Commons Sitting of 26 June 1905

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

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—Sandgate Urban District
  52
  Council Bill [Lords]; Shepton Mallet Gas Company (Electric Lighting) Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (NO STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, viz.:—Inverness Gas and Water Provisional Order Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time Tomorrow.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, that, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—Port Glasgow-Improvement Provisional Order Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table-Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—Gas Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.
  Morley Corporation Bill. Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  Darien Gold Mining Company Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  Great Northern Railway (Ireland) Bill. Read the third time, and passed. [New Title.]
  Leven's Patent Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  London County Council (Money) Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
  Rhymney Railway Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  South Eastern and London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Bill [Lords]. To be and the third time To-morrow.
  Metropolitan Electric Tramways Bill. As amended, considered.
  Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
  Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.
  Gamble's Divorce Bill [Lords] (By Order). Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  Sheffield University Bill [Lords] (by Order). Consideration, as amended, deferred till Thursday, 6th July (Evening Sitting).

  STANDING ORDERS.
  Ordered, That so much of Standing Order 91 as fixes Five as the quorum of the Select Committee on Standing Orders be read and suspended.
  Ordered, That, for the remainder of the session, Three be the quorum of the Committee.—(Mr. Halsey.)
  Millport Piers and Burgh Extension Order Confirmation Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
  London County Council (Tramways) Bill. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP E).
  Sir HENRY AUBREY-FLETCHERreported from the Committee on Group E of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Wednesday, at Eleven of the clock.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled," An Act to authorise the Institution known as the Bristol Asylum or School of Industry for the Blind to acquire and to hold lands for the purposes of that institution; and to make further provision with respect to the constitution of the committee of management and the-management of the institution, the investment of the moneys of the institution: and for other purposes." [Bristol Blind Asylum Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to-extend the powers of the Central Electric Supply Company, Limited; and for other purposes." [Central Electric Supply Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the County of London Electric Supply Company, Limited, to purchase lands and construct generating stations; and for other purposes." [County of London Electric Supply Company Bill [Lords.]
  And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend and amend the Humber Conservancy Acts, 1852 to 1899, and to confer further powers upon the Humber Conservancy Commissioners; and for other purposes." [Humber Conservancy Bill [Lords.]
  Bristol Blind Asylum Bill [Lords]; Central Electric Supply Bill [Lords]; County of London Electric Supply Company Bill [Lords]; Humber Conservancy Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  SUGAR AND SUGARED GOODS (IMPORT DUTIES) (FOREIGN COUNTRIES).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 8th May; Mr. Lough]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 207.]

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACTS, 1882 TO 1902. (PROCEEDINGS).
  Copy presented, of Report by the Board of Trade respecting the Appli-

  55
  cations to and Proceedings of the Board of Trade under The Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 to 1902, during the past year [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 208.]

  FRUIT CULTURE (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
  Copy presented, of Report of the Departmental Committee appointed by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to inquire into and report upon the Fruit Industry of Great Britain, with Copy of the Minute appointing the Committee [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1877 (OXFORD).
  Copy presented, of Statute made by the Governing Body of University College, Oxford, on 11th March, 1905, amending the Ordinance regulating the Radcliffe Travelling Fellowships [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 209.]
  UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1877 (OXFORD).
  Copy presented, of Statute made by the Governing Body of Balliol College, Oxford, on 23rd November, 1904, amending Statute IV. and Schedule B of the College Statutes [by Act]; to lie upon the Table and to be printed. [No. 210]
  COUNTY OFFICERS AND COURTS (IRELAND) ACT, 1877.
  Account presented, of the Receipts and Payments under the Act during the year ended the 31st March, 1905 [by Act; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 211.]
  INEBRIATES ACTS (INSPECTOR'S REPORT).
  Copy presented, of Report of the Inspector, under the Inebriates Acts, 1879 to1900, for the year 1904 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  POLLING DISTRICTS (BOROUGH OF BIRKENHEAD).
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Council of the Borough of Birkenhead re-dividing the Borough into Polling Districts [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  PENAL SERVITUDE ACTS (CONDITIONAL LICENCE).
  Copy presented, of Licence granted to Maria Yates, a convict under detention in Aylesbury Prison, permitting her to be at large on condition that she enter the East End Refuge, Finchley [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  PENAL SERVITUDE ACTS (CONDITIONAL LICENCE).
  Copy presented, of Licence granted to Elizabeth Marie Mantle, a convict under detention in Aylesbury Prison, permitting her to be at large on condition that she enter the Elizabeth Fry Refuge, Hackney [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3416 to 3421 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC INCOME AND EXPENDITURE.
  Return ordered, "of Net Public Income and Net Public Expenditure under certain specified heads, as represented by Receipts into and Issues out of the Exchequer from 1890–1891 to 1904–5, inclusive (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 277, of Session 1904)."—(Sir Henry Fowler.)
  CASUALTIES TO SHIPS.
  Return ordered, "of Casualties to Ships, showing the date; the name and class of the Ship damaged; the nature of the accident; the number of persons injured; the number of deaths (if any); the result of any inquiry that may have been held into the circumstances; and time in dockyard for repairs; during the year ending the 31st day of December, 1904 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 116, of Session 1905).—(Mr. Lough.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Day for Discussion of Public Accounts Committee's Report.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now say what arrangement he proposes to make in order to carry out the undertaking given on April

  57
  17th to give either one of the days allotted to Supply, if the House agrees, or otherwise a Friday or an Evening Sitting, for the consideration by the House of the Public Accounts Committee's Report, and its decision thereon.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) In the hon. Member's absence I regret not having furnished him with an Answer to this Question which was starred and addressed to me on Thursday. In the present condition of public business I fear I cannot give a definite reply; but if the Question can be repeated towards the end of next week I hope I shall then be able to fix a day for the discussion.

  Army—Financial Control.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury, can he say whether the provisions of the Army Order of January 6th, 1905, relative to financial control came into force on February 15th, 1905; whether they are still in force; and whether, in view of the Report of the Public Accounts Committee thereon of May 26th, they will be reconsidered.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour) The Order, I am informed, is in force in districts where local audit already existed. In other districts it came into operation on May 1st. The Order is still in force. The Report of the Public Accounts Committee on this particular matter is now under the consideration of the Treasury and the War Office.

  Compensation for Wrongful Imprisonment—Case of Mr. Horace Forbes.
  SIR THOMAS DEWAR (Tower Hamlets, St. George's): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has yet considered the amount of compensation to be granted to Mr. Horace Forbes, who, in the month of April last, was arrested, convicted of fraud, and sentenced to eighteen months hard labour, but eventually proved to be innocent and released from gaol; is he able to state whether this conviction was due to any act of carelessness or neglect; will he state how many cases of miscarriage of justice have come under his notice during the last two years; and whether any special efforts are being made to protect the public against such risks.
  58
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) The defendant mentioned by the hon. Member was convicted last month at the North London Sessions on a charge of obtaining money by false pretences, and sentenced to eighteen months imprisonment with hard labour. In consequence of information given by the prisoner after his conviction inquiries were made by the police, and the result of these inquiries was to raise sufficient doubt regarding the propriety of the conviction to justify me in recommending the remission of the remainder of the sentence. I cannot, however, regard the case as one where a free pardon should be granted, or any compensation given from public funds. I am satisfied that there was no carelessness or neglect on the part of the police or the prosecution; and that all the evidence favourable to the prisoner which was then known to the police was brought clearly before the jury. When compared with the total number of convictions, the number of wrong or doubtful convictions which have come to my notice has been extremely small. The number of persons convicted of indictable offences is about 48,000 a year; and during the past two years I have seen my way to advising the grant of a free pardon in four cases, while in about fifteen cases I have felt so much doubt as to the propriety of the conviction that I have advised the remission of the remainder of the sentence. In some of these cases the juries were apparently led to convict because the prisoners' own witnesses informed them of the previous convictions of the prisoners. Every possible precaution is taken by the Metropolitan Police to preclude mistakes in identification; and I am communicating with the local police authorities-elsewhere with a view to making sure that similar precautions are taken in all parts of the country.

  Use of Saxonite for Blasting Purposes.
  SIR WILLIAM TOMLINSON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the dangers, arising from the use of a high explosive called Saxonite for blasting purposes, which is on the list of the compounds authorised for such purposes by the Home Office; whether this substance.

  59
  though safe in the sense of not producing on ignition a spark capable of firing gas, is liable under some atmospheric or other conditions to explode prematurely under light percussion; whether any accidents can be traced to this cause; and whether he intends to take any steps in consequence.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas) The Returns of accidents occurring in connection with the use of explosives show that out of 301 such accidents in 1904, resulting in thirty-nine deaths and injuries to 343 persons, fifteen, resulting in three deaths and injuries to twenty-two persons, occurred in connection with the use of Saxonite. Taking those classes of accident in which the comparative sensitiveness of the explosive might act as a factor, e.g., accidents caused by tampering with miss-fired shots, ramming or stemming the charge, boring into unexploded charges, etc., I find that eight out of 116, or about 6 per cent. occurred with Saxonite. There are no statistics available as to the proportions in which the different explosives are used for blasting purposes; but I am advised that these figures would not appear to show, nor is there anything in the composition of the explosive to make it probable, that Saxonite is more sensitive than other explosives of the kind. It must not be supposed, however, that this or any other explosive can be safely used for blasting without proper precautions. It cannot be too often repeated that there is no such thing as a "safe" explosive.

  Fines at Sheffield Police Court.
  MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the magistrates adjudicating in the Sheffield Police Court recently fined a labouring man 10s. for keeping a dog without a licence, the maximum penalty being £5; and that the same magistrates, in a case against a city magistrate for employing a male servant without a licence, only ordered the defendant to pay the costs, the maximum penalty being £20; and whether, seeing that the labouring man attended the Court and thus lost a day's wages, whilst the city magistrate did not
  60
  appear, that an arrangement was made that the name of the magistrate should not be called out in Court in the ordinary way and that it only transpired during the hearing of the case, and that in this case the licence duty had been evaded for some years, under the circumstances the fine imposed on the labouring man will be remitted.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) I shall be obliged if the hon. Member will give me further details as to the first of the two cases he mentions, which I have not been able to identify with certainty. I may say, however, that it is obvious that if the conviction was a proper one and the penalty was deserved, no reasons for remitting that penalty can be deduced from the conduct of the Bench in a different case. My inquiries into the second case—that of the magistrate who was summoned for keeping a man-servant without a licence—are not yet complete, and I shall be glad of a little longer time in which to finish them.

  Recruiting of Chinese Labourers—Payments to Chinese Government.
  MR. DUNCAN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware if any payment by the importer of Chinese labourers to South Africa is made to the Chinese Government or any local or provincial official in China for the privilege of recruiting.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) No such payment is made, as far as I am aware, in respect of the recruiting, but I understand that, in addition to the payment made under the Convention, the Chinese Government receive from the mines a further fee of $3 to provide for the expense of the Consulate at Johannesburg and other expenses.

  Threatening Letters to Scotch Members of Parliament.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Lord-Advocate whether it is proposed to class the threatening letters received by those Scotch Members as agrarian outrages; and whether the Scotch police will be instructed to tabulate and report them in the same

  61
  way as the Irish constabulary do in Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Scott Dickson.) The Answer to the hon. Member's Question is in the negative. So far as the Lord-Advocate is aware there was only one such letter received, and it did not refer to agrarian matters.

  Sale of Carcases of Calves Inoculated for Lymph for Food
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: To ask the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether the carcases of calves inoculated for lymph at the Local Government Board vaccine station are sold for food in London; and, if so, whether he will give instructions to have such carcases destroyed instead of being returned, to the contractors.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) As I stated in reply to a Question put to me by the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty on the 30th ultimo,† I am advised that there is no evidence whatever that the carcases of animals used for the purpose referred to are thereby Tendered unfit for food. The destruction of the carcases would, moreover, involve a large additional charge upon the Exchequer, amounting probably to some £4,000 a year, and, having regard to these considerations, I am not prepared to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member. I may add that the carcases are thoroughly examined by a veterinary surgeon before being allowed to be sold for food.

  Woolacombe Water Supply.
  MR. SOARES: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the fact that the water about to be supplied by the Ilfracombe Urban District Council to Woolacombe is taken from Exmoor, and has been passed as perfectly satisfactory by every medical man who has analysed it, he will say if the Local Government Board have sanctioned the borrowing of the money necessary for the supply of this water.
  † See (4) Debates, cxlvii., 221.
  62
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The Answer to the Question is in the affirmative.

  Postmasters—English and Irish Appointments.
  MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he can state the number of postmasterships which have been filled in Great Britain and Ireland from 1st January, 1895, to the 1st January, 1905, and the salary in each case; also the number of those in Great Britain which have been filled by officials drawn from the Irish service and the number in Ireland which have been filled by officials from Great Britain, with the salary in each case.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The preparation of the Return asked for by the hon. Member would be troublesome and expensive, and as I do not think it would serve any useful purpose I regret that I cannot undertake to furnish it.

  Sheep Scab Regulations in Scotland and England
  MR. BRIGHT: To ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will explain why sheep from areas infected with sheep-scab in Scotland are allowed to come into England without being under inspection, while sheep from infected areas in England and Wales cannot be moved without such inspection.
  (Answered by Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.) The formulation of arrangements for the control of the movement of sheep from the northern counties of Scotland has been attended with considerable difficulty and has been the subject of somewhat prolonged negotiations with the local authorities concerned. An Order has, however, now been passed which prescribes the compulsory dipping of sheep in those counties between the 15th July and the 1st September next, and imposes restrictions on the movement of sheep out of the dipping area. The new Order will, I believe, afford adequate security against the spread of disease from the counties in question. I shall be happy to supply a copy to the hon. Member.

  Regulations for Prevention of Sheep-Scab.
  MR. BRIGHT: To ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the difficulties caused by the various sheep-scab regulations; and whether he is prepared to substitute for the present rule the system of proclaiming an area immediately round the infected place, and of applying more stringent measures with regard to the movement of sheep to and from, this area.
  (Answered by Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.) I have given careful attention to the representations which have been made to me on this subject. Under the Sheep-Scab Order of 1905 provision is made for the detention of sheep believed to have been in contact with sheep affected with sheep-scab, and under the Sheep-Scab (Compulsory Dipping Areas) Order of 1905, the compulsory dipping of all sheep in a particular area may also to required. In addition, however, it is also necessary to take measures to prevent the spread of the disease from districts in which it is generally prevalent, and it is under this head that some difficulties have arisen in connection with the measures we are taking to stamp it out. I am hopeful that the modifications we have been able to make in our Orders on this subject will remove any serious cause of complaint respecting them. I do not think we could with any advantage increase the stringency of the measures taken on the spot when the disease is reported or discovered.

  Coccidiosis in Rabbits
  MR. MOREELL: To ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he has information as to the existence of disease of the nature of tuberculosis affecting the liver of the rabbit, specially prevalent this year; and, if so, will he cause inquiry to be made and information laid before the Commission on Tuberculosis as being a disease possibly affecting the food of man.
  (Answered by Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.) I am advised that the disease to which my bon. friend refers is caused by an animal parasite, and that it is not of the nature of tuberculosis. Its correct name is
  64
  coccidiosis. In these circumstances it does not appear to be necessary for any communication to be made to the Royal Commission on Tuberculosis on the subject. It is not considered by the Beard's veterinary officers that the disease is attended with any danger to man, but I propose to bring the matter under the notice of the Local Government Board.

  Inspection of Irish Mines and Quarries.
  MR. NANNETTI: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the Report from the Home Office for 1904 showing that during last year active operations were carried on in 568 mines and quarries in Ireland, that the number of persons employed in connection with those mines and quarries was 5,504, and that the output was represented by 1,290,595 tons, and, in view of the fact that the officials for the due inspection of these mines and quarries live and have their offices either in Manchester or Wigan, he will consider the advisability of arranging that Ireland, as an inspection district, should be separated from Manchester, with a view to the establishment of an independent district in Ireland with a resident staff, comprising a chief inspector, assistant inspectors, and a secretary to the board of examination.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas) I do not think the scale on which the mining and quarrying industries are carried on in Ireland is large enough to justify the creation of a separate inspection district for Ireland with a separate staff and examining board. The Report to which the hon. Member refers shows that last year there were at work in Ireland only fifty-eight mines and 510 quarries, as compared with 4,006 mines and 7,507 quarries in the whole country; that the number of persons employed in them was 5,504 out of a total of 974,634; the number of tons of mineral raised 1,275,336 out of a total of over 294,000,000; and the number of deaths from accident six out of a total of 1,202.

  Shrewsbury Municipal Charities
  MR. H. D. GREENE: To ask the hon. Member for the Tun-

  65
  bridge Division, as representing the Charity Commissioners, whether the Charity Commissioners have formulated any scheme for the reformation of the Shrewsbury municipal charities, in pursuance of the inquiry held in May, 1904; and, if so, when it will be in operation; and whether it is in accordance with the views of the Charity Commissioners that individual charity trustees, by themselves or their friends, can properly distribute doles of money, coals, and blankets without reference to their co-trustees; and, if not, whether the Charity Commissioners can so regulate the selection of trustees, and their number, and so control the distribution as to secure that the benefits of charities shall be enjoyed without allowing undue predominance to any political Party.
  (Answered by Mr. Griffith Boscawen.) A scheme for the administration of the Shewsbury municipal charities has been drafted, and is with the King's printers. Before the scheme can come into operation it must be published, and any; objections must be considered by the Commissioners. The scheme constitutes

  Rating

  Widow's pension per week.

  From the funds of Greenwich Hospital.

  Supplementary pension from Naval Funds.

  Total

  Allowance for each child dependent on the mother, per week.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d

  s.

  d.

  (1) Able seamen and stokers

  3

  6

  1

  6

  5

  0

  1

  6

  (2) Second class petty officers

  4

  0

  2

  0

  6

  0

  1

  6

  (3) First class petty officers

  4

  6

  3

  0

  7

  6

  2

  0

  (4) Chief petty officers

  5

  0

  4

  0

  9

  0

  2

  0

  and the widow of W. G. Ayloff (the only remaining widow) will be dealt with in accordance with this scale when she has furnished the information which has been asked for. The dependent relatives of men who have left no widows may be awarded Greenwich Hospital gratuities of amounts not exceeding one year's wages (exclusive of extra or additional pay) of the deceased.
  a new body of trustees, and has been framed by the Commissioners with a view to securing that the benefits of the charities shall be applied, not by any individuals but by the trustees as a body, without reference to any political considerations.

  Loss of Submarine A 8—Pensions for Widows of Seamen.
  MR. DUKE: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what is the extent of the provision made by the Board of Admiralty for the relatives, respectively, of the men who lost their lives by the accidental sinking at Plymouth of the submarine boat A 8.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) Combined Greenwich Hospital and naval pensions and allowances have been awarded to the following widows:—

  s.

  d.

  Mrs. E. Kerswell

  8

  0 per week

  Mrs. E. Simpson

  6

  6 per week

  Mrs. C. Vickers

  11

  0 per week

  Mrs. A. L. Reeve

  9

  0 per week

  Mrs. S. S. Bruckland

  11

  0 per week

  The scale of pensions fixed in the regulations is:—

  Naval Pensioners over Fifty-five not receiving Age Pension.
  MR. REGINALD LUCAS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can state how many naval pensioners over the age of fifty-five, who signed for a second period of service before 29th June, 1878, are not yet in receipt of the first instalment of the age pension of 5d. a day.

  67
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) It is regretted that this Question cannot be answered, as the details concerned are not recorded in the registers of the Department in a form enabling the information to be readily furnished. To make the requisite extracts a considerable amount of labour would be needed, and the work would occupy a period of about three weeks, for which extra clerical assistance would be required.

  Reinstatement of Irish Evicted Tenants—Application of Mrs. Johanna Daly.
  MR. BOLAND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the application for reinstatement of Mrs. Johanna Daly, of Kilgarvan, an evicted tenant on the Hungerford Orpen Estate, has been received and dealt with by the Estates Commissioners; and whether any untenanted land in the neighbourhood has come into the hands of the Commissioners.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Applications have been received from Mrs. Johanna Daly for reinstatement in three holdings en the Hungerford Orpen Estate, from which she alleges she was evicted. The holdings appear to be in the occupation of other tenants, and no proceedings for the sale of the estate have been instituted before the Estates Commissioners. In the event of the Commissioners acquiring suitable untenanted lands in the neighbourhood the applications will be considered.

  Bookbinding Work in the Public Record Office, Dublin.
  MR. NANNETTI: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the bookbinders'work of the Public Record Office, Dublin, is at the present time being executed by a member of the office staff who is in receipt of a weekly wage of 27s. while the minimum wages of bookbinders in Dublin is 32s. per week; and will he undertake to make inquiries and have the work done for the future by bookbinders who will be paid not less than the minimum scale of wages.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish) A portion only of the time of one workman searcher is employed in certain binding work at the Public Record Office.

