify it.
  MR. CUSTassured the noble Lord that the document was perfectly genuine, and that it was received from the authorities.
  LORD STANLEYsaid he could not ask his hon. friend to give the name of the receiver in public, but perhaps he would let him see the document privately, so

  969
  that he might ascertain from where it emanated, and by whose authority it was issued. With regard to the question of character, he had always been strongly of opinion that, if they insisted on characters with recruits, they should get a bettor class of men. But there were cases in which he thought they were justified, after making careful inquiries themselves, in not insisting on a written character from the employer. Those were, he admitted, cases which ought to be exceptional, and he trusted that they would be only exceptional. The hon. Baronet had asked him what were the future proposals in regard to the Remount Department. He might say that the time of the present Inspector-General of Remounts was nearly up, and he would be replaced by Colonel Benson, an excellent cavalry officer, who was known to many Members of the House. Colonel Benson would have some Regular subordinates, and he would be called upon to work out a scheme for the expansion of his office in time of war. There would be in this country six purchasing officers in areas which would be, as far as possible, equal areas of horse population. They would not have regular establishments under them, but they would be called upon to make their own propositions as to whom they would employ in time of war. It would be their duty to make all the arrangements in their respective districts for the registering of horses, for the taking up of horses in times of emergency, and for the supply of the Army both in time of peace and war. In addition there would be a certain number of officers in the colonies, and others would be told off to go abroad at stated periods, and who would proceed to the countries where, in time of war, they would be required to purchase. These officers would be required to formulate a scheme to the satisfaction of the head of the Department, for the development of an establishment for purchasing in those countries.
  MR. MALCOLMasked whether any plan had been adopted for permanent breeding establishments for remounts in Canada, or other colonies.
  LORD STANLEYsaid that there was no actual scheme at present, although one such establishment was contemplated for South Africa. He very much regretted that the hon.
  970
  Member for Bolton took the view he did of the tenant system of canteen. He could not agree with that view, and he referred the hon. Gentleman to Aldershot, where the tenant system was largely employed, and where the universal opinion of the officers was that the supplies were good, the prices moderate, and the soldiers satisfied. The returns were far greater, unit by unit and year by year, than under the regimental system, while the officers were entirely free for their regimental duties.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid there was one point in reference to the scheme of the War Office for the British, troops in South Africa which had not been dealt with, and upon which he desired some information. They were told in March last that the permanent British forces to be stationed in South Africa would number 15,000; but now they were told that they were to be 25,000. The Secretary for War had not stated to the Committee the reason for that increase. Was there any reason connected with the condition of things in South Africa, or with the relation in which we stood to foreign Powers in various parts of the world? Some adequate reason should be given for this change of policy. The Secretary for War had stated that the new policy would entail a considerable increase of expenditure, and on that ground alone he was opposed to it; but there was another ground—viz., that this country was not to pay for it, but that the expenditure was to be put on India. He held that to make India pay the increased cost was unfair and ungenerous. It appeared to him that the main idea of economy which the Government had as regarded the Navy was to get contributions from the colonies; and the main idea of economy as regarded the Army was to coerce the Indian Exchequer. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean had alluded to the correspondence that had passed between the Government of India and the India Office and the War Office in regard to the large increased expenditure imposed upon India in connection with the short service system without the consent of the Indian Government, and even without any notice having been

  971
  given to it. Every Viceroy from Lord Northbrook to Lord Curzon had protested against the way in which the Indian Exchequer was perpetually being drawn upon, particularly by the War Office. The Indian Government had constantly complained that alterations in the military administration to suit the needs of the Army at home were introduced, and extra charges were made on the finances of India, without any regard to either the financial or military necessities of India, and without any consultation whatever with the Indian Government. The right hon. Gentleman had, however, gone a step further, because he was going to put on the Indian Exchequer a charge for British troops in South Africa which were not borne on the Indian establishment, with which India had no connection, and for which she could not have any responsibility. It was within the knowledge of the House that a British regiment had always been stationed in Ceylon, Singapore, and Mauritius, but it had never been proposed that the cost of these regiments should be charged against the finances of India, and yet these places were much nearer India than South Africa was. He ventured to say that the real reason for the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman was not military exigencies but financial exigencies. The Government had not the courage to face the necessity of imposing extra taxation on the people of this country to meet this charge. Before the final resolution imposing an inequitable charge on the finances of India, was passed, the House of Commons should have ample opportunity of discussing it in all its bearings, because the matter was vastly important politically and Imperially.
  LORD STANLEYsaid he was now able to inform the Committee that the
  972
  circular referred to by the hon. Member for Bermondsey had been issued by the junior officer in one particular regimental district. It was absolutely and entirely unauthorised, and although, owing to his hon. friend having given it to him confidentially, no action could be taken in this particular case, he would see if anything could be done by general instruction to prevent any such circular being issued in future without authority from headquarters.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERasked whether the new guns would be ready for trial in August, and if the whole Artillery would be re-armed before the House met again? He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on the action he had taken in regard to the small depôts. The final question was whether the extra troops for South Africa would be taken out of the First Army Corps.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid he would ask his right hon. friend to take into his serious consideration the extension of the special Volunteer decorations to those who had given long service in the Yeomanry.
  SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he would lay on the Table the Papers in connection with the increase of the troops in South Africa, and whether there would be full opportunity for discussion before imposing any new burden on the finance of India?
  And, it being midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again on Monday next.
  Adjourned at five minutes after Twelve o'clock.