  Salaries of Irish National School Teachers.
  MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland can he state the number of vacancies in Irish national schools in principalships and in assistantships, respectively; whether he is aware that the dearth of teachers is due to the present grade salaries, and to the slowness of promotion; that a number of teachers trained at the expense of the Irish Education Vote are caking up positions in England; that many managers, in order to secure competent teachers, are under the necessity of supplementing their salaries by sums ranging from £5 to £15; and whether, in view of these facts, he will invite the Commissioners to reopen the whole question of the salaries of national teachers.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) It is not possible to state accurately the number of vacancies existing in Irish national schools at any one time. From the office records there would seem to be about thirty-eight vacancies for principals and about fifty-one vacancies for assistants at present; but when the returns are received from the managers at the end of the present month it will be found, no doubt, that most of these vacancies have been filled. There is no dearth of teachers of national schools. Owing to regulations made by the English Education Board for the recognition of the certificates of the Irish National Board some Irish teachers are obtaining employment in schools in England. On the other hand some teachers certificated in England are obtaining employment in Irish national schools. The Commissioners expect local aid to supplement the salaries of the teachers. This is an essential condition for the recognition of a school by the Board. The scale of salaries has been fixed only comparatively recently, and it is not proposed to reopen the question. It must be remembered that the average number of pupils at each Irish school is about fifty-four, and the average at each English school is about 250, and that Irish teachers cannot expect to be paid at the same rate for teaching small schools (of which there are 5,360 with

  69
  attendances of less than fifty pupils in Ireland) as English teachers are paid for teaching large schools of 200 children and upwards.

  Visit of Salvation Army Officer to John Foster when under Sentence of Death.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a man named John Foster was tried and condemned to death at Cork, on the 22nd March last; that after Foster received sentence he expressed a desire to be visited by a Salvation Army officer; that the officer went to the prison to visit the condemned man, but was refused admission until consent was given by the prison chaplain, which was also refused; if he can state on what grounds was Foster refused his request; and what steps, if any, will be taken to prevent such refusals in future.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Foster, who was tried and condemned as stated, did not at any time express a desire to be visited by a Salvation Army officer. On 23rd March two female officers of the Salvation Army went to the prison to visit the condemned man, but he declined to see them; and they were so informed. If the prisoner had desired to receive the visit the prison chaplain would have raised no objection.

  Division of Rathmines District—Cost of Local Inquiry.
  MR. CLANCY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the demand made on the Dublin County Council by the Local Government Board for Ireland for payment of the costs for holding a local inquiry in reference to the division of the suburban district of Rathmines into wards; whether he is aware that, though the inquiry referred to was held by the Local Government Board, it was declared by that body itself to be illegal, on the ground that the Board had no power-to do that for which the inquiry was held; whether there is any precedent for such a demand; and whether the demand will be persisted in by the Board.
  70
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The Local Government Board applied in due course to the Dublin County Council for payment, under Article 32 (3) of the Schedule to The Local Government (Application of Enactments) Order, 1898, of the costs of the local inquiry held by them into the appeals lodged against the Order of the Dublin County Council altering the wards of the Rathmines Urban District. The county council, however, refused to pay these costs, on the ground that the inquiry need not have been held, as the Local Government Board might have decided the legal point against the Order before it was raised. The Board have pointed out that the lodgment of petitions against the Order of the county council rendered it obligatory on them to hold the inquiry, that the legal point was not raised until the inquiry was held, and that even if the Board had been aware of the legal point they were nevertheless bound by statute to hold the inquiry before adjudicating in the matter. The Board are required in all cases where local inquiries are held to recover the costs thereof from the local authorities, and must follow the usual course in this case.

  Petition of Barbados for a British Garrison.
  MR. COGHILL: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to a petition from the Barbados House of Assembly, praying that a garrison of Imperial troops might continue to be stationed at Barbados; and whether he can see his way to give effect to the petition.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) The petition referred to by the hon. Member has been received and has been laid before the King, but His Majesty's Government regret to have found themselves unable to advise His Majesty to give effect to it.

  Manufacture of Bayonets.
  MR. J. F. HOPE: To ask the Secretary of State for War how many bayonets have been manufactured at Enfield during the present

  71
  year; how many are required to complete stocks and reserve; and how it is proposed that these latter should be supplied.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The following bayonets for the short rifle have been manufactured since:—

  1st January, 1905.

  1st April, 1905.

  New

  19,303

  6,809

  Conversions

  1,018

  Nil.

  The numbers required to complete stock and reserve for the short rifle are 12,226. 2,500 are to be ordered from the trade, and the balance from the Ordnance Factories.

  Woolwich Arsenal
  MR. CROOKS: To ask the I Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that 150 men engaged in the Danger Building, Royal Laboratory, Woolwich Arsenal, were indefinitely suspended on Saturday, June 17th; and whether this method is adopted only to reduce the rates of pay in these departments of individual men.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) Notices of suspension were given to 160 men in the Royal Laboratory Danger Buildings, Royal Arsenal, on the 17th instant on account of shortness of work. It is regretted that it is probable that these men will have to be discharged.

  Grants to Rifle Clubs
  MAJOR SEELY: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he can now state whether it will be possible to; make a grant to such rifle clubs as are affiliated to the National Rifle Association during the present year; and, if not, whether it is proposed to make such grant next year.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold Forster.) I am afraid I can only refer my hon. and gallant friend to the Answer given by me to an identical Question on March 22nd,† an Answer which I have no reason, at present, to vary.
  † See (4) Debates, exliii., 789

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Fleet Manœuvres in the English Channel.
    MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether two sections of the Fleet were manœuvring in different directions in the Channel without lights on the night of June 2nd; whether the Board of Trade regulations with regard to sounding the steam siren were observed when the fog came on and the "Afghanistan" was run down, involving the loss of nineteen lives; and, if so, whether the Admiralty will take care in future that such operations shall be confined to less crowded seas than the English Channel.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN,): The Channel Fleet was manœuvring without lights in two columns of divisions line ahead shortly before midnight on June 2nd. At the time of the collision, which occurred more than an hour later, the ships were proceeding on their course and showing navigation and steam lights. The Answer to the second part of the Question is in the affirmative. The Admiralty consider it inadvisable to exclude any of the waters of our coasts from the manœuvre area of our Fleets.

    Submarines.
    MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty how many submarine boats have been completed up to the present for the Navy, and what has been the total expenditure upon them; how many have been sunk or destroyed, and what has been the total loss of life; how many of the remaining boats are considered seaworthy; and whether steps can be taken to experiment more carefully with this type of boat so as to avert such loss of life as took place in the recent accident at Plymouth
    MR. PRETYMAN: The total expenditure upon submarine boats up to the present time is £807,535. The number of boats already completed is seventeen. Two of the vessels have been sunk, but both were subsequently recovered, and; the total loss of life—including those

    73
    killed by the explosion on the A 5—amounts to four officers and twenty-eight men. All the boats are considered seaworthy. Every care is taken during exercises, and the recent accident was not due to experiments.

    Late Arrival of Ministers.
    When the Questions addressed to the Secretary of State for War were reached the right hon. Gentleman was not in his place to answer them.
    MR. SWIFT MACNE. LL: Where is the Secretary of State for War?
    An HON. MEMBER: He has resigned.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND, addressing the Speaker, said: On a point of order, Sir, may I put a Question? There are eighty starred Questions on the Paper to-day, probably more than can be answered within the time limited under the rules. If the proceedings are to be interrupted for five or ten minutes waiting for Ministers to come in, it is quite impossible to hope that anything like the number on the Paper can be answered. Is there no remedy to protect the right of private Members to have their Questions answered?
    MR. SPEAKER: The inconvenience may possibly have arisen owing to the fact that the first twenty-four Questions have gone through so very rapidly.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,)at this point entered the House and expressed regret at his late arrival.

    The South African War Stores Scandal— The Press Censorship.
    MR. WHITLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state on whose authority the Press censors in South Africa prevented references being made in the local newspapers to the alleged scandals in connection with the military contracts for sales and supplies.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been
    74
    directed to the fact that the Press correspondents in Pretoria would have warned the public of the questionable transactions with reference to the sales and refunds to contractors by the military authorities in South Africa, but were prevented from so doing by the Press censors in South Africa; and will he say who was the chief military Press censor at the time of these transactions during the dual system of sales and contracts from June, 1902, and onwards; whether he has made any inquiries into this matter; and, if so, whit are the results of those inquiries; and whether he has any, and, if so, what, explanation to make with reference to the action of the Press censors in this matter.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: In reference to these Questions, a telegram was despatched to the General Officer Commandng in South Africa, who reports that he questioned the editor of the Pretoria News, the paper which was responsible for the statement which has appeared in the English Press. The editor stated that he referred to censorship in 1931 concerning statements criticising meat and transport contracts, and not to the sales contracts which had not then commenced.
    MR. WHITLEY: May we take it that the Pretoria News was prevented in 1901 from making references to these matters?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: AH the papers were under a censorship at that time.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Who was the chief military censor?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I do not know.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Do you not We do. Stanley!

    Amount Realised by Sales of Military Stores in South Africa.
    MR. SLACK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what was the actual amount realised and received as the total result of the sales of the surplus animals and articles which Lord Kitchener in his cablegram of 18th

    75
    June, 1902, estimated would probably reach some £6,000,000 or £7,000,000, referred to in paragraph 7, on page 5, of the Report of the Committee on Sales and Refunds to Contractors in South Africa. [Cd. 2435]
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Will the hon. Member kindly refer to my reply to a similar Question put by the hon. Member for the Saffron Walden Division of Essex on Thursday† last.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Did not that refer to an entirely different set of stores?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERwas understood to reply that the same stores were referred to.
    MR. SLACKasked what the exact figure was.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he was following the ordinary practice in referring back to previous Answers. He did not know whether he need repeat the Answer to a previous Question. He would do so, however. It was as follows:—The War Office is not in possession of any detail of the stores on which the estimate made by Lord Kitchener—admittedly a rough one—was based. A total sum of approximately £8,000,000 was realised by the sale of various stock in South Africa from April, 1902, to September, 1904; but the moneys arising from the sale of ordinary supplies to soldiers, captured stock, etc., are included in this total and cannot be separated. As regards the other points raised in the Question, the information desired by the hon. Member would require considerable labour to obtain in consequence of the difficulty of differentiating between the stores actually consumed and those of a similar description which arrived at a later date.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Have the War Office the estimate made by Colonel Morgan and handed to Lord Kitchener, in which he puts the value of the stores at £8,000,000.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER;I must ask for notice of that
    † See Debates, exlvii., p. 1334

    The Preface to the Butler Report
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state, with reference to the observation in his preface to the Butler Report that as far as the charges with reference to individuals are concerned the matters dealt with in the Report must be regarded as sub judice, to what judicial authority does he refer, and what are his powers.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Will the hon. Member be good enough to refer to my reply to a similar Question put by the hon. Member for South Wolverhampton on Thursday‡ last, to which I have nothing to add.

    The War Office and the Butler Report
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether communications direct or indirect were made on receipt of the Draft Report of the South African Sales and Refunds to Contractors Committee, to members of that Committee suggestive of alterations of the general character of the Report and of the presentation of the findings in a form less distinctive to the individuals and the system condemned; and whether the preface to the Report was written by him after suggestions for the alteration or rewriting of the Report were repelled by the Committee.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: There is not a shadow of foundation for the suggestion contained in the hon. Member's Question
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I will accept the right hon. Gentleman's word, but do I understand that no communications have passed between him and any member of the Committee with reference to an alteration of that Report?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I thought I had answered that and that the hon. Member had accepted my assurance.

    Colonel Morgan
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask I must ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been directed to the
    ‡ See (4) Debates, exlvii., p. 1338

    77
    passage in Part II. of the Report of the Sales and Refunds to Contractors, in South Africa Committee in which the Committee hold Colonel Morgan entirely responsible for the grave scandals arising through his brother's connection with contracting firms, and consider that he contravened not only the letter of the regulations defining the conduct of officers but that he acted entirely in opposition to the spirit and traditions of the Army; and what action, if any, do the War Office authorities intend to take with reference to this gentleman.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Pending the result of a general inquiry into the transactions connected with the sales and refunds to contractors in South Africa, it is not proposed to take any further steps in regard to the officer in question.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: What was the date of Colonel Morgan's suspension?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Colonel Morgan has not been suspended.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Relieved; you know what I mean.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I cannot recall the exact date. If the hon. Member will give me notice I will tell him the date.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Was it only after the publication of the Report?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Accounts of the Sales Department in South Africa.
    MR. J. A. PEASE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Sales Department, appointed by Lord Kitchener on June 18th, 1902, kept strict ledgers and accounts for all transactions in accordance with his orders; and, if so, whether there is any official information showing that in the disposal of stores committed to the Sales Department there has been a wastage of three or four millions of money.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The records of the Sales Department have
    78
    been retained in South Africa. The points raised by the hon. Member will form part of the inquiry by the Royal Commission, and I am not, therefore, now in a position to deal with them.

    The Sale and Purchase of Oats in South Africa.
    MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether twenty-two cargoes of oats, carding a total quantity of 80,249 tons, were shipped from abroad to South Africa after the 1st of August, 1902; whether the whole quantity of these cargoes was first sold to and then bought back from Meyer, Limited, as explained in the Butler Report; and, if so, what did Meyer's profits amount to on this portion of his transaction.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The hon. Member's Question appears to me to raise precisely one of those issues which ought to be inquired into by the tribunal which is about to be created. Under these circumstances I must ask leave to be dispensed from answering it. It is clear that I cannot possibly have any information with regard to the last paragraph of the hon. Member's Question.
    MR. LOUGH: But the Prime Minister last week said no cargoes were sent out after July 5th. Can. the right hon. Gentleman explain the discrepancy in the two statements.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No cargoes were despatched under contracts made in this country.

    Cost of Military Supplies Sold in South Africa and Amount Realised.
    MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what was the actual cost price of the supplies, set out on page 37 of the Butler Report, as having accumulated in South Africa on the 30th December, 1902; what amount was produced by the sale of these stores; and what loss was shown on the transaction apart from sea freight and railway carriage.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: As these supplies were obtained from different

    79
    sources and at varying rates, it is only possible to state their price very approximately. The total estimated cost price was, roughly, £2,300,000. Only a portion of these supplies was sold, the remainder being retained for use by the troops. I am afraid that I cannot give any figures for the amounts sold, as it is not possible without very great labour to pick out the items.

    Military Stores destroyed in South Africa.
    DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether receipts were originally obtained for the £250,000 worth of Army stores stated, in Parliamentary Paper 2433, to have been destroyed in South Africa during 1899– 1901; and, if so, why the War Office has entered the words "not known" in the column for the names of the contractor who supplied the stores, in that Parliamentary Paper in respect of over £100,000 worth of destroyed stores.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Receipts for money paid to contractors in respect of stores, etc., are always obtained before the charges are passed against Army Votes. The Return in question was compiled from reports of boards held on supplies in South Africa, and in those eases referred to the names of the contractors were not specified by the I boards. As the supplies were obtained from so many different sources, there was no information at the War Office) available to supplement the details for-warded from South Africa.

    The Military Stores Scandal—The Impugned Firms.
    DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state why it was that not until the] it June, 1905, wee the names of Messrs. Messer and Co. of Pretoria, and of Messrs. Wilson and Worthington, of Pretoria, struck off the War Office Army Contracts lilts, having regard to the fact that the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General containing statements respecting the sale to, after purchase from, the Government by these firms of oats and for the at enormous profit to themselves
    80
    was issued as far back as 10th March, 1905.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The fact that these firms had made very advantageous contracts with the local military authorities did-not in itself justify their being black-listed. But on the receipt of Sir W. Butler's Report instructions were given that, pending a further inquiry, no fresh contracts should be given to the firms in question.

    The Military Stores Scandal—The Monthly Reports.
    DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state who was responsible for the failure to carry out the order of the War Office of 31st July, 1902, calling for monthly reports by telegram from South Africa as to the working of the dual system of purchase from, and sale to, local contractors of Army supplies as set up under Lord Kitchener's authority in June, 1902; and whether the War Office have taken or propose to take any steps at all in connection with this failure.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Questions of this character will doubtless form part of the inquiry by the Royal Commission, and I think, therefore, this branch of the inquiry should be left to that body.
    DR. MACNAMARA: Can the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my Question.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I will state this afternoon what we have done.

    Lord Kitchener and the Butler Report
    DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether Lord Kitchener's attention has been called to the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, issued in March, and of the Butler Committee, issued in June, respecting the working of the dual system of purchases from, and sales to, local contractors in South Africa, as set up by Lord Kitchener in June, 1103; whether any report on the matter has been received from Lord Kitchener; and whether the War Office proposes to ask for his views on the matter.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No communications on these Reports have passed with Lord Kitchener. In view of the inquiry by the Royal Commission the War Office do not propose to take any steps in the direction suggested. Of course the Report has been communicated to Lord Kitchener.

    General Sir Neville Lyttelton.
    MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state if General Sir Neville Lyttelton has resigned his position as First Military Member of the Army Council and Chief of the General Staff; and, if so, under what circumstances.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: General Sir Neville Lyttelton has not resigned his position upon the Army Council.
    MR. MACVEAGH: Have any communications passed between the War Office and General Lyttelton as to the advisability of his resigning?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: General Lyttelton is not attached to the War Office, but to the Army Council.
    MR. MACVEAGH: Has no communication passed as to the effect of the Report on his position?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No, Sir; of course not. General Lyttelton is master of his own actions, and he has not resigned.
    MR. MACVEAGH: You may as well tell it now. It will all come out any way.

    Sales and Refunds Committee.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if there is any precedent for the publication of evidence as orally given and as corrected from the shorthand writers' transcription, as in the case of the Sales and Refunds Committee; if he will say with what object it was advised; and why the alteration of the questions docs not similarly appear in the second column.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I am not aware of any precedent for the mode of publication of the evidence in question. The departure from precedent in this instance is due to the pressure which was put upon the Committee by the Public Accounts Committee to burnish this Report. In consequence of this pressure, many of the corrections were received after the Report had been completed. The Chairman informed me that in the circumstances he considered it fair to the witnesses that the evidence upon which the Report was based should be distinguished from the corrected evidence which had not been before the Committee when the Report was signed. Under these circumstances, I did not feel justified in overruling the decision of the Chairman of the Committee.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: But is there any precedent for publishing the evidence without giving the witnesses an opportunity of correcting it?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: There is none, but the circumstances were peculiar. The publication was pressed for by the Public Accounts Committee and I felt it my duty to allow it.

    War Office Tenders.
    COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if at present and in peace time it is usual for the War Office to publish, or to permit those interested to see, the tenders for articles required by the War Office; if both the successful and the unsuccessful tenders are so published; and if there are any exceptions to the rule.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: It is not usual for the War Office to show either-successful or unsuccessful tenders to anyone. The name alone of the successful tenders is given to any unsuccessful tenders in that competition who specifically asks for it. There are no exceptions to these rules.

    The Royal Commission—Publication of Official Documents.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will lay upon the Table of the House copies of all official

    83
    documents, and all written communications exchanged between the War Office and officials and officers in South Africa, and all such written communications exchanged between the Colonial Office and the War Office, and between the Colonial Office and any of the authorities in British South Africa, with regard to sales and refunds to contractors in South Africa.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD or THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The documents to which the hon. Gentleman refers will be laid before the Commission, but not before the House of Commons. Why should they?
    MR. LABOUCHERE: Will all the documents be laid before the Commission as soon as it sits.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Of course every effort will be made to supply the Commission with all information of every sort, kind, or description which will aid them in their inquiry.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: Will the documents be published?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: They will be laid before the Commission, and I suppose the Commission will publish what it chooses. I am not at this moment able to do more than say that I should think if they are thought relevant they will be placed in the volume of evidence.

    The Secretary for War's Preface to the Butler Report.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Secretary of State for War, in prefacing with a statement of his own the Report presented to Parliament of the Committee appointed by the Army Council to consider the question of sales and refunds to contractors in South Africa, made this departure from ordinary practice as a Departmental act in which he could presume the concurrence of his colleagues in the Cabinet, or was the Prime Minister made personally cognisant of the intended publication of this preface, and was the concurrence of the
    84
    Cabinet to the intended publication ascertained; and, if the intended publication of this preface comes within the cognisance of the Prime Minister or under the review of the Cabinet, what explanation, if any, is there for the publication of a preface by a member of the Cabinet to the Report of a Departmental Committee in criticism of the findings and conclusions of that Committee.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The note to which the hon. Gentleman refers was referred to me and had my entire approval, and in my opinion nothing less than that would have been necessary in order to prevent gross misconception on the part of the public. I am not quite sure whether even that was sufficient.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is there any precedent for the publication by a member of the Cabinet of a Report with a note criticising the conclusions of such a Committee?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I see no reason why a member of the Cabinet should not criticise; but, as a matter of fact, this was not a criticism.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The object of this preface was not then, as it purports to be, to save the interest of persons involved, but to prevent a misconception on the part of the public, which is another matter altogether.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think it is exactly the same matter. The injury which possibly might have been done to the individual consisted of a misconception on the part of the public with regard to the Report. To prevent that misconception was the object of the preface.

    Royal Commission Precedents.
    MR. BLAKE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now cite the precedents on which he relies for the proposed issue of a Royal Commission empowering the nominees of the Ministry to investigate into its political laches or conduct, or that of any of its members, either without or with the concurrence of the House of Commons or of Parliament.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I rather imagined that the hon. Member would not put this Question. I thought he belonged to that section of the House which considers that the conduct of the Government should be discussed by the House, before the evidence is taken, on a vote of censure. But if it is to be discussed in both ways, I may in regard to precedents remind him of the Beck case, the South African War Commission, the Military Hospitals Commission, the Ordnance Commission, 1886, and the Fugitives Slaves Commission, 1876

    The House and the Appointment of the Commissioners.
    MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the names of the Commissioners will be recited in the Bill in such a way as to allow of the House pronouncing judgment on the selection.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir, the Bill will not be so drawn as to allow the House to discuss the question. The Commissioners will be mentioned in the preamble, but not so as to meet what I gather to be the desire of the hon. Gentleman.

    The Powers of the Royal Commission.
    MR. BLAKE: Is it intended that the Commission shall have power to investigate and report upon the conduct of Ministers?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand this is put as an "urgency" Question. Certainly, the Commission will be at liberty to make any reflection they like, either on members of His Majesty's Government or anybody else
    MR. BLAKE: Will the Commission be entitled to make inquiry into any matter of crime or offence cognisable by the law of this or any other country?
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,): Certainly, it is one of the purposes for which the Commission is constituted.

    Procedure of the Royal Commission.
    MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the
    86
    Treasury when the Royal Commission on Stores will meet, what procedure will be followed in taking and testing evidence, having regard to the alleged incompleteness of the Butler inquiry; what time will be afforded those against whom allegations have been made to prepare their answers; whether the Bill will give powers to the Commission to provide that counsel shall be heard, and, if so, whether the War Office will provide counsel for those accused officers who may not be in a position to employ counsel at the inquiry.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR;In answer to the series of Questions which the hon. Gentleman has just placed in my hands I have to say, with regard to the Question when the Royal Commission will meet, that that rests with the Commission; be, so far as I am concerned, the sooner the Commission meets the better. The procedure to be followed in obtaining and testing evidence will be the procedure which the Commission think the most fitted to attain the truth. The hon. Member's third Question is as to the time to be afforded to those against whom allegations have been made to prepare their answers. I am sure that the Commission will take care that sufficient time is given so as to prevent any in-justice. With regard to the fourth Question, I believe that Commissioners of this character have power to cause counsel to be heard. Whether it will be desirable to introduce a specific provision in their reference is a matter for consideration. As to the payment of the costs of counsel for the persons brought before the Commission, I think that is a point well worthy of consideration. It is clear that injustice might be done to poor men if they were compelled to employ counsel. I will examine the question and consult with my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War as to the course that' should be pursued.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: When will the Royal Commission Bill be introduced?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope to be able to introduce it within a few hours. I understand it is a matter on which my

    87
    right hon. and learned friend near me purposes to consult with the learned Gentleman opposite. It is a matter that does not involve controversy, and the consultation ought not to take long. I hope to introduce the Bill either tomorrow or on Wednesday.

    The Royal Commission and South African Land Settlement.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if the terms of the reference will be so drawn that the Commission to be appointed to inquire into the sale and purchase of stores in South Africa will also be empowered to inquire into the conduct of persons employed in the work of repatriation and land settlement.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think the extension of the reference the hon. Member desires is asked for by any section of public opinion. To so extend it would materially add to the labours of the Commission, and I do not recommend such an alteration.
    DR. MACNAMARA: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake there shall be an inquiry into the proceedings of the Repatriation Commission?
    MR. PIRIE: If information comes out in the course of the present inquiry making investigation into this matter necessary, will the Commission have the power to inquire?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member may rest assured that if the Commissioners make any request for an extension of the scope of their inquiry that will be acceded to.

    Inspection of Welsh Yeomanry.
    COLONEL WYNDHAM-QUIN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War far what reason certain regiments of Imperial Yeomanry comprised in the Welsh command have not been inspected this year by the officer appointed for that purpose; and, should it be found impossible for one officer to carry out the duty of inspecting the Yeomanry in this command, will he
    88
    appoint another officer to act as assistant inspector.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Of the twelve Imperial Yeomanry regiments in the command no less than seven came out for training at the same time between May 23rd and June 9th. This was owing to the fact that the arrangements for the camps and dates of training were fixed by three different districts to which these regiments belonged before the new Welsh and Midland Command was formed, the dates being chosen by the regiments themselves. It was manifestly impossible for the staff officer for Imperial Yeomanry to see all these regiments in a week as they were camped at great distances apart. Of the twelve regiments nine were inspected by the staff officer, and special officers were deputed to inspect the three remaining regiments. It is hoped that next year arrangements will be made to obviate any difficulties of a similar character.

    Militia and Volunteers—Duke of Norfolk's Commission.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I big to ask the Secretary of State for War how much longer it is proposed to defer taking any steps to carry out the recommendations, or any of them, of the Report of the Duke of Norfolk's Commission on Militia and Volunteers, which has been in his hands for twelve months.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I am afraid that it is not possible to state at present what steps it will be possible to take in order to give effect to the recommendations of the Norfolk Commission. As I have already explained to the House, most of the recommendations involve additional expenditure of money, and at the present time there are no funds available for the purpose. As my hon. and gallant friend is aware, the full amount of the Militia and Volunteer Vote for last year has been continued this year.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Has any decision been come to on the Report?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Yes, and I have announced the decision.

    Efficiency of the Volunteers.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how many divisions there are in the Volunteer force ready for immediate use as a field army, with their proper complement of artillery, engineers, and cavalry, and if these divisions and the brigades composing them are under the command of the generals and brigadiers, and in charge of the staff, who will be responsible for their efficiency or mobilisation, and if they have ever been or will ever be exercised together.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I am afraid the Answer must be what my hon. and gallant friend anticipates, namely: that there are no divisions of Volunteers in the state of preparedness referred to in the Question. The Army Council is now making a detailed inquiry into the condition of the various Volunteer units, with a view of ascertaining what proportion of the officers and men who compose them are fit for active service. I rely upon my hon. and gallant friend, and the officers of the Volunteer force generally, to assist the Army Council in their endeavours to improve the efficiency of the Volunteer force in the directions suggested by him, and I can assure him that I share the hopes which he evidently entertains that the Volunteers may before long, be organised on a more effective system than that which has hitherto prevailed.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: When will this be communicated to the Volunteer force?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: It has been.

    General Sir E. R. Elles.
    MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the terms of the communication received from General Sir E. R. Elles resigning his position as Military Member of the Indian Viceregal Council.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK,): I have not received any communication from General Sir. E. R. Elles, resigning his position as member of the Council of the Governor-General of India.

    Lord Curzon.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Government have received any intimation from Lord Curzon of his desire or intention to resign his post as viceroy of India.
    MR. BRODRICK: No, Sir. There is no foundation for that report.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: It is too good to be true.

    International Dairy Conference.
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government has received any notice of, or invitation to, an International Dairy Conference to be held in Paris next October; and, if so, will they be prepared to nominate a delegate to such conference if asked to do so.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY,His Majesty's Government have been informed of the establishment of an International Federation for the protection of the interests of the dairy industry, but have not received any invitation to send delegates to a conference on the subject at Paris. If such an invitation were received, the Government would be willing to consider the matter.

    Macedonian Finance.
    MR. NOEL BUXTON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress, if any, has been made in the negotiations between the Powers and the Sublime Porte in regard to the scheme of control of the finances of Macedonia.
    EARL PERCY: More than a month having elapsed since the Collective Note was presented, the Ambassadors at Constantinople are making further joint representations pressing for an answer form the Turkish Government.

    Exchequer Balances.
    MR. McCRAE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the sum locked

    91
    up in Exchequer Balances, amounting to £9,075,000 on June 20th, 1905, as against £5,591,000 on June 18th, 1904, he will take steps to reduce the floating debt created in the form of Treasury bills.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): The Exchequer Balance is specially increased this year by the receipts from the recent issue of Exchequer bonds. Those receipts will be required later on for paying off the Exchequer bonds which mature this year. Advantage has been taken of the state of our balances to drop a certain number of Treasury bills temporarily. It would not be possible to drop more of these bills without having to reissue them in the autumn in quantities which would be very inconvenient to the market. Last year, owing to the depleted state of the Exchequer Balance, it was necessary to borrow large sums for payment of the July dividends. This year no such borrowing will be required.
    MR. McCRAE: Is any interest receivable on these large sums?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.

    Canon Greenwell and Motor Cyclists.
    MR. DUNCAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the fact that Canon Greenwel, presiding over-the Durham Bench of Magistrates, had sad, when sentencing two motor-cyclists for driving their machines at excessive speed, that it would not be a bad plan if some of them were shot; and if he proposes to take any action in the matter.
    The following Questions on the same subject also appeared on the Paper—
    MR. BRIGHT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the statement of the Rev. Canon Greenwell, presiding at the Durham County Bench of Magistrates on the 21st instant, that it would not be a bad plan if a few motorists were shot; and, if so, whether it is proposed to remove the
    92
    Rev. Canon Greenwell from the commission of the peace.
    MR. ARTHUR STANLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to certain remarks, advocating the shooting of motorists, made by Canon Greenwell when sitting as a magistrate at the Durham County Police Court on the 21st instant; and, if so, whit action he intends to take.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,): Perhaps I may answer this, and. the Questions of the hon. Members for the Oswestry Division and the Ormskirk Division, together. I understand from Canon Greenwell that what he actually said was as follows:—"I do not think I should be inclined to follow the advice of Lord Queensberry, but if some of these reckless drivers, who destroy the comfort and endanger the life of other travellers, were shot, I am not sure we should say that much harm was done." Canon Greenwell has explained to me that his remark was not made seriously, and that no one in Court regarded it as being made seriously. I think this is obvious, and though I cannot approve of such remarks being made from the Bench, even in jest, I do not think that any further action is called for.

    Bail for Prisoners.
    MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that several Judges have recently expressed strong opinions on the conduct of magistrates in refusing to admit prisoners to bail; and whether he will issue a circular to all justices urging upon them the advisability of granting bail in all suitable cases, and especially of acting in accordance with the spirit of the Bail Act, 1898.
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I would refer the hon. Member to the printed Answer which I gave on May 2nd† last year, to a Question on this subject put to
    † See (4) Debate, exxviv., 93.

    93
    me by the hon. Member for West Carmarthen. The views of the Home Office and of the Judges on this subject are well known to justices, and I have no reason to think that they fail generally to act upon them. I do not, therefore, think that any useful purpose would be served by the issue of another circular at the present time. It seems to me better that the Department should continue to watch the working of the Bail Act, 1898, and should call the attention of the justices to any individual cases of hardship that may come to its notice.

    Medical and Dentists'Registers.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, having regard to the fact that during recent years twenty names have been struck off the Medical Register for infamous conduct in a professional respect, whilst six names were removed from the Dentists' Register for a similar cause, will he state in how many instances the names were removed on charges of adultery.
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: The answer is—from the Medical Register, in four cases; from the Dental Register, in none.

    Police and Motor-Car Drivers.
    GENERAL LAURIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps, by legislation or otherwise, to secure that the police shall institute the prosecutions in all cases against motor-car drivers who may contravene the law, and to secure that a person, who may be injured or run over by a motor-car need not apply personally to a magistrate for a summons.
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: A summons calling on any one to answer a criminal charge is issued in pursuance of an information laid by someone who is personally cognisant of the facts alleged to constitute the offence charged. I see no season for making an exception to the general law with regard to charges against motor-car drivers; nor can I issue instructions to the police to prosecute in every case of an alleged offence brought to their notice. It is their duty to enforce the law, but the question of
    94
    the cases in which it is proper for them to prosecute must be left to their discretion.
    GENERAL LAURIE: How are proceedings to be initiated against motor drivers who break the law, and who is to do it?
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: The person who sees the offence committed. The police will use their best efforts when their attention is called to a case. There is no holding back on the part of the police.
    GENERAL LAURIE: If the attention of the police is called to a case, have they authority to act, and will they do so?
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: Certainly they will act; but, as I have said, the question whether they will prosecute must be left to their discretion.

    Canadian Agricultural Products.
    MR. BRIGHT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he can give any information to show whether or not the local demand in Canada for butter, cheese, cattle, and oat s, is increasing at the present time more rapidly than the production of those commodities.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BONAR LAW,): There is no official information available which would enable me to answer this Question.

    Customs Regulations.
    MR. EUGENE WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether His Majesty's Custom-House will arrange that the whole duty on dutiable articles which a passenger has declared that he has in his possession shall not be insisted upon if the passenger offers to surrender those which he does not wish to retain, and to pay the duty on those he wishes to keep.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH,): The Board of Customs have issued no regulations disallowing the acceptance of duty on a

    95
    portion of the dutiable articles brought by a passenger.

    Customs Watchers' Grievances.
    MR. CAUSTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state what, if any, concessions he is prepared to make in answer to the petition of the Customs watchers.
    MR. CAUSTON: I beg also to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will now give an answer to the petition of the upper section non-pensioner watchers which was presented in November last.
    MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: The Treasury is now engaged in considering certain proposals, submitted within the last few days by the Board of Customs, affecting the staff of that Department. I will expedite matters as much as possible.

    The Education Department and the Court of the University of Wales
    MR. BRYNMOR JONES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether certain of His Majesty's inspectors in the service of the Board of Education who had been duly elected members of the Court of the University of Wales were requested by him to resign their membership of the Court; if so, will he say when, and explain why they were so requested; whether he is aware that before the said inspectors resigned their membership of the Court notices had been issued for a meeting of the Court at Shrewsbury on Friday the 9th June, at which questions affecting the administration of the University were to be discussed and determined; and that the bodies of persons who had, under the Charter of the University of Wales, duly elected the said inspectors to represent them on the said Court could not before the 9th June elect other persons in their places; did any correspondence take place between the Board of Education and any member of the Court other than the inspectors in question in reference to their occupying the position of members of the Court; if so, with what member or members of the Court did such correspondence take
    96
    place; and will he lay the correspondence upon the Table.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON,): The resignations referred to were effected in consequence of instructions from the Board given during the first week in June. The Board are of opinion that it is undesirable that His Majesty's inspectors should take part in public meetings or as members of local bodies in matters of local controversy. I am aware of the circumstances referred to by the hon. Member, and regret any inconvenience which may have been occasioned to the bodies who were represented by the inspectors in question; but having regard to the contentious character of the matters which were coming up for d session at the Court, the Board consider that the instructions given wore necessary. No correspondence on the subject passed between the Board and any other member of the Court.

    The Ancient Walls of Berwick on-Tweed.
    MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether the attention of His Majesty's Government has been called to the intention announced by the Town Council of Berwick-on-Tweed to sell for building purposes a piece of land on which there stands parts of the ancient walls of that town, dating from the time of King Edward the First; and whether, having regard to the great interest of these walls as being one of the best examples of mediaeval fortifications still left in this country, His Majesty's Government will take such steps as are within their power to prevent the destruction of this important monument of antiquity.
    LORD BALCARRES: The Answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. His Majesty's Government have entered into an agreement with the town council by which they have succeeded in preserving the most interesting portions of the remains of the fortifications, including

    97
    the Bell Tower; and it does not appear to be possible to do anything more at present.

    Scottish Churches Bill—Constitution of the Royal Commission
    MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate what are the names of the Commissioners under the Scottish Churches Bill; and when will the Bill be proceeded with.
    SIR CHARLES RENSHAW: May I at the same time ask the Lord-Advocate whether he is now in a position to state the names of the members of the Commission. to be appointed under the Churches (Scotland) Bill.
    THE LORD-ADVOCATE (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON,): The Government are anxious that the Bill should be proceeded with as early as possible, but I am advised by the Prime Minister that he cannot at present fix the precise date for taking the Second Reading. His Majesty has been graciously pleased to approve of the following as Commissioners in the event of the Bill becoming law:—The Earl of Elgin (Chairman), Lord Kinnear, Sir Ralph Anstruther, Bart., Sir Thomas Gibson Carmichael, Bart., Sir Charles B. Logan.

    Sea Carriage of Fish from Stornoway.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate, in view of the statement contained in the letter addressed by the Secretary for Scotland to the Chairman of the Lewis Local Committee on 15th February, 1904, will he state whether it has yet been found possible to secure a reduction in the rates charged for the sea carriage of fish from Stornoway.
    MR. SCOTT DICKSON: This matter has been very carefully inquired into since February, 1904, but I regret I am unable to give the hon. Member any assurances as to the probability of a reduction of the rates in question.

    Compulsory Attendance at Highland Schools.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if the Education Department
    98
    will consider the expediency of enabling school boards in the Highland crofting counties to extend the age for compulsory attendance at school to seven years where the climatic conditions and the distance to be traversed render such a course desirable.
    MR. SCOTT DICKSON: The matter will be considered, but in the view of the Department, as at present advised, there are great difficulties in the way of making any alteration of the law such as is suggested by the hon. Member.

    The Irish Land Judge's Court
    COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if his attention has been drawn to the statement of Judge Ross that sales in his Court are blocked for a want of £600,000 credit; and if he could obtain this credit for Judge Ross without infringing on the claims of other vendors to priority.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALTER LONG,): At the request of my right hon. friend, I will reply to this Question, and will at the same time answer the Questions of the hon. Members for Mid. Armagh and East Kenny. It would be impossible, without grave injustice to other vendors, to appropriate out of the comparatively small sum immediately available a sum of £600,000 to those vendors who may sell through the Land Judge's Court. The temporary insufficiency of funds is not due to any regulations which have been issued. The whole matter is engaging the most anxious consideration of the Government.
    The following are the other Questions referred to—
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the statement by Mr. Justice Ross, that the business of his Court must shortly cone to a standstill, owing to the intimation be had received from the Estates Commissioners that they could not reserve £600,000 out of the annual Government grant, pending the winding-up of estates in the Land Judge's Court; and what steps the

    99
    Government propose to take to prevent the threatened deadlock.
    MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to recent proceedings in the Land Judge's Court, in Dublin, relating to the insufficiency of funds for the purpose of carrying on sales of estates in Court; whether this insufficiency is caused by any new regulations issued to the Estates Commissioners; and, if so, or in any event, whether he proposes to take any steps to expedite the winding-up of this Court in accordance with the Resolution agreed to by Parliament.

    Irish Arterial Drainage
    MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has taken any steps to appoint the Commissioners to inquire into the subject of arterial drainage in Ireland; and, if so, can he now state their names and qualifications, and give the terms of their reference; also whether he has considered the advisability of introducing a Bill to give to joint local authorities in Ireland the powers of drainage boards in respect of areas affected by the overflowing of rivers running through their several jurisdictions, especially with the view of making the Irish Development Grant available as a fund in aid of operations by such boards.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The terms of reference are under consideration, and until these have been settled the Commission cannot be appointed. Legislation will be necessary for carrying out any reforms in the existing system, but it will obviously be impracticable to introduce legislation in the present session.

    Limavady Justices
    MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief. Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what official informed him as to the number and religious composition of the justices of the peace in Limavady, county Derry; and whether he can state the names of the six Episcopalians, three presbyterians, and one Catholic on the Bench in that district.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The information was procured from the Clerk of the Crown and Hanaper, who obtained it by private inquiry, there being no official record of the religious persuasion of magistrates. Further inquiry has since been made, from which it appears that the magistrate who was believed to be a Catholic is not one. The composition of the Bench should be returned as six members of the Irish Church, four Presbyterians, and one Methodist. It is not the practice to state the names of the individuals belonging to each religious denomination. The Lord Chancellor is always glad to consider the names of properly qualified gentlemen which may be brought before him.

    Irish Police and Motor-Cars.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether two motor-cars, driven by district inspectors of the Royal Irish Constabulary, are now running experimentally, a record being kept of the mileage, the failures, and the accidents; and, if so, what has been the cost of these motor-cars, in what Estimate will that cost be included, and from what firms have these motorcars been bought by the Constabulary authorities, and by whose direction and by whose suggestion were they purchased; whether the Royal Irish Constabulary authorities are contemplating the equipment of district and county inspectors with motor-cars; and, if so, what will be the initial and annual expenditure likely to be incurred by such equipment; and whether, having regard to the loss of life, damage to property, and injury to roads occasioned by motor-car driving, before any steps are taken for this change involving expenditure of public money, the House of Commons will be given an opportunity of expressing its views on the proposed change, and will be furnished with an estimate of the probable cost such change will entail.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The Answer to the first inquiry is in the negative. In January last it was arranged, with Treasury sanction, that the use of motorcars by officers should be tested in two counties as an experiment, the intention

    101
    being that, if the plan proved unobjectionable, officers should be allowed the option of keeping either horses or motor-cars. Officers who should choose to use motorcars were to be allowed to obtain them at their own expense, on the express understanding, however, that the existing allowances, namely, a forage allowance of £50, and a servant's allowance of £45, were not to be increased. These allowances are borne on the Constabulary Vote. Difficulties have arisen in making the proposed experiment, and nothing has been done.

    Orange Disturbances at Coalisland.
    MR. DOOGAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it has come to his knowledge that a party of Orangemen stoned Mr. Harkin's Hotel, Coalisland, on the 3rd instant, causing considerable damage to the building and terror and danger to the inmates, as, though the district is proclaimed, pistol shots were fired concurrently with the stone-throwing; can he state how many of those rioters can be identified by the police and local persons; and whether steps have yet been taken to prosecute them.
    MR. WALTER LONG: Several slates and panes of glass were broken in Mr. Harkin's public-house by the followers of an Orange band. On the same evening shots were fired outside the town by members of both Parties. The disturbance was of short duration. The offenders ran away on the approach of the police, who could neither identify, nor obtain evidence against, them. No prosecution, therefore, has been instituted.

    The Garvagh Murder.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I bag to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the murder of Mrs. Kate Hassan by her son at Garvagh, county Derry, and to the evidence of the police that they had no power of controlling the sale of ether in the neighbourhood; and, if so, will he take steps to have the law made effective.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The statement attributed to the police is not quite
    102
    accurate. Sulphuric ether is scheduled as a poison under Part II. of the Sale of Poisons (Ireland) Act, 1870, the result being that its sale is prohibited except by qualified druggists, and in bottles labelled "Poison," under a penalty not exceeding £5 for the first offence, and £10 for the second and subsequent offences. There appears to be. some reason to believe that ether is secretly sold by unqualified persons in the district referred to, and the police have been instructed to use every effort to bring offenders to justice.

    Belfast Post Office—Late-Fee Letter Box
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-Genera] whether, in view of the inconvenience to the public of Belfast due to the failure of the department to provide a late-fee letter box convenient to the receiver at the front counter of the Belfast office, he will give instructions for the placing of such a box forthwith.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,: As stated in my reply to a similar Question asked by the hon. Member on the 17th of February,† 1904, a late-fee letter box is already provided in Garfield Street beside the large letter boxes for general posting. An additional late-fee box at the public counter seems unnecessary, and I am not aware that any inconvenience is occasioned by the absence of such a box.
    MR. SLOAN: Is the noble Lord aware that the general public are continually asking where the box in Garfield Street is placed?
    LORD STANLEY: No, Sir.
    MR. SLOAN: Will he inquire?
    LORD STANLEY: I have already done so.

    Dublin Law Courts Clerkships.
    MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state if it is intended to fill any future vacancies in clerkships in the
    † See Debates (4) cxxx., 21

    103
    Dublin Law Courts by the transfer of second division clerks.
    MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: So far as I am aware there is no such intention.

    The Sinking of British Steamers by Russian Cruisers.
    MR. CHARLES McARTHUR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is in a position to make any statement with respect to the demands made by His Majesty's Government on behalf of the owners and crews of British merchant ships unjustifiably seized, detained, or destroyed by Russian cruisers, or with respect to measures taken to prevent a repetition of these outrages. The hon. Member explained he was only asking for general information.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: May I ask whether the Prime Minister can now answer a Question with regard to the "Knight Commander," which was sunk in July last, and with respect to which he said in August last that he expected reparation would be mode?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no doubt there will be reparation; but I do not think it would be possible to give in answer to a Question a general statement entirely fulfilling the intention or the phraseology of the Question of the hon. Member; and I am glad to be able to inform him and the House that we have the best reason for knowing that the Russian Government disapprove of the course taken by these cruisers, and that orders have been transmitted to the "Dnieper" at Jibuti which will render it quite impossible for any repetition on the part of that vessel of these outrages, as we think, on international law.

    The National Gallery.
    COLONEL STOPFORD SACKVILLE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that the National Gallery has been without a director since December 31st, 1904, he is now m a position to make any announcement as to the arrangements proposed for its future management.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am advised by the trustees that the matter is still under their consideration and that they are not yet in a position to announce their future arrangements.

    Congested Districts (Scotland) Bill.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, in view of the fact that the Government have introduced the Congested Districts (Scotland) Bill several years in succession, will he state whether the Government propose to proceed with the Bill this session.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid I cannot make any statement with regard to this Bill.

    Office of Director of Public Prosecutions.
    MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will consider the advisability of making the tenure of the office of Director of Public Prosecutions the same as that of Comptroller and Auditor-General, viz.: during good behaviour, and removable only on an Address by both Houses of Parliament.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir; I do not think any ground has yet been shown for the change to be made in our machinery for criminal prosecutions which the hon. Gentleman desires. I have, therefore, no intention of making it.

    Votes of Censure.
    SIR CARNE RASCH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in order to save time, he will allocate Monday in each week to the discussion of the usual vote of censure.
    [No Answer was returned.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANasked as to the arrangements for business.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid it was proposed to take Committee on the Aliens Bill on Tuesday and Wednesday, and for financial reasons it would be

105
necessary to take Vote 8 for the Navy on Thursday, the Post Office set down for that day being postponed for a week. Probably the Aliens Bill would be taken on Monday next.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I was under the impression that for weeks the arrangement had been to take the Post Office Vote next week.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I believe that was the arrangement provisionally made, but circumstances having rendered it necessary to postpone it my right hon. friend the Patronage Secretary of the Treasury communicated the fact to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Leeds. The House will understand we do this with great regret, but I hope to take the Post Office Vote on Thursday week.
CAPTAIN NORTON: Was I not given a definite promise by the Postmaster-General, which was communicated to me by the Secretary to the Treasury, that the Post Office Vote should be taken next Thursday. May we rely on it being taken next week, or will the date be again shifted to the great inconvenience of Members.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Sir A. ACLAND-HOOD,): Yes, there was a definite arrangement made, and I much regret that circumstances have arisen which necessitate a change of date.
CAPTAIN NORTON: May I take it definitely that it will be put down for Thursday in next week.
MR. A. J. BALFOURassented.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
John Muldoon, esquire, for the county of Donegal (North Donegal Division).
NEW BILLS.

  COMPANIES ACTS (AMENDMENT) (DENTISTS) BILL.
  "To prohibit Joint Stock Companies from carrying on practice as dentists ex-
  106
  cept by means of duly qualified persons, "presented by Sir John Take; supported by Sir John Brunner, Mr. James Campbell, Mr. Cathcart Wason, Sir Michael Foster, and Sir Walter Foster; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 5th July, and to be printed. [Bill 250.]

  COMPANIES ACTS (AMENDMENT) (PHYSICIANS, ETC.) BILL.
  "To prohibit Joint Stock Companies from acting as Physicians, Surgeons, or medical practitioners," presented by Sir John Tuke; supported by Sir John Brunner, Mr. James Campbell, Mr. Cathcart Wason, Sir Michael Foster, and Sir Walter Foster; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 5th July, and to be printed. [Bill 251.]

  SOUTH AFRICA (SALES AND REFUNDS).
  SIR ROBERT REIDrose to move, "That the conduct of Hs Majesty's Government in connection with the supply and disposal of stores, and the sales and refunds to contractors in South Africa at the end of the war, and their failure to inquire promptly into and deal with those transactions, deserve the censure of this House." He said: I desire to state with as much clearness and brevity as I can command, the ground on which I have placed this Motion upon the Paper. Between the end of the war in 1902 and the end of the year 1903, there were sales and repurchases of stores in South Africa which were of quite an extraordinary character, the main facts with regard to which have not been disputed, and are not capable of being disputed because they rest upon documents and accounts. There are disputes, no doubt, with regard to the details connected with these transactions and many of the surrounding transactions. There are also disputes in regard to the division of responsibility among officers on the spot, and as regards the character of the contractors who were engaged in these different concerns. I do not propose to enter into those questions. The House of Commons is not the place in which we can enter into the detailed transactions

  107
  of individuals who are not present, or allocate blame to them in regard to the transactions in which they have been concerned. Nor san we sift minute evidence, or come to a fair judgment as between man and man. Therefore I am extremely glad that the Government has at last, after what I regard as quits an inexcusable interval of delay, appointed a competent and well-qualified Commission to investigate these subjects and come to their conclusions. But when I hear it suggested that the House of Commons should postpone their inquiry into the responsibility and conduct of Ministers of the State because a Royal Commission has been appointed which has the right of considering their conduct as well as that of everybody else, I say that is not only an unconstitutional doctrine, but, upon the face of it, that it is quite inadmissible. Ministers are responsible to the. House of Commons and can answer for themselves, and this is the only place in the British Empire in which they can be called to account and can be constrained to answer for their doings.
  It is right that I should state at once the nature of the charges which I put forward against Ministers. Of course there is no suggestion that they intended to connive at corruption, or anything of that kind. But what I do say is that if Ministers had been competent and reasonably attentive to their great duties the things complained of could not have happened, or, if they had happened, must have been detected and stopped at once under any system of reasonable supervision. I say also that the substance of these transactions was well known in the War Office two years ago, and I think there must have been strong ground for suspicion before then; and that by their dilatory action for nearly two years Ministers have postponed the publicity which is so necessary to prevent the recurrence of things of this character, and nave postponed the punishment of those, if there are any, who have been guilty. The subject of this Motion is restricted to a particular class of the transactions, although the loss of money to the State has probably been very great by reason of these transactions, and I propose to limit my criticism
  108
  within the same compass. But I think it is necessary to remind the House that at the time when these things took place there had been many other transactions which were called and generally recognised to be, in part at least, scandals of an administrative character well known to Ministers and to the House of Commons. This is not an isolated case. There have been the breakdown of the medical service, the hay contracts, the remounts, the transactions of the Cold Storage Company, the questions of forage, of transport, of freight, of jam, and of emergency rations.
  There have been many discussions in this House on these subjects. Notably there was the debate on March 17th and 18th, 1902, before the war was ended, in which my right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the questions of remounts, meat, forage, freights, and transport. He was met by the present Secretary of State for India with the criticism, which was common in those days, that he was encouraging the enemies of his country. The Secretary of State for India beat the big drum in the usual way, but there is a hole in the big drum now, and we do not now hear quite so much of that kind of unjust criticism. But at that time the Secretary of State for India, and the noble Lord who is now Postmaster-General, promised a full inquiry into all the transactions of the War Office in the war—the right hon. Gentleman, indeed, demanded it as a matter of right for the War Office. That was in March, 1902, and we are now in June, 1905. There was, indeed, an inquiry by the Royal Commission of which Lord Elgin was Chairman, but that was limited—I do not say it was improperly limited—in its scope and did not touch the subjects we discussed in March, 1902. Most of these scandals took place before the end of the war; and, therefore, in the summer of 1902, Ministers were well aware of the pitfalls that surrounded them. They knew that, while the people of this country, rich and poor alike, were making sacrifices either of blood or treasure, there were not only honest contractors who were fulfilling a legitimate duty in supplying the troops, but others of another class who were prowling about

  109
  the Army and the departments of State anxious to make an unclean profit out of the sacrifices of the country. They knew then that there was a necessity for careful vigilance and supervision to prevent fraud.
  I will tell shortly the story of what occurred at the time when the war ended. In June, 1902, there were immense Government stores in South Africa, sufficient to supply 300,000 men and 200,000 animals for a period of four months. The troops were being very greatly diminished, and by the end of November, 1902, they had been reduced to 65,000. The country itself was denuded entirely of supplies, and the agricultural stock had been almost entirely destroyed. Accordingly, Lord Kitchener, who is an excellent man of business and who has had a similar experience, I believe, in the Sudan, suggested that, in this promising market, the surplus stores should be sold, and expressed the anticipation that a sum of between £6,000,000 and £7,000,000 would lie realised by the sale. Of course Lord Kitchener thought the benefit of a good market would be obtained by this country. I desire to lay emphasis on the word "surplus," for what was to be sold were the supplies that were not needed for our own purposes. Lord Kitchener also said that the future needs of the troops ought to be, or might best be, provide for by local contracts. That was assented to by the War Office; and they gave directions, in a telegram of July 31st, 1902, that monthly accounts were to be sent home of the totals sold and of the prices and amounts realised. I must say that it was a foolish thing not to send out a special staff of persons properly qualified to deal with this immense mass of material, and that it ought not to have been left to the first comer. It was left to a gentleman whose name I do not wish to bring into the debate—an officer who succeeded Colonel Morgan in the autumn of 1902—because the War Office authority who was called before the Butler Committee stated that he was not qualified personally and-expressed the view that what took place was due to his entire incapacity for the position he filled.
  110
  The Army Service officers set about selling the produce, but, as soon as they began doing so, a ring was set up against them so as to prevent good prices being realised. There is a statement, which does not rest upon direct testimony and which I hope may prove unfounded, that the Chamber of Commerce of Johannesburg actually sent a letter round to their members telling them not to bid for the Government stores. I am not going to say it is not true; I hope the Royal Commission will find out whether it is true. Under these circumstances there was no market, but the War Office could not prevail upon themselves to depart from the rule laid down officially that they were to sell this produce. The, officers in South Africa, finding the market closed against them, took this course—a course which would have seemed incredible if it were not attested by evidence. They decided to buy supplies on forward contracts from certain firms and ago agreed to sell the same supplies to the same firms to enable them to carry out those contracts. I do not mean for a moment that all the stores that were sold were resold to us, but a great quantity of the stores that were said by us were resold to us at greatly enhanced prices, and often without being moved from the places where the goods were stored. I will give an illustration without mentioning the name of the firm. The British Government bought from this firm oats for 60,000 horses at 17s. 11¾d. At the same time we were selling them oats at 11s., which they handed again to us at 17s. 11d., without, in some cases, any change in the custody of the stores. That is an illustration, it was the same with other firms, it was the same with other articles, and it was done obviously and admittedly on a large scale. What occurs to one is why should not something else have been done with these stores. There was the Repatriation Department, and the concentration camps had not been closed. Why was not the material handed over to be used by the Repatriation Department? It was stated in evidence that Lord Milner refused to allow this upon the ground, if you please, that it was not fair to the South African merchants?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK,): Is there any evidence of that statement?
  SIR ROBERT REID: Yes, there were two if not three witnesses before the Committee, one of whom said he was present at the conversation, at which Lord Kitchener and Colonel Morgan were also present, and heard the conversation. I am not affecting to treat it as a matter which has been established, but if it were true, what does it mean? We are to find the money, to recruit the men who go out and risk their lives, we are the arsenal to find the materials, and yet the British taxpayer is not even to be considered to the extent of being allowed to use his own stores for his own purpose. A natural suggestion is, why should not these stores have been used by our troops? They were perfectly good stores, only the good ones were sold, the contracts provided that. It seems almost incredible that that course was not followed. Colonel Buist, the officer commanding the Army Service Corps in the Transvaal, stated in evidence before the Committee (page 222)—
  "We could have gone on issuing from our stocks perfectly well without a contractor."
  And when asked—
  "How did it strike you … that we should sell the Government supplies one day, and buy them back afterwards at an enhanced price?"
  Colonel Buist replied—
  "The only reason I could possibly think of was that they wanted to get into the contract system as soon as possible, and there was no one in a position to contract; local stuff was unprocurable, and the result was that they practically had to make contractors. I think that was the object. I think they wanted to slide from the old system and get into the contract system, and to do that it was necessary to make contractors by selling them supplies."
  Let us see what sort of contractors were made by this process. These are descriptions of several of them—one was a butcher by trade, a person of undesirable character; another was a very difficult man to get money from; and another was a racing man who was somewhat addicted to drink. These contractors, after they had got the goods, made large claims for refunds, and refunds were paid which,
  112
  according to the Butler Committee were without equity or foundation, and some of the transactions seem to be-extraordinary. And all this time, while we were making contractors by selling, them supplies, in order that they might, resell them to us when we had abundance of stores, fresh cargoes kept; pouring into South Africa—though not from Great Britain—to the end of. November, 1902. Cargoes of oats were sent up from Durban, mostly to Pretoria, and when they got there they played their part in the making of contractors. In one case oats, coming, I believe, from Australia, were brought to Durban, the freight thither paid and the Customs dues, and then the railway charge from Durban to Pretoria was 1s. 10d. per 100 1bs., and that was paid. What happened? The price realised for the cargo at Pretoria was 1s. 6d. per 1001bs., 4d. less than the railway rate from Durban to Pretoria!
  This is very strange and painful reading. I omit details, I only take broad facts; but I ask the House to fix its attention on the broad fact, and upon the proceedings and conduct of Ministers in connection with it. To sell stores to a man at low prices which he was to resell to us at high prices—how can that transaction be justified under any possible conditions? It was a time when Ministers knew by former experience the necessity of vigilance, and the transactions were upon a very large scale. The total expected to be realised by Lord Kitchener was between £6,000,000 and £7,000,000, and it can hardly be said that so large a transaction was beneath the notice of a Secretary of State. This system of sale and resale bore the badge of suspicion—I do not think I should be going too far if I said it bore upon it all the badges, of fraud. It would have aroused suspicion in most people. To buy at one price and to sell at a 50 per cent, lower price, and to be doing that repeatedly and upon a large scale, was a transaction at the first inkling of which any man of business would prick up his ears and set. about making the necessary investigations.
  Well, all this time monthly returns, were being made to the War Office-

  113
  There was an order on July 31st, 1902, that monthly returns should be sent stating the amount sold and the prices realised in the month. That order was not obeyed after about the month of September, 1902. I do not find any steps or action taken by the War Office to insist upon those particulars being furnished in accordance with the order, though there may have been other returns which came month by month. I gather that these were the cash and supply accounts; at all events, some materials came to the War Office. In April, 1903, Colonel Dunne, the Assistant Quartermaster-General in London, was—
  "Amazed to find that they were using the contracts when they had such large stock on hand."(p. 498.)
  Colonel Dunne could not understand it, nor. could any one else. But there was no further action of any kind.
  In October, 1903, the present Secretary for War took office, and the right hon. Gentleman told us last Friday that the day he became aware that any charge was levelled against the contractors he caused a Committee of inquiry to be appointed. The right hon. Gentleman has also told us that it was in January, 1905, that he became of opinion that there ought to be a special inquiry, and then the Butler Committee was appointed. I think, however, there must either be a lapse of memory on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, or else he puts a very different construction upon facts to that which I myself put. I should be inclined to say that from the very first day on which the present Secretary of State for War took office he must have known that there were grave circumstances of suspicion in connection with these transactions in South Africa. Before October 1st, 1903, the War Office knew enough to telegraph to General Lyttelton—
  "Central supply account June last shows large sales of hay, bran, and meal to contractor and purchase of same class articles from same persons at higher prices."
  I should have thought that pretty good proof that the War Office in September, 1903, knew the substance of these transactions. The answer was to the effect that this business saved money to the State. But the report which
  114
  was asked for by post does not seem to hive been sent. It was quite evident the War Office took a very serious view of the business in 1903, because Sir Fleetwood Wilson, head of the Finance Department of the War Office, was called to give evidence before the Public Accounts Committee and he said the first case of buying and selling by the same firm was taken up by the War Office in September, 1903. Suspicion was aroused in his mini that there might be something wrong and that thing required further-investigation. He added that in September, 1903, he first began to realise that it was a serious thing, and he added, in reply to the hon. and learned Member for South Longford, that he then knew of two out of three of the cases which figured in the Butler Report. Consequently, this information was available for the right hon. Gentleman the very day he entered the War Office. I do not for a, moment suppose the right hon. Gentleman will say he was not informed of. these things by his officers at the time. According to the statement of Sir Fleetwood Wilson, from September, 1903, onward, they kept on inquiring, but it was not until December, 1901, that he thought a special inquiry was needed, the reason being because, he said, all he could do was to look at and examine documents. He could not examine witnesses. After a period of sixteen months the War Office came to the opinion that some inquiry should be made by persons who could ask questions. Sir Fleetwood Wilson's explanation of delay ought to be given in justice to him. He said considerable delay in all case in regard to South Africa was inevitable, and that six months was a perfectly reasonable time for elucidating one point. If this is the pace at which the War Office goes in regard to South Africa, all the more necessity for a prompt and early inquiry by some Select Committee. In September, 1903, the War Office admittedly knew quite enough to make the appointment of a competent inquiry necessary; and there was no excuse for postponement until January, 1905.
  But all this time other things were happening also. An action was brought on in South Africa; and there were some severe comments by the Chief Justice of

  115
  the Transvaal, and Colonel Morgan brought an action against The Times newspaper. My sympathies are not especially tender with regard to The Times, nor do I wish to say a word-with regard to Colonel Morgan's action; but one danger of putting these things before the public in this way is that comment is so dangerous as to be impossible. All criticism is suspended by the peril of having to pay damages for an action. In March. 1904, the Comptroller and Auditor-General sent a query to the War Office containing quite a list of sales and repurchases from the same firm, but no answer was sent. This query referred to a former query of the year 1901–2, and therefore the knowledge of these things may be somewhat earlier than we suppose.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: The query of December, 1903, is still unanswered.
  SIR ROBERT REID: The first query was in December. 1903, and the other was in March, 1904.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I am wrong; there has been an answer to it.
  SIR ROBERT REID: The query of March, 1904, was unanswered in January, 1905, and there was a later query in 1904, to which no answer was made. There was still a third query in 1904. and the Comptroller and Auditor-General asked to see the contract. I cannot understand what possible objection there could be to his seeing the contract, but in his Report he says it had not yet been transmitted to his Department, On January21st, 1905, the Comptroller and Auditor-General published his Report; and it stated in substance the very same things which are stated over and over again in the Butler Report. Why was not a Committee appointed before? In December, 1903, at least, the facts were known, but not till June, 1905, was any officer dismissed, censured, suspended, or relieved, and the same contractors were still being employed and no investigations of any competent character were made. Would any private firm carry on its business in this manner? Could it possibly exist outside the Bankruptcy Court for more than six months if
  116
  it did? Suppose any of our municipalities with whom we are so particular were to carry on business in this fashion, what should we say about it in the House of Commons? I think I can hear the indignant rhetoric of hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House. From September, 1903, down to January, 1905, Sir Fleetwood Wilson and the War Office were making a sort of internal examination, but they were powerless because they could not examine witnesses. Then Sir William Butler's Committee was appointed; and it lasted four or five months. It made only a partial Report; and in substance all it said was known before, and now we are to have a Royal Commission. At first the Commission was not to have power to inquire on oath, or to procure documents, or to compel witnesses to attend, but under pressure of Questions the Government consented that those powers should be bestowed, which I think is perfectly right.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): Only if the House is going to give them without prolonged controversy.
  SIR ROBERT REID: It is not for me to advise the Government, but if the Ministry put any difficulties in the way of the most complete and searching inquiry it will not enhance its credit. I speak with the authority of a private Member only, but for my part I do not see the least reason for anticipating any difficulties in regard to the clauses to be inserted in the Bill provided they are of a usual and formal kind. I do not think the Government are at present in a position to force terms on the Opposition in regard to this matter. How long is this new Commission to take? They have an immense field to cover. They have many cases to inquire into, because we are told that at present we have not obtained nearly all the information upon all the cases of this character, and their sittings will last for six, twelve, or even eighteen months. If it proceeds at the same rate as Sir Fleetwood Wilson estimated that the War Office proceeded it will last to eternity, or even beyond that, till a general election. In the meantime can anyone

  117
  suppose that this Royal Commission with the inquiries it has to make ought in the slightest degree to fetter the action of the House of Commons in dealing with the responsibility of Ministers? My only doubt is whether there is such a thing as the responsibility of Ministers. At one time the responsibility was real, and the penalties for neglect very severe, but that was in the olden days. We have left all that. Ministers are expected to make use of businesslike habits and to be competent and vigilant in the administration of their Departments; and when a matter of importance is raised and facts are brought to their knowledge they ought to make businesslike arrangements for the public and, above all, to safeguard the public against imposition.
  I have confined myself to a statement of the facts in this matter. I have endeavoured to put my own view before the House, which is that the system under which this vast amount of stores was disposed of must be inexcusable and the delay in dealing with it equally inexcusable. I do not think the Government have been fair to the country or loyal to the House of Commons. Some of my hon. friends are sanguine that the House may be prepared to condemn these transactions. I do not in the least entertain any such idea, for whatever may be the state of efficiency of the War Office, there is no doubt about the efficiency of the Department over which the Patronage Secretary presides. The right hon. Gentleman has introduced a system of discipline into this House which is unknown in any Continental army, and that is the reason for my apprehension that, notwithstanding the plain character of the transactions to which I have been referring, the majority of the House will, as they have done so often before, again shield the Administration from the just displeasure of the country.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the conduct of His Majesty's Government in connection with the supply and disposal of Stores and the Sales and Refunds to Contractors in South Africa at the end of the war, and their failure to inquire promptly into and deal with those transactions, deserve the censure of this House."—(Sir Robert Reid.)
  MR. BRODRICK: In rising to reply to the indictment of the hon. and learned Member, I desire to notice at the outset the moderate terms in which his speech has been framed and his obvious desire to restrict himself to a fair consideration of the position, excluding so far as he could the consideration of those cases which wall shortly come within the purview of the Royal Commission. But, Sir, I hope the House will not forget that no moderation in language can blink the fact that this indictment is a Motion of censure on the Government on matters on which the Government have never been heard, on the Report of an inquiry which has reflected upon men who were never called to give evidence before the Committee. Sir William Butler's Committee has dealt in very trenchant language with a number of cases of officers. Some of them have been called before the Committee, but I am not sure whether others have and the Committee have indulged in reflections. which found their way into the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman this afternoon, on the conduct of the Government. Why have we, who were always available to give evidence, never been I allowed to place before Sir William Butler's Committee and the country—[OPPOSITION laughter.] This is not a laughing matter.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: You appointed the Committee. Why do you complain?
  MR. BRODRICK: Does the right hen. Gentleman think that the Secretary of State who appointed Sir William Butler's Committee, could also dictate what evidence was to be called? Is it his view, after such a long experience of administration, that on appointing a Committee you should proceed to tell the Chairman what witnesses he should call? This is a serious indictment, and I am on my defence before the House on the charge of alleged incapacity and want of supervision. [OPPOSITION cheers.] Reserve those cheers till you have heard the facts. I have never been asked to give one single word of evidence in answer to the case, and I have never been allowed a single opportunity of stating my case in this House or elsewhere.

  119
  It is not rational that we should be discussing here a portion of the case which should be left to the Royal Commission. I do not believe there is a precedent for such a proceeding in the history of this House. There is no date in these transactions which I welcome so much as I do this afternoon, when I can come forward before the House; and I say that so far, as was suggested by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, from its being cur desire to shelter ourselves behind the Commission, our anxiety is that all these questions should be examined, and promptly examined, that the evidence which I shall bring before the House of Commons this afternoon should also go before the Commission, and that every person who can be brought to account, should be punished.
  I have in the last few days had access to documents, and I can see perfectly clearly why it will be impossible for me to mention names and to bring; the action of individuals before the House. ft is obviously clear that such a course on my part would be most improper. But, en behalf. of the Government, I undertake to make as full a disclosure as it is in my power to make. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that nobody is imputing to us any sympathy with fraud, but indifference to the waste of public money. Who could suppose that any Minister would be indifferent to the waste of public money? Is it to our advantage or to the advantage of anyone that the Estimates should be swelled, that the difficulties of the Chancellor of the, Exchequer should be increased? Nobody, not even the bitterest antagonist, can impute to us any in difference as to the waste of public money.
  The suggestion now is that we have been slow in following up the irregularities. I will endeavour to show the House what the condition was in South Africa when these arrangements were made, what the extent of the losses might have been, I what steps we took to pi event the country being flooded with supplies, what arrangements we made for their disposal, what was the supervision we attempted, and, in such cases as came before us, what were the penalties we inflicted. The hon. and learned Member made a statement as to the number of horses
  120
  and men in South Africa at the close of the war. He said that there were 327,000 men to be fed, 268,000 horses, and there were 19,000 officers as well. In addition, we had to provide for 116,000 people in concentration camps. For all these people we had been keeping, up, according to their numbers, for nearly two years a constant supply and a reserve for four months. In view of the great dispersion of the troops that reserve had got even beyond a four months supply. The war terminated on May 31st, and on July 8th, when the reserve stood at its highest, there were seven months supply of breadstuffs, five months of wheat-stuffs, seven months of preserves, three and-a-half months of hay, and three and-a-half months of grain.
  SIR ROBERT REIDFor all that number?
  MR. BRODRICK: Yes. From that date the supply began to decrease. As the hon. and learned Member said, the last supply ship left this country on July 5th. I assert that any commission or committee of business men who went into the attempts made to reduce these contracts and to account for them, would claim that my noble friend acted promptly in this respect and did everything a man could do in order, without loss, to cancel contracts which were running to provide supplies for this vast number of people. We cancelled at some loss very nearly all the contracts in this country, and if we could have cancelled all those that came from abroad. we would have done so on similar terms. But we could not. We were subject to foreign law; we were subject to the fact that freights had been taken up already, and we found that in many cases one-half or three-fourths of the sum which we would have to pay would have been lost if we had not allowed the contracts to be carried out. We, therefore, felt that it was better in these cases to allow the contracts to go forward. I am not going to attempt to follow out in detail any of these special contracts to-day. All I say here is that although I declare that there never was brought to my notice that a system of dual purchase, or buying from and selling to the same contractor, was about to be set on foot,

  121
  and that if I had known that it had been set on foot, the duty of financial criticism would have been placed on some one, and any such contract would have been dealt with personally, and certainly never allowed to pass, it has been as a matter of fact assumed that all these supplies which were in South Africa at the close of the war have been sold. That is not the case.
  The hon. and learned Member alluded to the case of oats. There is any amount to be said about the contracts made in reference to oats. As a matter of fact the cost of the oats landed in South Africa from this country after the war was 20s. per quarter, and the oats were sold in South Africa for 35s. per quarter. Although I am well aware, from circumstances recently brought out, that some contractors bought from us at a figure and sold to us at a higher figure, it must be remembered, in all fairness to those who transacted the business, that the amount bought was small compared with the amount sold In other words, the contractors bought in Pretoria 15,000,000 1b. of oats and they sold back to the Army 3,000,000 1b. of oats, having to dispose of the other 12,000,030 1b. to private buyers. If we had sold £100,000 worth of staff and bought it again for £150,003 we should have made a very heavy loss, but if we sold £500,000 worth and bought £103,000 worth at an increased price it might still have been a bargain; subject to the fact that these contracts, except with one or two remarkable exceptions, were made from the sale of good and bad alike, I say it might have been a perfectly fair and useful commercial transaction.
  I beg the earnest attention of the House to a very grave mistake which figures in the speech of the hon. and learned Member and in the Report of Sir William Butler's Committee which I should like, if I can, to dispel from the minds of hon. Members. And that is an exaggerated idea as to the loss which the country may have sustained from these transactions. Lord Kitchener sent a telegram Oil June 18th in which he roughly estimated that the money involved in these sales might amount to £6,000,000 or £7,000,000. That was based on a suggestion or a rough estimate made to
  122
  him by Colonel Morgan which is to be found in Question 5101, in which Colonel Morgan said—
  "Lord Kitchener sent that telegram, and I did not see it until afterwards, but he asked me then to make an estimate of what I thought the surplus things would fetch, and I think I estimated about £8,000,000. He said, 'Do you expect to get that? If you got half I should think you would do very well."'
  I cite that for the purpose of pointing out that this was a rough-and-ready estimate. Now what deduction was it subject to? Lord Kitchener then did not know and could not know the amount of sales to Lord Milner that would be agreed, as they were agreed a month later for £1,400,000. Lord Kitchener on June 18th, when he sent that telegram, was under the impression that local contracts for supplies would very shortly be brought into working. He put forward these contracts on May 25th for approval; he put them forward again on June 3rd, and he pressed us on June 10th, and evidently believed that before long, having sold a good deal of our own surplus stores, which he well knew to be deteriorating in the open—because, save medical comforts and a few others of all this vast amount which had to be landed in South Africa and held in readiness for the troops, there was not a single pound housed under shelter—I say that Lord Kitchener with that knowledge contemplated early sales and local contracts, but those contracts were not begun for seven months, and after those seven months three months more of perishable supplies were received, the whole of which came out of the £6,000,000 or £7,000,000 which Lord Kitchener roughly estimated. Again, Lord Kitchener was under the impression, and well might be, that the concentration camps would be broken up very rapidly. But, as a matter of fact, as the hon. and learned Member stated, those camps were kept on for nearly another six months, and we had to provide all these people in their own homes with food and necessaries, and we had also to supply food and necessaries for the 25,000 Boers who were repatriated during the next eight months. All these came in. 140,000 men to be fed for eight months came in as a deduction from Lord Kitchener's estimate.

  123
  Then there was the question of deterioration, which even a man of Lord Kitchener's great knowledge and organising power, sitting at Pretoria, could not possibly, estimate in connection with these 150 or 160 supply depots left out in the open throughout the whole of the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies. What are the figures? I give them to the House with every reserve, but if they should have, as I believe they will, the effect of convincing the public that an amount of great public concern as to millions of loss has been altogether unreasonably incurred and that the transactions are on a totally different scale, I think at least the labour bestowed on them will not have been in vain. It is impossible to give absolutely accurate figures. I give the best I can. I give what the War Office has been able to work out on the returns sent them from South Africa. But be it observed no man can say the precise cost of each of these lots of provisions; you cannot tell distinctly when they were landed or to what particular landing they belonged, or where they came from. All I can say is this: the actual sales to the public which are the subject of the inquiry by Sir William Butler's Committee realised in all £718,000. The actual cost of these articles taken at the contract price at which they were being received at Woolwich (I will say a word about freight afterwards) was £1,028,000. The loss on that account was £310,000. What may I add for freight? I have done my best; I have taken authority and I have gone, I believe, to the extreme limit when I add a quarter of the whole value for freight. That would add another £250,000 to the sum. Therefore you arrive at this result. The stores sold cost us something like £1,270,000, the money made by them was £718,000. The loss due to those stores, which had in some cases not only travelled to South Africa, but in most cases had been in the open and carried about to every part of South Africa, was about 40 per cent, of the value. That is the whole extent of the less which we are discussing so far as I can possibly make it out. Have I not some right, on behalf of the Government, to ask this question, why Sir William Butler's Committee, having the opportunity of calling officials before them,
  124
  and having access to all the official Papers, did not make some computation of this kind, such as I have made in the few days which have intervened since the Report of the Committee came into my hands? Why, these being the facts, have they led the public of this country to think, by continual iteration, that the loss was due to inefficiency and lack of supervision? Why did they not temper their criticism by allusion to facts to proof of which they had ready access and into which they were appointed to inquire?
  I have endeavoured to give the House the figures as I have received them. Now let me say what steps the War Office took day by day. Do not let it be quoted against me that a loss of £100,000 or £50,000 took place through inefficient supervision. I do not depreciate the amount, and I say it was our duty to exercise supervision, but I shall prove that we have exercised such supervision as had never been exercised over any Army in the field before, either in this or any other country. The war ended on May 31st. On June 2nd I met my right hon. friend the late Secretary of State for the Colonies, and with his concurrence appointed a Committee for the purposes of repatriation and sale of stores to the Colonial Government. That Committee met on June 4th and it included Lord Onslow for the Colonial Office and my noble friend the Postmaster-General for the War Office, with an officer of each Department. Lord Milner was telegraphically approached on June 4th, and the whole question of the distribution and sale of stores to Lord Milner was settled by July 18th by this Committee. We induced Lord Milner to take over all stores he could accept; and yet Sir William Butler's Committee, in paragraph 44 of their Report, say—
  "They cannot refrain from adding that they have never been able to understand why a method of meeting all the civil and military requirements at the end of the war was not adopted, handing over to the Repatriation Department the whole surplus Army stock at a joint valuation. This simple stroke-of-the-pen administrative method between two Departments of the State would, the Committee think, have saved much money and placed an. effective barrier against the various activities alluded to in this Report."
  They were not able to understand ! Very probably they were not. Why? Because

  125
  they had my noble friend the Postmaster-General, Lord Onslow, the late Secretary of State for the Colonies, and myself within easy reach, but they never asked us a question before they engaged in this damaging crusade, before they made this attack which is not sustainable by any jot or title of evidence.
  Then we are attacked because local contracts were made. I have told the House already why local contracts were originally proposed by Lord Kitchener. The Committee call attention to the fact that on June 3rd Lord Kitchener recommended a system of local contract, and that—
  "The War Office do not appear to have approved these general principles for some days."
  This is indeed an indictment. We did take some days to consider when, how, and where local contracts for the supply of an Army of 300,000 should begin. I think we were wise in taking time for consideration; and we sent orders that seven months supply should be kept up of perishable and ten months supply of non-perishable stores, and we arranged that local contracts should not begin until January 1st of the following year, and we hedged round these contracts by every conceivable barrier we could. I hope the House will not mind my reading the actual telegrams. I do not think they have seen the light, and I think they should be known. On July 3lst we telegraphed to the General Officer Commanding at Pretoria—
  "Send by mail full report of action taken as to disposal of surplus stocks of supply, showing what reserves proposed to retain. Cable brief reply. Render monthly reports by mail of sales and amounts realised."
  The General Officer replied—
  "Reference to supplies. Sold to general public at actual cost plus percentage referred to in paragraph 7 of allowance regulations, plus Customs dues, plus civil railway rates. Will report fully by post as to sale and results. Reserves are being maintained for all troops to December 31st, and for sixty days additional of unperishable stores."
  On August 18th we telegraphed—
  "It is thought three months reserve of meat, biscuits, flour, rum, lime juice, groceries, and medical comforts should be maintained in South Africa on account of time required to obtain them from England. Please reconsider the matter. Unless surplus supplies can be sold at prices to prevent any loss whatever, it
  126
  is thought they should continue to be utilised as far as possible till expended, subject to-running no risk of deterioration by keeping."
  The General Officer replied on August 27th—
  "Three months supply of articles mentioned will be retained. Procedure indicated in last part of your telegram is precisely that which is being followed."
  Those were the orders. The situation on July 31st was this. We had sold to Lord Milner all the stores he could take. General Lyttelton had received orders that sales were to proceed at not below fixed prices, and returns were to be rendered monthly. The question is—how were our orders carried out? What supervision did we maintain? It was the misfortune rather than the fault of the hon. and learned Member that he had not seen evidence on this point; he would have seen it if it had been in the Report. He says, "You asked these men to carry out work for which you gave them no additional staff, you threw upon them labour they could not be expected to perform." Something of this kind the hon. and learned Member said, and he is justified by a paragraph in the Report of the Committee, which says—
  "It appears to the Committee that a great error was made in not having sent to South Africa at the conclusion of the war a specially-trained selected officer of high rank and a small but very capable staff of civil and military officials, who would have taken in hand the entire business of winding up the war, dispoing of surplus stock by sale or by shipment to-England, and, generally speaking, replacing the haphazard and always wasteful ways of war by regular methods of peace administration."
  Well, I challenge those remarks, which I say were made without calling the Quartermaster-General or any of the officials who might have proved differently. We knew there would be pressure in winding up the war; and the moment that peace negotiations took a favourable turn my noble friend and I engaged, under contract to go out to South Africa to assist in these operations, some 600 additional capable clerks. These, between 500 and 600 in number, left England within a few days of the declaration of peace, and were available for a year's service in winding up affairs and dealing with a vast mass of documents. We are told we ought to have sent out specially-trained officers;

  127
  but where were they to come from? The-whole Army Service Corps was in South Africa, and of about 350 officers some 250 were on active service. These men were conversant with the work, they knew where the supplies were, they could judge of deterioration, they had the whole work at their finger ends Were we to replace them with men who had not that knowledge and experience, who did not know where the 150 depôts were, who did not know what they contained and what was the effect of the South African climate? Why, if we had done this, if we had supplanted them by civilians accustomed to buy and sell in times of peace, we should have done much to bring about failure and have acted in the face of Lord Kitchener's advice, who on the spot had chosen men to deal with these stores. I venture to say we should have laid ourselves open to the gravest censure for disregarding the advice of the man to whom we were continually urged to give a free hand in that very department of the service in which he was well known to be the. greatest master. Did we supervise the operations, or did we leave them to take their chance?
  I am sorry to say I shall have to trouble the House for a few moments with another part of the case. The hon. and learned Member says I had warnings during the continuation of the war. I had, and was not likely to forget them. When a man has had to deal, as I had, with case after case of officers who had failed in the field, he will know there is no more ungrateful task; and when he has had to deal with officers who had not necessarily been guilty of corruption, but had failed in judgment, and whose errors had cost the country large sums, he is not likely to forget the lesson. It is easy to talk t bout these matters here in Parliament, but when you come to penalise an officer who under pressure of work made contracts that involved a loss of many thousands to the country, you have. against you all the good-intentioned sympathy of his superiors, and you have to fall back, as I had to fall back on my colleagues and ask whether I should or should not impose the penalty of leaving tie service upon officers who had lacked judgment but not honest I had a body
  128
  of auditors in July, 1902, auditing all the ordinary stores accounts, and that was quite enough to put me in touch with the necessity of not allowing those long delays upon which the hon. and learned Gentleman spoke so eloquently and forcibly. The hon. and learned Member pointed out that it would take six months to get an answer from South Africa and that it was impossible to carry on business in that fashion. What did we do? We asked the Treasury in November; 1902, to incur the very large cost of sending out a special audit staff to South Africa in order to audit on the spot the whole of the accounts that were coming in, and in that way to get rid of the difficulty of sending queries to and from England, and so having to wait for months before a decision was come to. We did not stop there. We asked the Treasury to use its influence with the Comptroller and Auditor-General himself, the officer of this House, the man who is there not merely to check irregularities in our accounts, but to check irregularities on the part of the War Office auditors, to send out also a staff of auditors in January, 1903. These two sets of auditors were sitting in the buildings adjoining the buildings in which the whole of these transactions took place, having been sent there for the purpose of keeping a watch over the accounts.
  Now I shall anticipate the question—Why did you not get a report from these auditors sooner than September, 1903, the date mentioned by the hon. and learned Gentleman? The fact is that I had brought to my notice in December, 1902, that there was difficulty about the canteen department in South Africa. I mention this transaction for three purposes; firstly, because I want to bring it within the purview of the Royal Commission; secondly, because I want to show the steps that were taken by the Government at home; and thirdly, because I want to do justice to the auditors who went out and who might otherwise be accused of not having looked after the business they were sent specially to do. The canteens are stores which are run for the benefit of the soldiers by the officers. The profits go to the soldiers or the regiment. The canteens have

  129
  always been run under the control of the General Officer Commanding. Lord Kitchener instituted a system of regimental field force canteens in South Africa. They provided for the soldier during the period of the war a great number of necessaries which he was prepared to purchase, and which were in excess of the official list. The profits shown in December, 1902, were over £700,000. I thought it my duty to call the attention of the Commander-in-Chief to these enormous profits and to ask, although they were not Government funds, whether he was satisfied with the manner in which it was proposed to use these profits. The whole Army was coming back from South Africa and all sorts of questions arose as to whether the regiments should take their share of the profits away with them—whether the money should be used in South Africa or taken for regimental purposes at home. A telegram was sent to General Lyttelton asking him among other particulars what large services were charged to the canteen fund, and what the balance of the fund was at that date. The answer which we received from Pretoria was a very unsatisfactory one. I directed Mr. Flynn, the auditor who went out in December, 1902, to address himself to a review of the canteen funds. I got his report in July, 1903. Mr. Flynn estimated that owing to the enormous purchases made since the conclusion of the war by those responsible, an avoidable loss to the extent of between £250,000 and £300,000 had occurred. He reported that the mistake referred to began when a certain officer took over the charge and ended when that officer left. He pointed out that that officer employed a relation of his own and a relation of another officer who was also in charge. He made reflections on both officers for having employed relations in direct contravention of the regulations for the management of these supplies. Just before I left office I urged that both of these officers should be brought before a Court-martial. Lord Roberts sent the papers to a particular authority, and after both of the officers had been heard it was decided that no Court-martial would be held, though a grave error of judgment had been committed, and we were forced to leave that
  130
  case with the censure of the officers by the Commander-in-Chief. I think that case ought to come within the purview of the Royal Commission. I mentioned this case also because it may be in some degree a reason why the auditors never came upon the question of dual contrast until September, 1903, two or three days before I left the War. Office. I have already condemned this system. I have already told the House that I cannot attempt, speaking with a Commission impending, to state who were, in my opinion, responsible for these mistakes, but I am bound to say that this system was known to certain persons in the War Office in September, 1903, and was never made known to my noble friend, or myself, or to my right hon. friend who succeeded me. It is a question for the Commission to settle where the responsibility for that lies.
  I will endeavour to make my story as brief as I can with regard to the question of returns. Certain returns were ordered. These returns were not tendered up to September, 1902. think I have reason to complain that this subject is still in doubt before the House. We appointed Sir William Butler's Committee, and what does it say? It says that these returns were noticed in a Departmental Minute. The fact that they were not rendered was known. Why do we not know to whom they were known? Why was not the responsibility fixed by Sir William Butler's Committee? He had all the facts before him; he had the Papers before him; and he had the names before him. Why was not a full disclosure made on a subject which he knew to be vital, and which he said was vital, for the discovery of the whole of these transactions? Why did not he follow it up when he had got the full facts before him? Why were we never told about this? Why was the hon. and learned Gentleman allowed to get up. and state that there was no supervision, in ignorance of the fact that there were audit officers of the War Office and of the Comptroller and Auditor-General? Why were all these facts kept back in this Report? Why were we not told one word of these things?
  SIR ROBERT REID: I am most reluctant to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. I said that the order of July 31st had not been complied with, and I said also tint there were evidently other sources of information before the War Office which I conjectured to be the cash account and the supply account.
  MR. BRODRICK: I recognise that, but it does not affect my point. There were returns sent to the Quartermaster-General showing that at one moment there were 200 days supplies, and that at the next moment there were 180 days supplies, but the returns we wanted, and the returns I ordered, were returns showing the persons concerned in the transactions. These were the returns which were not rendered. [An HON. MEMBER: Why not?] These are the returns which were noticed in the War Office Minute. These are the returns which Sir William Butler says, and I believe rightly says, would have gone to stop a process which we all regret. [An HON. MEMBER: Did you know they were not rendered?] I only ask for a full disclosure. I have not been heard. I never was allowed to come before the Committee. But why did not Sir William Butler with these facts before him give us what we wanted—a full disclosure on the one hand, and a judicial finding in the measured language of the bench? Why in place of that have we been treated only to vague suspicions secured by methods of melodrama. I have detailed what occurred in this matter up to the very date at which I left the War Office, and I have shown that in spite of the most complete and rigorous precautions no suggestions of any of these facts were brought to our notice so that we could deal with them.
  The hon. and learned Member impeaches my right hon. friend for having neglected the business when he became responsible. I think his statement was prejudiced in a manner to create a most unfair impression. What motive does the hon. and learned Gentleman imagine that my right hon. friend could have in a matter in which he is not really responsible for obscuring these issues and pursuing the course he suggests? Was it to his interest to
  132
  hush up malpractices of this character? It is not the fact that the laxity which the hon. and learned Gentleman speaks of took place. The chief contract on which these questions have arisen is the Meyer contract. That contract, was received in the War Office in November, 1903. It was referred to South Africa for examination, and the answer came in April, 1904. It was sent to the Auditor-General in April, 1904, and apparently the Auditor-General accepted the local explanations—erroneously as we think—which were given of the manner in which the contract was entered into. Therefore, in this case this contract, which we all feel to have been undesirable, was cleared by the auditor in the War Office and apparently passed by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. The second case was the Stepney refund, which originally escaped the notice of the auditor in the War Office. On June 2nd, 1904, the Exchequer and Audit Department was aware of it. The South African authorities were consulted. They corresponded with those responsible who had come back to this country. My right hon. friend got the facts in full for the first time in his possession on December 17th last year. Sir William Butler's Committee was appointed on January 17th this year.
  I do not think that, in appointing Sir William Butler, my right hon. friend showed any desire to appoint a passionate partisan. If there is anyone who has to complain that Sir William Butler's Report has been placed before this House in an incomplete state, and in a hurry, and without all the evidence having been taken, surely it is those of us who have been reflected upon by that Report; the officers whose characters have suffered in every newspaper in the Kingdom, and who may yet be able in many instances to right themselves before a real judicial inquiry. I think it is quite possible that Sir William Butler, in making that Report in the language he did, thought he was only dwelling on the malpractices of certain contractors. I think it is quite possible that it never occurred to him that such a Report, so obviously lacking in all that goes to make a fair starting point for

  133
  Parliamentary discussion, would have been seized upon by the Opposition, and that it would have been used for the purpose of prejudicing a judicial decision—[OPPOSITION cries of "Oh"]—by a Party attack in which the hon. and learned Member has not been able entirely to keep himself free, as he tried to do, from attacks on the officers in question. What is the use of telling the House that Mr. McGee was a drunkard, or same other person was a man of low character who formed a company to whom the contract was given in South Africa by officers whose conduct would not come under the review of His Majesty's Government for many months afterwards. What is the use of doing that and then saying, "I am making no accusations against these officers; I confine myself entirely to the responsibility of Ministers." But that is what the hon. and learned Gentleman has been forced into by the unfortunate and anomalous position in which he finds himself this afternoon. I say if that part of the argument is good; if we are to blame, we are to blame only on this ground that in every department of life we must trust somebody. If we take the best advice we can; if we take Lord. Kitchener's advice; if we surround officers with a competent staff and a large body of auditors, and have auditors to audit these auditors, and if. ail we have done is to commit our fortunes to men who for two and a-half years had proved themselves efficient in dealing with supplies for an Army of 250,000 men—I put it to this House that we have exercised due supervision and due vigilance. I know it may be said that the Secretary of State is responsible for the action or inaction of all, even the least of those employed in his Department. I do not want to put off from myself one atom of responsibility; but any man who controls an office which is in receipt of 4,000 letters a day, who has hundreds of clerks for auditing millions and tens of millions of pounds in two and a-half years, is bound to have confidence in those who had served him well before under stringent regulations and had proper authority to represent him. Who will stand up in this House and say that you can pin the individual responsibility of the Secretary of State for any two
  134
  or three failures of judgment, or even in duty, amongst those-subordinates who had been supporting him for two or three years, and had been representing him in all these capacities.
  Now, I cannot help feeling some degree of indignation that we have not been allowed a better opportunity than we have had of meeting these accusations before the public had formed, as I think, an entirely false impression of them. I have a special feeling myself on this matter on these grounds. I ventured just now to say that the operations which the Minister for War has to carry out during the progress of a campaign are probably the most ungrateful that can fall to the lot of any man. I came to the War Office in the middle of great trouble, when the war had been going on for more than a year, and when everybody believed that it was coming to an end. The best proof of that was that the whole machinery of war was being checked; and I had to set it going again; and keep it going for another year and a half. I think that we may boast at least that during all that time Lord Kitchener did not complain of our efforts to keep him supplied. But during that time we had endless troubles of this kind to meet. As stated just now, there were auditors for the stores in the Ordnance Department. I found that the demands from Cape Town for ordnance equipment were on an unprecedented scale. I called Lord Kitchener's attention to these demands and sent out Sir Fleetwood Wilson as his financial adviser. Lord Kitchener eventually reduced these demands very largely and instituted an inquiry through Sir Fleetwood Wilson which showed that the buying and selling of these officers had been unwise, and that the loss to the public had amounted to many thousands of pounds. His Majesty's Government were accused of laxity in these matters. That telegram first stopped that sort of thing all over South Africa. These officers were sent home, and the usual course was pursued in regard to them. The good nature of every man who could be brought to bear was brought to bear on me to say after the inquiry that these officers had been proved to be incompetent, no doubt—I

  135
  could read Lord Roberts' own Minute on the subject—but that they had not been proved to be dishonest, and that they should not be debarred from being employed. The view I took, after consulting my colleagues and adequate legal authority, was that in high positions connected with the Ordnance Department, the country had a right to expect something beyond honesty; that they had a right to expect capacity; and that men should not place themselves in such a position as to bring well-merited criticism and discredit upon the department to which they belong. I believe that is the only single occasion on which on a military question I over-ruled the whole of my military advisers at the War Office. I had behind me the pressure of men of the highest character who urged that these officers should be re-employed in Various commands at home; but I insisted that the senior officer should be put on retired pay, and that the second officer should be told that he would never be promoted in any capacity. I mention these facts because I am indignant that, in every single point of this character that has been brought forward, having taken the unpopular line—you may say the evere line, but which I believe was the just and necessary line—it is assumed, forsooth, when I never had an opportunity of saying a word in my own defence—that I should have carried out the course which the the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests, for laxity and neglect, and want—I think he said—of due regard to the important interests that were committed to me.
  What were the circumstances not only of myself, but of my right hon. friend, and of nearly every man in the War Office at that time? I went there in November, 1900, and left in October, 1903. I can honestly say that for the first two years I was at the War Office, when the war was going on, and when we were winding up the war, I never had one day's holiday. I rarely left London more than a few hours at a time. I was constantly on these benches in this House answering questions or defending my Department from two o'clock p. m. until midnight; after having been engaged the whole morning either in Cabinet Council or in
  136
  Committees. And on more than two or three days of the week I returned to the War Office after midnight and remained; here till the early hours of the mornings I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman will understand the feeling of a man who has spent every ounce of his power in the service of the office to which he was proud to belong, when le is accused of want of supervision and want of. due regard to the interests committed to him. I remember on these very subjects Lord Kitchener, when he came home, desired to have conferences with me on all the events that had been going on during all the eighteen months which we had been corresponding before he came home. I devoted every lour I could to him before he left England, but he found it so impossible to get uninterrupted conversation with me that on many occasions he asked me to meet him before nine o'clock in the morning, and I did so. I can only say this—that soar from I, or any one of my colleagues, having anything to conceal in regard o these matters, I have made a clean breast of all that had taken place during my time at the War Office to the House his afternoon. I invite inquiry into very single transaction; and I wish for nothing better than that every Minute ever wrote should be placed before Parliament. I say that without doubt or hesitation, but with absolute conviction hat the inquiry-and the more extended to purview the better—will be a vindication not only of the honour, but of the opacity of those who administered this service and of those who served with them; and when the result is known the greater will be the regret of the Party opposite for having embarked on this Party attack. It can only tend, whatever pain it may give to the people affected,; o a revulsion of feeling in favour of the Party who are doing all they can to sub-nit their entire action, not only to the judgment of the House, but of the country.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANS: No hon. Member will deny that the right hon. Gentleman has exhibited in every office he has held a versatile industry which ought

  137
  to be expected from every public servant. It is, however, not merely industry that is required, but also capacity not only as far as individual Ministers are concerned, but also from the Government of the country. The right hon. Gentleman reduced the whole matter to an ad hominem argument which was entirely unworthy of the spirit in which my hon. and learned friend introduced the Motion. To employ a legal phrase, the right hon. Gentleman's speech was one of "confession and avoidance." Why did the right hon. Gentleman for a whole year not obtain the returns he ordered.
  MR. BRODRICK: Have I not replied to that? How can I fix responsibility on others?
  MR. SAMUEL EVANS: I should be-the last to ask the right hon. Gentleman to make any farther attack on his subordinates than he has already made; bat who was responsible for neglecting to supply the returns? If the right hon. Gentleman were as vigilant as he is industrious, and as capable as he is honest, he would have elicited the information. What is the use of asking for returns if they are not supplied. The right hon. Gentleman, and the Government of which he is a member, have no excuse" whatever for their laxity and want of vigilance. In the extraordinary debate on March 17th and 18th, 1902, the Government and the right hon. Gentleman particularly were warned—the t's were crossed, and the i's were dotted—that what did subsequently happen in South Africa would happen. The right hon. Gentleman has made a most extraordinary attack on Sir William Butler. Sir William Butler was appointed by the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman is a member; and, forsooth, the right hon. Gentleman is the Gentleman who complains of men being attacked behind their backs without any opportunity of replying. What is the complaint against Sir William Butler? First of all, that he did not demand the attendance of the right hon. Gentleman. Why did not the right hon. Gentleman offer his evidence?
  MR. BRODRICK: I never heard in my life of a Committee being dictated to. My evidence was at the disposal of the Committee.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANS: I did not suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should dictate to the Committee; although the result of his conduct and his action towards Sir William Butler on this occasion is something like dictating to every member of any future Committee that might be appointed. But did the right hon. Gentleman proffer his evidence? Did he know the Government of which he was a member was being attacked; and was he told by Colonel Morgan and other witnesses that observations were being made as to the conduct of the War Office?
  MR. BRODRICK: I never had any conversation with any witness or with any member of the Committee while it was sitting. I had not the slightest idea that any subject which concerned my administration was under review.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANS: That last statement is astounding. I assume the terms of reference to the Committee were settled by the Cabinet; the general reference was to investigate and report on the terms of contracts and sales and refunds to contractors after the end of the war. The right hon. Gentleman was then at the War Office. Moreover, the Butler Committee were expressly instructed to deal with six specific cases; and we now have the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that there were other cases quite as bad, if not worse. Is it not extraordinary that the right hon. Gentleman should now complain that he was not summoned by his subordinates to attend the Committee, when he must have known they were investigating certain matters at the end of the war for which he himself was responsible? Did not the right hon. Gentleman in the debate on March 17th and 18th, 1902, demand an inquiry as a matter of right. On March 17th the Leader of the Opposition said—
  "Whoever may have suffered it is clear that the contractor has done well out of the war. He has not only done well out of the war, but he is doing

  139
  well out of the war; and judging by the syndicates and combinations which reach from the River Plate to the meat factories of Queensland, embracing the mining corporation of De Beers, great firms of shipowners who also turn out to be horse-dealers and meat producers, embracing also English—for the most part naturalised English—meat contractors and Johannesburg financiers whose names for good or for evil ring throughout the world—judging by these indications the contractor means to go on making a good thing out of the war."
  Then the right hon. Gentleman pointed out with foresight and in wise and statesmanlike language that the object of the Opposition was to protect the interests of the taxpayers, and that that could only be done by an inquiry to take place immediately and that delay would be most mischievous. These were some of his words—
  "What we want to do is to protect the taxpayer's interest, which is our prime duty; and that protection can only be given by inquiring now while the matter is red-hot—now, before those who have acted as agents either for the Government who use or the contractor who supplies, have dispersed and passed out of sight. We want to know how the taxpayer has been treated, and how he is going to be treated in the future. … These are cases that if not inquired into now will pass into obscurity, and information will not be reached."
  The hon. and learned Member for Dumfries in the same debate pointed out exactly the difficulties of the Government if the advice of the Opposition were not accepted. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman demanded and the First Lord of the Treasury promised definitely that at the end of the war there should be an inquiry. What, then, was the meaning of the delay which occurred during the latter part of 1902, and the whole of 1903 and 1904? And the results which were foretold have taken place. To show that, I. will read to the right hon. Gentleman what General Lyttelton said in a note after the evidence was read over to him. It is on page 429 of this Blue-book. It is not put as a question, but he explained in a note, as I have said, his own position. This is what he writes—
  "It was very unfortunate Colonel Morgan going away, as he had all the strings in his hands. As long as he was with us everything went splendidly."
  This adverb he alters thus—
  "Well so far as I could see, but he did not stay long."
  140
  Then this is the note by witness—
  "I should like to say I have no wish to shirk responsibility or to shelter myself behind my subordinates."
  —a sentiment which I would commend to the right hon. Gentleman
  "But I do not wish to answer for transactions which were not referred to me. I am sorry my recollection is so vague, but the fact is there was an enormous mass of business connected. with sales of stores. Army Service Corps force canteen, and ordnance, involving large sums, and it is difficult to avoid mixing things up. The sales were taking place as far back as 1902, and I had to do business between four different Directors of Supplies. It is unfortunate that I was not examined before when South African affairs were fresh in my memory. I have been engaged in very different work since, and my recollection as to these matters is now not at all clear."
  Could there be anything which would be a stronger justification for the action which we on this side take, than that note by General Lyttelton, and can we be surprised that in the Committee's Report, as we see it at the bottom of page 20 we read—
  "There can be little doubt that an extensive loss or destruction of documents has occurred, and it is to be noted in the evidence given by the officers and non-commissioned officers who were connected with the Director of Supplies Office in Pretoria, that defective memories are more the rule than the exception, whenever the salient or critical points of any questions are reached."
  What is the right hon. Gentleman's excuse and the excuse of the Government? He has drawn, as he often does, very skilfully, a red herring across the path. We are not discussing whether sufficient supplies were sent out to Lord Kitchener during the war. The Government have waved that flag long enough, and the right hon. Gentleman has given, himself quite often enough a certificate of good character. What we are asking the House to condemn is the conduct of the authorities at the end of the war in regard to sales, contracts, and refunds. The right hon. Gentleman called for monthly Returns; so far he himself was vigilant, and if it be the fact that he, though vigilant, was not able to obtain this information in regard to the fraud or the capacity of his subordinates, we cannot go further. But what can be the explanation of his not insisting on seeing and examining the Returns which he deemed it necessary to order? Does

  141
  he say now that he did not know of the system of dual contracts, as he calls it? Does he mean that he and his colleagues in the Cabinet did not have their attention drawn to the fact, until 1904, that this system prevailed. I could show, by going through the evidence, that it was asserted over and over again that the War Office were being made aware of the things now complained of. I think it was in November, 1902, that Colonel Morgan came to this country. He then went to the War Office—he had been there before with regard to the Bergl contract, but he came over a second time in November, 1902, and told the War Office what was going on. He arranged for percentages. I do not know if he said what percentage he had arranged but he unquestionably said that he told the War Office that the system of dual contracts was going on in South Africa. Did the right hon. Gentleman see Colonel Morgan when he attended at the War Office?
  MR. BRODRICK: No, I did not; as a matter of fact, at the time Colonel Morgan came back I did not see him, although I was at the War Office. The hon. Member is aware that when an officer has come back from active service, he does not come necessarily to the Secretary of State for War.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANS: I should have thought the right hon. Gentleman, knowing what was going on in South Africa, and especially if he had not seen the overdue returns, would have made as point of seeing Colonel Morgan and knowing more of these operations to which Colonel Morgan was a party. The right hon. Gentleman gives various figures, showing what the valuation was with regard to Lord Kitchener, and he gives certain figures as to the actual result. But, again, he goes back from the point to which we are holding the Government. The point to which we are holding the Government is selling those things which they required and buying them back at 60 or 70 per cent, more than the price at which they sold them. The particular case I have in mind is a perfectly simple one. The right hon. Gentleman gave us the figures
  142
  and said, dealing with the oats contract—
  "After all, you must remember we sold 15,000,000 1bs. of oats and we bought back only 3,000,000 1bs."
  What does this single transaction represent? It means that the Government sell oats, knowing they require them, at 11s. and they then buy them back at 17s. 11d., or, in other words, that on the 3,000,000 1bs. of oats that they had to buy back, the Government lost £10,500 in one transaction. The right hon. Gentleman could not justify a thing of that kind and did not attempt to. Of course we cannot go into all these details, but it is quite clear from the Blue-book that with regard to the biscuit transaction, on which a refund of £1,761 was made, it was such a large quantity of biscuits that references home were constantly being made. It is in these respects, on these matters, illustrative of War Office confusion and in capacity, that we say that His Majesty's Government has proved so lax that they deserve the censure of this House. These cases disclosed in the Blue-book by reason of the efforts of Sir William Butler and his Committee are only a few in number, and we know now from the Government that there are others quite as bad if not worse. Nobody knows what the country has lost by these transactions.
  But the right hon. Gentleman said he demanded an inquiry and would emerge from it scathless. Who has got the inquiry? Have we got it for Party purposes? We are fully justified in what we have done. But the Government have done their best to frustrate proper inquiry, until they were forced by us and the public opinion. In the first place, the Report of Sir William Butler's Committee is dated May 22nd. We hear nothing about it until the House meets, when, as a result of the interrogations that take place across the floor—it might be called a cross examination—we were offered a Select Committee. But a Select Committee could not properly investigate such cases. It could not command the attendance before the Committee of any witness, and no witness could be prosecuted for perjury if he made any misstatements. So the Prime Minister then

  143
  said, "I will give you a Royal Commission," which would have the like disqualifications. That was on Wednesday. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition asked whether it was to be a Statutory Commission, and the Prime Minister in answer gave a laconic "No." On Thursday he promised a Royal Statutory Commission, and finally, before this debate takes place, at the eleventh hour, he appoints the Commission, in order to strengthen some of his weak-kneed supporters, and says, "I have done this and nobody could ask me to do more. I have given a Commission of the widest kind." But that is our justification. If the Commission is necessary now it was necessary at the end of the war, and we demanded some such inquiry in the year 1902. We demanded it in 1903, and you ascertained in 1903– 4 facts whereby alone, if you were doing your duty, you ought to have offered to the country the Commission which now has been wrested from you. The very fact that a Statutory Commission has been granted is the most solid argument in favour of the indictment against the Government, and if the House were left to vote according to its convictions I feel sure that a large majority would say that you have now done what you ought to have done long ago, and that therefore a vote of censure for want of vigilance and for want of attention to duty in the past is fully merited.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I do not think this is a debate into which acrimony or personal considerations should be largely introduced, as we are in the preliminary stage of an inquiry which the Government has not only accepted but invited, and which the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India shows to be of vastly greater extent and of more importance than anybody has yet supposed. I have some sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman's remarks condemnatory of the Butler Report. The literary style of that Report does not commend itself to me, and some of its statements are such as I do not think are entirely warranted by the evidence. But there is a great residuum to warrant inquiry in South Africa, and to that residuum the
  144
  right hon. Gentleman has added in a most remarkable way.
  First of all, let me say that this House, the Butler Committee, and the Public Accounts Committee, have been at a great disadvantage in consequence not only of the disappearance and destruction of documents alleged to have taken place in South Africa, but also of the non-production of documents which certainly do exist. There is, for instance, that most important document, namely, General Lyttelton's report on these very sales from October, 1902, to December, 1903, which has never been presented, as far as I know, either to the Butler Committee or to any other body. I intend to quote from that document, and I am able to do so for the reason that I am not subject to the rule by which a Minister, if he quotes from a document, is compelled to lay it on the Table. There are other documents also to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, and which in consequence he will have to lay on the Table. Those telegrams are of the utmost consequence, and I venture to say that they will be a revelation both to those who believe there is foundation for everything in the Butler Report and to those who strongly believe the contrary. Those telegrams show us that in August, 1902, the very question of what was to be done with the surplus stores was raised here, and the right hon. Gentleman obtained from General Lyttelton a promise that the surplus stores would continue to be utilised for the troops. That is a most remarkable thing. We know that that promise was not carried out. We know that instead of being utilised for the troops they were sold and re bought to a very considerable extent. I hope the first thing the right hon. Gentleman does will be to lay upon the Table of the House his own telegrams and all other documents cognate to this matter. I think the House will see that they very much enlarge the importance of the investigation.
  Then the right hon. Gentleman has introduced entirely new matter—not, indeed new to me, but new to the House—the matter of the canteen. He has told the House that there were avoidable losses of between £250,000 and £300,000, that he, with the single-mindedness which we recognise as always belonging to him,

  145
  wished to bring the officers to account, but that he was overruled by Lord Roberts. So I understood him.
  MR. BRODRICK: Lord Roberts put the matter to the Judge-Advocate-General for legal advice, and he said that the position was not one in which it would be feasible to bring the officers to Court-martial. Lord Roberts did everything he could.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Whether it was the Judge-Advocate-General or the Commander-in-Chief, Lord Roberts or anybody else, whoever was responsible, such is the feeling of the right hon. Gentleman himself with regard to this transaction that he has thought it necessary—rightly as I think—to detail the matter to the House for the avowed purpose of bringing it within the purview of the inquiry. I say that that also very much enlarges the field of operations. He has not told us the names of the persons concerned, and I shall not make any guesses at them, though I think I could make a very good one. But the most serious imputation that I have yet heard is that made by the right hon. Gentleman himself in connection with the canteen system. He suggests that those who were responsible for the canteen system and the losses thereon had such authority and power in South Africa that they were positively able to interfere with the work of the auditors whom he himself had sent out.
  MR. BRODRICKdissented.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: The right hon. Gentleman is in the recollection of the House. I certainly understood him to suggest that that was one of the reasons why the auditors failed in their task.
  MR. BRODRICK: I was merely attempting to answer a Question which might be asked, namely, why did not the auditors make a report earlier than they did on certain points, and I said that it must be remembered that they were dealing with this heavy mass of figures and could not report to us earlier.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I am glad to have elicited that explanation, because I had entirely misunderstood my right hon. friend. Then the right hon. Gentleman was most eloquent and indignant on the subject of the returns. "Why," he said, "did not the Butler Committee tell us the reason the returns of these stores were not obtained?" I do not know, and my right hon. friend did not give any hint on the point. I am sorry he did not; this, again, enlarges the scope of the enquiry. Finally, he seemed to complain most unreasonably of the premature publication of the Butler Report, and if I did not misunderstand him he rather attributed that premature publication to the Public Accounts Committee. Tae Public Accounts Committee had nothing whatever to do with the publication of the Report. By virtue of the authority given to them by this House to send for persons, papers, and records, the Public Accounts Committee called for the Report for their own purposes, and obtained it on May 26th. For their own purposes they used it and no hint of that Report reached the Press from any member of the Public Accounts Committee until the Report itself was published. As I have said, the area of the inquiry has been greatly enlarged by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and that the investigation will be final and complete no Member of this House can doubt. I need not tell the story again; one has only to recall the essential features. Oats were bought at 11s. by Meyer, and here is a point which requires comment. By telegram on December 26th, 1902, an order was sent to every station in South Africa to sell to Mr. Meyer every oat in the country at 11s. But the right hon. Gentleman says he sold his oats at 25s.
  SEVERAL HON. MEMBERS: 35s.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Thirty-five shillings a quarter; I am talking of the 100 1bs. On December 27th the fiat went forth that all the oats in South Africa were to be sold to Meyer at 11s. The oats were not moved; they were bought back by us at 18s. When one remembers that this was accepted by the general, if we are to believe the evidence of the witnesses; that this same Meyer got a refund of £21,232 on the mere authority

  147
  of a subaltern officer; that chaff costing £3,215 was sold for £481, and that although it was at Durban, where it could easily have been thrown into the sea, an extra charge per 100 1bs. was imposed upon it to get it to Pretoria for Meyer, I wonder where negligence merges into incapacity, and where incapacity reaches a point at which the country may refuse to pay for it. This system of selling your own oats at 11s. and buying them back at 18s. is called the "dual system." It was not invented by Lord Kitchener. It is too great an invention to be allowed to be credited to any other than its rightful author. Colonel Morgan was the inventor; he claims it and resents the suggestion that it was Lord Kitchener's invention. It was adopted by Lord Kitchener, and the remarkable thing is that in recommending it to the War Office Lord Kitchener said—
  "This system will be worked by Colonel Morgan and others, and I recommend that they should have largely increased salaries because of the sales they are going to make and the large sums involved."
  So that the original inventor of the "dual system" in recommending it was really recommending himself for an increase of salary. I do not know how Lord Kitchener came so readily to accept this scheme. He is considered to have developed the commercial side of war to its highest point, but certainly his venture here makes me ask whether, although no doubt he is a great captain, he is quite so great a commercial man as has been supposed. This proposal, made by Lord Kitchener on June 18th, 1902, was within a few days accepted by the War Office. All they said was "How do you propose to act as to preference for home and colonial produce? "The right hon. Gentleman cheers that, but I should not have thought it was the most important question. I rather suspected that it was put with some touch of humour. But the right hon. Gentleman got no answer, and the system went on. It is very simple. You want to get rid of your stores; sell them on the spot. You want to buy other stores: buy them on the spot. The idea seemed to be that you would somehow manage when you sold your stores to get a higher price for the British and colonial than for the foreign. But how you would induce
  148
  Meyer to pay a higher price is one of the mysteries which can be solved only in Birmingham.
  When did the War Office first be come aware of the abuses which arose and were certain to arise from the dual system? If we are to believe Colonel Morgan, they knew it in December. 1902. I think there is evidence to show that they knew enough to cause them to make inquiries in April, 1903; and certainly in December, 1903, there began that series of queries by that trouble some person, the Comptroller and Auditor-General, which has continued to this day. Query after query has been put and not really answered. There are at this moment seventeen queries of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, all touching matters of the highest importance, which remain really unanswered. Then what has been the total loss to the country in respect of the mismanagement of these stores? The right hon. Gentleman began a demonstration of what the total less was, but he did not proceed to the end. As far as I followed his arguments, he is of opinion that on oats there would be again, because he bought at 20s. and sold at 35s. Evidently that was not to Meyer. Let me try to ascertain what the total loss was. First of all, there is the testimony of Colonel Morgan in which he says—
  "Lord Kitchener asked me to make an estimate of what I thought the surplus things would fetch."
  These "surplus things" are the only things with which we have to deal. The present Secretary of State for War has. referred to many other "surplus things" and makes them come to £8,000,000, but we have nothing to do with-those. Colonel Morgan continued—
  "Lord Kitchener says in his telegram 'As the money involved will reach £6,000,000 or £7,000,000'"
  That is a smaller sum, and Colonel Morgan explains it by saying that a great deal was sold by him before he left the country—the transports, the blockhouses, and the barbed wire were all sold to Lord Milner before Lord, Kitchener left the country. It is clear, therefore, that the £1,500,000 realised by the sales to Lord Milner must be deducted from the original £8,000,000 and this would

  149
  leave the £6,000,000 or £7,000,000 mentioned by Lord Kitchener. On Thursday last, I think, the present Secretary of State for War said that from April, 1902, to September, 1904, the sales amounted to £8,000,000. But those sales are not of the "surplus things" about which we are talking; they include the sales of captured stock which began months before the dual system was instituted. The right hon. Gentleman says that he cannot separate these things; I think I can assist him. The Comptroller and Auditor-General, quoting from a report of the General Officer Commanding, says that the sales were conducted mainly by private treaty, as there was practically no response by merchants to the advertisement, and he further states—
  "It will be found from this statement that the gross amount realised by the sale of surplus supplies from October, 1902 to December, 1903—"
  those are the critical fourteen months in which these things occurred—
  "was £560,898."
  That would really lead to the inference, which I do not say I adopt—that the loss to the country is about £6,000,000. I do not put that forward as absolutely correct, but there is some corroboration of it. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean said the other day that he had understood the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon, when Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1902–03, to say—as I also understood—that he expected to get from these stores £6,000,000 in relief of his forthcoming Budget. One of the special documents that ought to be produced before this Commission is any correspondence that took place between the War Office and the Treasury on that subject. I ask, did the War Office in any way lead the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the autumn of 1903 to believe that he would get £6,000,000 out of these stores in alleviation of the charges he would have to put upon the country in his next Budget; and did he find at last that, instead of £6,000,000, he got nothing at all? If the right hon. Gentleman answers that Question it will give us some notion as to how far I am correct in my inference that the loss by the ill financial arrangements connected with these stores
  150
  —to put it no more strongly than that—was something approaching £6,000,000. I admit that there has also to be deducted, the value of the stores used.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,: And the £1,500,000.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I have already deducted that. But, after all, the amount is interesting only to those who are interested merely by the magnitude of the business. I should take the same interest in it if the amount were only £5 instead of £5,000,000. It is the honour of the officers and the credit of the Ministry that is involved, and therefore the amount is of relatively small importance. I regretted from the first that the Butler Committee was limited to these six cases and to South Africa. In my opinion there are far worse cases than these six; I am inclined to think there are nearer sixty than six, and I am not at all sure that the worst cases took place in South Africa. However, there was that limitation. But the Butler Committee discovered neither the dual system, nor the six cases, nor the rest of the abuser They were discovered by an officer of this House, the Comptroller and Auditor-General. For the last three years the Comptroller and Auditor-General has been reporting, and the Public Accounts Committee, which without him could not do its work, has been investigating case after case, and sending to the War Office query after query. It is unnecessary to go through them. There was the question of the meat contract, when unvouched purchases were made by officers in the field to so enormous an extent that when, in April, 1902, I asked the witness what the amount of unvouched purchases was, he said he could not say exactly, and when I asked whether he could say within a million or two he said, "No, I cannot." There are matters of that sort that require inquiry into.
  I should like to put before the House the functions of the Comptroller and Auditor-General and their bearing on the Commission just appointed, upon the Butler Committee, and every other method that may be suggested for

  151
  inquiring into these abuses. The Comptroller and Auditor-General. is not an officer of His Majesty the King, or of His Majesty's Government, or of any Department of State. He is an officer of this House, and his salary is charged on the Consolidated Fund in order to make him independent of Monarch and Minister alike. By the Exchequer and Audit Act of 1866, there is placed upon him the statutory duty of doing these four things. The first is to see that the expenditure is supported by the vouchers; second, to see that it is applied to the purposes intend d by Parliament; third, to see whether the money received by the Departments other thin from Parliamentary grants has been applied as directed by Parliament; and fourth, to see whether any sum charged is for any reason not properly charged against the grant. These are the statutory functions of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. In the exercise of his functions the public officials come before him and the Committee, and are cross-examined. They do, no doubt, readily give information to the Committee which this House cannot get without them. The Comptroller and Auditor-General has to decide in the final result whether he will report that such and such an item will be allowed or disallowed. He reported this year for the disallowance of some relatively small items, and I have no doubt they will be disallowed. He may equally report to disallow £6,000,000 or any smaller sum as is involved in these matters if we come to find it out. From that point of view it seems to me that the Butler Committee has been doing over again the work that has been done by the Comptroller and Auditor-General and the Public Accounts Committee. The duty is put on the Comptroller and Auditor-General by statute, and our duty is committed to us by the House of Commons itself. Therefore, that has always been, in my mind, one objection to the Butler Committee. The same objection applies to the appointment of the Royal Commission, though I recognise its propriety.
  A remark has been made on the delays of the War Office. It knew of these things in April, 1903, or, as some may think, in
  152
  November, 1902. Certainly it knew by-September, 1903. There has undoubtedly-been great delay in the examination of the charges. It was only in January this year that the War Office finally made up its mind to take definite and effectual action. It made up its mind at a most unfortunate moment, I think at the very moment when the Comptroller and Auditor-General was making his Report, which, by the way, contains almost all the facts of the Butler Committee Report. The Report of the Comptroller aid Auditor-General is dated January 31st, and at the moment when the Public Accounts Committee was about to enter on its duties in the ordinary course the Butler Committee was appointed. What is the result? That the Public Accounts Committee instead of being assisted, is stopped in its work. The Butler Committee interposed between it and all those questions, and the result is that we have been obliged, to postpone all the paragraphs in the Comptroller's Report referring to these matters, to go on to other matters, and to await the Report of the Butler Committee. I think that is very unfortunate.
  Who is to blame? There is one person who has been animadverted upon strongly, and that is the contractor. The contractor exists for the purpose of making good bargains. The officials of the War Office, if they know their duty, exist for the purpose of preventing him making too good bargains. The contractors who have been named in the Report are not all who have been concerned. There are many other contractors who have done right good work for the War Office. It is said that soldiers are incapable of business. That is not true. I refer you to Khartoum, where you can see how soldiers run a province, conduct schemes of irrigation, manage the navigation of rivers, and run a railway in a way that might give lessons to the London and North-Western Railway. I think that no man can say that soldiers, as soldiers are incapable of conducting business. What has been baneful to soldiers, and contractors alike is the influence of the War Office, that ancient monument of red tape which is building a new palace so near us. It has exercised its nefarious influence upon the greatest

  153
  of men, and on no less a man than Lord Lansdowne, who has been censured for his conduct in reference to the War Office. My right hon. friend the Secretary of State for India, whose tenacity of purpose and ability for work we all know, even when he does not state it himself—even he has come under criticism. And as to the present Secretary of State for War, he has not escaped. Perhaps now he would not escape a final whipping. It is that malign upas-tree influence that has spoiled the soldier. A soldier is good, a statesman is good, and a contractor is good, but whenever anyone comes under the influence of the War Office he seems to lose his nature and become perverted and demoralised, and that is why the soldier, that is why the Army Service Corps, that is why the contractor, and the whole of the staff in South Africa, seem to. me to know a great deal more than the Butler Committee has told you.
  My desire is to show the House that it is not the Butler Committee that has brought these things to light and made it necessary for them to be examined. It is the system established by the House, it is the officer appointed by the House that has ferreted out things and taken the initiative. My opinion is that the steps taken by the Government have not facilitated inquiry so far. I find myself surprised to learn that the area of inquiry will be so much extended as has been suggested by the Secretary of State for India. With regard to the appointment of the Commission, I think it is a matter that must give satisfaction to both sides of the House. There are some who say "Do not wash your dirty linen in public." Those are people who want the dirty linen to remain unwashed. Our system is, when we find the linen is dirty, to give it a good wash. I think it will be found increasingly certain that the financial securities set up by the House have not been insufficient, and that those to whom financial duties have been committed by the House have done their duty a8 they will in the future do their duty.
  THE SECRETARY OP STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD FORSTER,): I am relieved of much of my task
  154
  by the speech of my right hon. friend who has stated his case with such admirable clearness and lucidity; but it is natural that I should desire to supplement what ha has said. The House also-will desire that I should do so and give an account of my part in these transactions. I may repeat one thing my right hon. friend said on which I share his view. Nothing could be more congenial to me than to have an opportunity of saying what I have to say on this matter. I readily admit that during the course of the afternoon practically nothing has been said about any special responsibility of my own; but something has been said, and an answer is due from myself. I have been told in this House and outside it that I have concealed, or have had a desire to conceal, the transactions which are now the subject of consideration. I am astonished that any such suggestion should be made. I have no reason and I have no motive whatever for desiring to conceal from the House any facts within my knowledge. I am not primarily responsible for these transactions. They took place at a time when I was not cognisant of what was going on in the War Office; and it is a matter of fact that, whether right or wrong, for good or for evil, I have been the person responsible for the discoveries, or the alleged discoveries, which the House is now discussing and to which hon. Members attach so much importance.
  I was first informed by the Financial Department of the War Office that there was ground for investigation of special cases on January 7th of this year. On the same day I decided that a Committee should be appointed. On January 14th I approved the names of the Committee. On May 22nd I received the Report of the Committee. On the same date, at the request of the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, I forwarded that Report to him, and as soon as the evidence was received it was also forwarded to the Public Accounts Committee and the Members of this House. I came to these questions as matter of past history. In October, 1903, these contracts were things of the past and were only represented by the paper records of what had taken place. The

  155
  two cases I had practically to deal with are the cases known as the Meyer case and the Stepney case. I am not for a moment going into the details of either of these cases. I am not competent to do so; and if I were I should not attempt to do so, because there is a tribunal appointed for the special purposes of investigating the details and putting the blame on those on whom blame should rest. I take these two cases because they are the key to the situation as far as I am concerned. The House will want to know, in the first place, whether reasonable intelligence had been exercised in ascertaining what had taken place, for that that which had taken place did require investigation nobody will deny. They will further require to be satisfied that equal diligence was shown in examining what had taken place, and that reasonable promptitude had been shown in following it up. I can show, from the history of these two cases, that I can reply to all these Questions in the affirmative.
  In the first case—the Meyer refund—I will not dwell on details which are probably fresh in the minds of most hon. Members—but I will give the main outline of the case. The contracts were made in November, 1902, for the supply of forage to begin on 1st January, 1903. The prices were to be 17s. 11½d. per 100 1bs. of oats and 17s. 8½d. per 100 1bs. of hay and oat-hay. I mention these figures because these are the figures which ultimately caused inquiry to be made. Subsequently tenders of purchase for the supply of forage were invited on 4th December, and Meyer made a tender for the purchase of certain supplies, and the prices that he offered were said to be the highest, viz., 11s. per 100 1bs. for oats, and 10s. per 100 1bs. for hay and oat-hay. These two contracts, when placed in juxtaposition, as everybody sees very plainly, were calculated to excite remark and to require explanation. As a matter of fact they did excite remark and they did receive examination. The contracts were followed on 13th April by a refund of £21,000 in respect of a portion of the articles sold to Meyer. Let us see what the action of the War Office was. These transactions took place in 1903 in South Africa, and in November they became subject to examination in the
  156
  War Office. It must be remembered that the whole of these documents from South Africa were belated. I should explain why the ordinary procedure in regard to the examination of contracts of sale did not proceed pari passu with the transaction of the business itself during the time of war as in the time of peace. I believe that a system may be devised—I am bold enough to say that it has been devised—whereby the system continued in time of peace will now be continued in time of war; but it did not exist at that time. All these documents came in in enormous numbers for the review of the War Office. The whole of the arrangements of the War Office were then-subject to considerable change, amounting almost to a revolution; but at the end of 1903 these documents were examined in the War Office; and this transaction was queried by the War Office, and the Paymaster in South Africa was desired to explain. On 26th March these documents went out to South Africa and were examined there. The Paymaster replied in a letter received on 18th April, in which it was said that the officer in charge of the forage supplies at Pretoria stated that, in accordance with instructions, the whole of the forage was sold to Meyer, provided that the same was in sound condition. In March. 1903, the debit voucher amounted to £127,000, but on taking delivery of the forage a large quantity was found, so it was said, to be deteriorated, and a refund of £21,232 was then made. The Auditor-General made a similar query, apparently with the same result. On the 5th of the following month a copy of the Paymaster's letter was sent to the Auditor-General, who made no comment on it at that time, and the explanation of the officer in South Africa was accepted. There was no knowledge at that time of the system on which these transactions had taken place. We merely had the vouchers of the officers; but the Auditor-General did take further notice in October of the same year. He asked what was the condition under which forage was offered for sale. Long before that period the War Office had been led by a totally different road to a similar inquiry. The Audit Department did not make a second query until 20th October, but long before that period the War

  157
  Office were making investigations. The War Office sent to South Africa for the contracts and in January, two months after, the reply came. We then sent a telegram asking for all the documents. We now come to the point: did the War Office know all the facts? They knew that the contracts were under the dual system, of which up to the end of 1903 they were not aware. These contracts had, however, been made for sound goods and they knew that a refund had been made. I do not intend to pronounce whether any or all of these transactions were right or wrong. But taken by themselves any one of them might still be legitimate, though they were so questionable when put together—side by side—that it was evident that an inquiry should be instituted.
  Meanwhile, another transaction, which, to my mind, was much more important, had been brought to the notice of the War Office. That was the transaction of the Stepney refund—a much smaller amount, but in some respects a case more calculated to rouse suspicion. At the beginning of the year 1903 Mr. Stepney contracted to supply oats and other forage at 17s. 10d., and this was accepted. In June, 1903, when the time came for delivery, Stepney had not got the oats. We undertook to supply him from our own stores and at first charged him the full amount for the oats. Probably that, on our own showing, was wrong. We subsequently paid him a refund of the difference between the lower price which he charged and the amount actually paid us.
  MR. LOUGH: What rate did he claim?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: He claimed at surplus stock rates, 30s. This refund was actually made. The account of these transactions which took place in South Africa was in the first place passed at the War Office under what is known as a system of back examination. In consequence of the examination of the back account a letter was sent to the General Officer Commanding with a very plain indictment of the transaction in which it was stated that it was not clear to the Army Council
  158
  why the forage to the troops was not issued without the intervention of Mr. Stepney, and that in the absence of explanation the transaction was likely to convey the impression that the Army made the contractor a present of £1,270. That was the point raised by the War Office and the statement sent out demanding explanation from the authorities of South Africa. The letter was dated June 23rd, 1904. As a matter of fact, the reply did not reach this country until October 31st. It was a long interval, I admit, but it does not represent neglect. The authorities in South Africa found it necessary to refer the matter to the officer principally concerned for his observations. The whole transaction had taken place in South Africa, and it was necessary that the authorities on the spot should make the communication. They replied the moment they received the explanation. When received on October 31st the reply appeared to strongly condemn the transaction, and the Quartermaster-General took action immediately. Inquiries were made from Colonel Hipwell and others, and Major Walton was consulted. So far as he could the Director of Supplies satisfied himself, and, the Financial Department having reported that an investigation was needed, a Departmental Committee of inquiry was ordered, and light was thrown on previous transactions on which explanations had been received. The Finance Department had the matter brought before them, and as soon as they found anything in the documents referring to past contracts they proceeded with the inquiry I have-described and gave information to me.
  SIR ROBERT REID: Is it the case that the right hon. Gentleman was informed in September or October, 1903, that the Army Service Corps were selling at one price and buying back at another price from the same person?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Personally, no, I was not. It is stated in the evidence, I think, that the double sales were brought to the notice of the War Office in October.
  SIR ROBERT REID: There was a telegram of October 1st, 1903, in which the War Office stated to General Lyttelton

  159
  this was the case, giving four classes of goods. Was this withheld from the Secretary of State by the officials of the War Office? When did the right hon. Gentleman first learn that this was going on, that sales were being made to and repurchases from the same person at an enhanced price?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The transactions were reported as being advantageous to the public service, and it is conceivable that they might be so; it is only the method upon which the practice was conducted that was made the subject of complaint. It is mentioned by all the witnesses as being regarded as the best method of dealing with the congestion of stores, having regard to the liability of stores to deterioration.
  MR. A. K. LOYD: When goods were supplied to a contractor to enable him to fulfil his contract to supply the troops, was that to enable him to supply troops in that district or to convey the stores to another part of the country?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: In one instance I believe it was for supply in the same locality. There is no doubt the practice was explained as desirable, and the statement was accepted.
  SIR ROBERT REID: By whom?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: By the Financial Department of the War Office; but as soon as the documents were found to exist and were examined suspicions were aroused as to the wisdom of this practice and the accuracy of the reports, and it was the investigation which followed the examination of the documents which led the War Office to condemn the practice.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The right hon. Gentleman stated that the War Office were informed in November, 1903, of this dual system Why was the knowledge kept from the Secretary of State, and by whom was it kept from him?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I was quoting the evidence given by Colonel Clutton and Colonel Hadfield.
  MR. LOUGH: When was the right hon. Gentleman made aware of this duel system?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I did not know anything about the transactions until attention was called to them. The War Office found that the transactions were not satisfactory when the refunds excited suspicion.
  MR. CHURCHILL: When?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I became aware of the transactions on December 7th. I knew that the accounts required investigation, the Public Accounts Committee having drawn attention to the matter. It was because the Public Accounts Committee and the War Office Committee themselves had drawn attention to them that the investigations Lave been taking place during the whole time I have been at the War Office. It was when the result was pointed out to me that I took this action.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTON: You telegraphed to South Africa.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I have been speaking hitherto of one side only of what took place during the eighteen months, but there is another side not unimportant—the work done in connection with a war of this kind. I believe that the more we inquire into matters the more we shall find that waste has been due in a large measure to the enormous pressure upon individuals of work to which they were unaccustomed, and to the system under which they worked which would not allow them to perform these duties satisfactorily. The hon. Member has spoken of the War Office as a upas tree, but, however that may be, the War Office has been engaged during the past year in making arrangements they will not be called upon to make in the future. We have transferred the contract work to the locality. It is evident that in South Africa officers of small authority did make contracts which their experience did not qualify them to make, and these did not come up

  161
  for review by the War Office until months or years after the transactions We have changed that. We have made arrangements by which the whole staff makes the contract as part of their organisation, and when the Army goes to the front they will continue to perform the work they perform in time of peace.
  I have been asked whether the time taken in investigation was not a long one. Well, Sir William Butler's Committee took three months to investigate a portion of the transactions, but the Commission will have before it all the information we have been able to amass during those three months, and it is estimated that the Commission may occupy eighteen months in completing its inquiry. I have endeavoured to show that once put upon inquiry we have not neglected it, and the time occupied was necessary owing to our having to communicate at every stage with South Africa, and to obtain reports that could only be obtained from South Africa. As hon. Members know, the Committee reported on June 14th, and I cannot accept any blame for remissness in presenting the Report. It may have been an error to place at the head of the Committee an officer who has not prepared a Report of such a judicial character as some of us might have hoped for, but our desire being to make the inquiry thorough and complete, I appointed officers to the best of my judgment, and I gave every facility to the Committee for obtaining information they might desire, and I cannot help thinking that with their opportunities the Committee might have assisted us more materially than they have. But I know the House is not interested in the form of the document so much as in the substance of the Report. I may be asked why the Report was published at all. I appointed the Committee primarily for my own information, I placed a soldier at its head, and I added a civilian, and anticipated that I should have useful information in reference to these complicated transactions.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: In the course of the evidence it was stated that Mr. Edwards, who was on the Committee, had himself been sent from the War Office to South Africa. Was that a mistaken impression?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Mr. Edwards did go to South Africa, but not in connection with any of these matters. Most of the financial officers of the War Office have been to South Africa at one time or another. Unless the right hon. Gentleman means to assume that Mr. Edwards was incompetent to sit on this Committee, I do not appreciate the relevancy of his remark.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I do not wish to imply that. I. referred to it rather as strengthening the Report.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I placed on the Committee those gentlemen in the office whom I thought were best able to ascertain what I desired to know.
  As to the publication of the Report, it arose by reason of the circumstance that the Public Accounts Committee called before them the officer at the War Office who had been in charge of our finance department. It became known, and naturally became known, to the Public Accounts Committee that this inquiry was taking place, and the Public Accounts Committee, in pursuance of their undoubted right, called for the production of this Report. When they called for the production of the Report I had not the option and had no desire to withhold it. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton pointed out,-when once the Report was presented to the Public Accounts Committee it was necessary to present it to the House of Commons, and its presentation was imperatively called for. I should greatly have preferred that this Report should not have been presented until the whole of the labours of the Committee had been accomplished. That would have been in every respect the better plan, and I regret that circumstances over which I had no control prevented my following it.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: The right hon. Gentleman says that presentation to the Public Accounts Committee necessarily involves presentation to this House. That is not so. The Public Accounts Committee has many documents which are treated as confidential until the end of its labours, when, and when alone, in its Report they are presented with the evidence given before the Committee.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I will not attempt to decide between the view of the might hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton and the view of the hon. Member for Ring's Lynn. The Report having been presented to the Public Accounts Committee, it would be known to the House almost as soon as it was known to the Committee. It had actually been quoted from, and I go further and say that I think any Member of this House has the right to inspect the documents of the Public Accounts Committee. I have been censured for appending to that Report the statement that, as far as charges against individuals are concerned, the matters dealt with in the Report must be regarded as sub judice. I do not go back on that statement. I thought it was imperative, in view of the character of the Report, and in view of the position in which it left those persons who were arraigned directly or indirectly by that Report, that I should make some statement of that character. I think I could have done no less than warn those not cognisant, as I was cognisant, of what had taken place, of the error which they would make if they proceeded from the imperfect evidence contained in that Report to draw conclusions unfavourable to the characters of soldiers and others who were concerned in that Report. I will go further. I will say that it was necessary in the interests of a larger body than those specifically named in that Report. I desire once more to call attention to the following paragraph in the Roport, with which I am in cordial agreement—
  "The impression may have arisen that the whole Army Service. Corps in South Africa was concerned in these transactions. There is no evidence in support of this idea. On the contrary, there is proof that the decisions by which these transactions were authorised were given in opposition to the opinion of the officers of the Army Service Corps, who at outside stations had to deal locally with these questions."
  That was one of the many and sufficient reasons which led me to append a note to the Report, stating that in my opinion the case was still sub judice.
  What the issue will be no one can say. But I can assure the House that I share the view which has been expressed by the Secretary of State for India, who has already
  164
  dealt so minutely and with great ability with this case. We desire nothing better than to place all the facts before any tribunal that may be selected by this House. When that tribunal has adjudicated, whether we shall hold precisely the same opinions that some hon. Members seem to have formed in anticipation of that inquiry I am not quite sure. I am deeply indebted to my right hon. friend, who has borne so much of the burden that I ought to have borne, and has borne it so much better than I could have done. Neither he nor I have ever desired to keep back from the public any information that they are justly entitled to. He has expressed his belief, and I reiterate it, that the further this inquiry goes the more thoroughly will be established the integrity of the Army and the honesty and capacity of the vast proportion of those who serve in its ranks. It is because I believe that, and for no other reason, that I wish this inquiry to take place in precisely the form in which it has now been decided that it shall take place. I have absolute confidence that we shall receive a judgment at any rate that will be satisfactory to us all, because it will be a true statement on the matter.
  MR. ROBSON, whose opening sentences were inaudible owing to the movement of Members on the floor of the House, said: The light hon. Gentleman has told us that Sir William Butler's Report is not what he expected, and that it is not what he wanted; he says the Committee was appointed to assist him; and he adds that he is not responsible for the publication of its Report; so that he has done his best to deprive himself of the personal credit of the appointment of the Committee and of the publication of its Report. But there is one circumstance upon which he has left us in some obscurity. I think the House is mainly concerned in learning from him when as head of the Department he first knew of the matters now in question. We know that the Department were informed of them by the letter dated March, 1903, appended to the Report.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The letter was not received at the War Office until the Report was published.
  MR. ROBSON: It seems a very curious thing—I make no comment on it—that this colonel should write an official letter in relation to a matter so important, and one coming within the scope of War Office duty and functions, and that the War Office should have heard of it only by the publication of this Report two years afterwards. However, the right hon. Gentleman came into office in October, 1903. In November, 1903, according to the telegrams to which we have listened this afternoon, fresh information was expressly given to the War Office, but, so far as we can understand the fight hon. Gentleman's speech, he does not get information of the matter until December 7th, 1904. That is a very long interval, and we were anxious to hear how the right hon. Gentleman explained it. I am not attacking the right hon. Gentleman, but surely the head of a great Department ought not to remain in ignorance of a matter so important as this without some minor officials being held responsible. It certainly shows a somewhat remarkable laxity of administration.
  Passing to the remarkable and vigorous defence of the ex-Secretary of State for War, I would ask the House to consider what it all amounts to. What has the right hon. Gentleman admitted, what has he omitted, and what has he answered? He has admitted—indeed, he could not deny—the dual system of salts and repurchases—a very euphemistic way of describing what seems to have been the most insane proceeding known in the history of any Administration. He has also admitted that the system is a bad one; and he has admitted, too, what is of great importance in relation to the question of Ministerial responsibility, that he knew nothing whatever about it. An important charge against the Government was that the South African authorities had been permitted to cease sending their monthly returns of the sales of stores, and upon that the right hon. Gentleman has given no explanation or defence whatever. Then what has he omitted? He has omitted all reference to the specific cases dealt with in the Report of the Committee. And what has he denied? He has made a remarkable denial, which I hope the House will
  166
  not pass over without grave examination. He has denied the statement that these stores were offered to the Repatriation Department and refused by them. That is a most important denial to which I will return presently. One of the most important parts of the indictment of my hon. and learned friend was that in which he pointed out that the Government had been warned, I will not say of the probability of these scandals, but of the existence of a state of things in South Africa and of a condition of affairs in the Supply Department from which reasonable men might well infer that some mischief such as that which has arisen might be expected to rise. The matter was raised by the Leader of the Opposition himself in March, 1902, and the Government ought to have made the most careful inquiry. If it had been a business house instead of a Government Department what would have happened? On the disclosures of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, any business house, without waiting for Select Committees or Royal Commissions, would, by the ordinary methods of business investigation, have informed itself by its agents in South Africa how far the facts disclosed reflected on the competence and capacity of Colonel Morgan and the Supply Department. Instead of adopting any such measures the Prime Minister gave one of those dialectical replies in which he delights. He said—
  "How can you expect us to lay the heavy burden of an inquiry of this kind upon the Department in the middle of a war?"
  I agree that we could not have had a long litigious inquiry in the middle of the war, but that by no means exhausted the alternatives. There was still open what I have described as a business investigation. Or there was another course which ought not to have escaped the attention of the Government. Even if they preferred to pass a sponge over the past, they ought at least to have taken warning for the future. They should have done their best to ensure that in future contracts of any magnitude Colonel Morgan and the Supply Department were not left to their unchecked and unsupervised devices. That is the most vital part of the negligence of the Ministry

  167
  That they did not take such steps adds to their responsibility to-day. There is, or used to be, a legal principle that every dog was allowed his bite, but after he had had his one bite his owner was held responsible in damages for subsequent bites. The Parliamentary debate in 1902 showed that Colone Morgan had had his "bite," and if the Government insisted in maintaining him in office they did it at their own risk. The charge against the Government cannot be too explicitly stated. They were indifferent to the interests of the British taxpayer. That charge, I think, I can make good, and indeed amplify. They were not merely indifferent to the interests of the British taxpayer, but when the interests of the British taxpayer came into conflict with the interests and desires of local speculators in South Africa the interests of the British taxpayer had to give way.
  Now that brings me to the question of repatriation—one which I think the Secretary of State for India soarcely appreciates. My hon. and learned friend stated that the Repatriation Committee refused to take one the stores. The Secretary of State for India asked where is the evidence of that? In the very lengthy Blue-book that has been issued it is one of the most important points in Colonel Morgan's evidence. Colonel Morgan stated in explicit terms that he was present at an interview in Lord Milner's house when it was decided that the Repatriation Committee should refuse to take over the stores. Does this House really appreciate what that means? If it is true, and I see no reason to doubt its truth, it is a worse thing than the Meyer scandals and the dual system of sale and re-purchase. In the supreme duty of repatriating the victims of the war, the British taxpayer had the advantage of these immense quantities of stores, which were just of the kind that were wanted, and just in the places most convenient for distribution. But the taxpayer was not allowed to use this advantage. What was the excuse? It was that "it would not be fair to the local merchants." I hope the inquiry will discover who these merchants were, and what were the prices they obtained for their stocks. Though their
  168
  names are not given, it is possible to entertain a shrewd suspicion of the sort of names they will be. Meanwhile these very merchants were "in a state of war" with us, according to Colonel Morgan's evidence, for they were "making a corner" against the Government. These were the gentlemen for whom the taxpayer was mulcted. I say that the worst part of this scandal is the repatriation part. I should like to know who it is who deserves reprimand in that matter. The Colonial Secretary at that time was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. If ever the quality of a business man was wanted it was here. I hops that those who take further part in the debate will fasten attention on the monstrous and scandalous fact as revealed by the Report of the Committee, that we had stores in South Africa, and that we were not allowed to use them in order that we might put unearned profits into the pockets of local speculators.
  SIR CARNE RASCH: I was the individual who was responsible to some extent for inducing the Government to appoint the Contract Committee in 1900, which had to investigate the question of rotten hay and the bad stores supplied at that time. We found that everything was for the best in the best of all possible Departments, that the hay went bad, that nobody was to blame at all, and that nobody was to be hanged for it. Well, I suppose that this Commission will probably come to a different conclusion. I have never been an enthusiastic admirer of the War Office since I have been in this House. I have never been able quite to understand what they were about, and I have never been surprised at anything they have done. But I am to some extent surprised at the Report of the Committee of Sir William Butler. There are two or three things which I find it quite impossible to understand. One is that the general officer in command should have full powers placed in his hands and should know nothing of what was going on in this particular matter.
  And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the debate stocd adjourned till this Evening's Sitting.

EVENING SITTING.

  SOUTH AFRICA (SALES AND REFUNDS)
  Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Question [26th June], "That the conduct of His Majesty's Government in connection with the supply and disposal of Stores and the Sales and Refunds to Contractors in South Africa at the end of the War, and their failure to inquire promptly into and deal with those transactions, deserve the censure of this House."—(Sir Robert Reid.)—
  Question again proposed.
  SIR CARNE RASCH: Mr. Speaker, before the adjournment I ventured to say that in my opinion the usual steps appear to have been taken that always are taken in matters of this kind. I do not propose to take up the time of the House at any length, but I must ask the indulgence of hon. Members for a short time because I have had some experience in these contract Committees. I was instrumental in getting the Committee on Contracts appointed by the Government in March, 1900. The Report of the Committee was not particularly satisfactory and I hope the Report of the Committee new appointed will be more satisfactory. In the Committee on Contracts appointed in 1900. we had to examine and report on the stores shipped to the front nine months prior in the beginning of the war. The result was not particularly striking. We found that everything was for the best in the best of all possible War Offices and that nobody was to blame. We proved that the hay went bad of itself and that we could blame nobody and do nothing, and shortly afterwards the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of the Committee was called to another place. On this particular occasion, too, I also had the pleasure of telling the House that I was never surprised at anything the War Office did, and that I had consistently opposed them ever since I had been in the House.
  I do not think in this case the War Office is wrong, and I am Certain the Government are not to blame. But
  170
  I was surprised to find that a general officer, by his own confession, knew nothing of what was going on in this connection, and I thought it was odd that when financial experts were sent out to South Africa by the War Office to report on the question of finance that they should not see what was going on under their noses. I myself, at this particular period, put a Question to the Secretary of State for War calling attention to this matter of the selling of these stores which the War Office appeared to know nothing about, and of which very few people in the country had any notion. I cannot understand why, when there was a plethora of stores at the central depot and none in the Transvaal, and next to none in the Orange Free State, the stores should not have been transferred instead of being sold. Would it not have been better to have sent the stores to the Orange Free State and the Transvaal rather than to have sold them as they did? I certainly cannot see why we should sell with the left hand and buy in again at double the price with the right. What the country would like to know is, was the Government right in trusting men who had betrayed their trust, what was the real amount of loss caused by the sale of these stores, and whether the Government did their best with the not very efficient weapon to their hands.
  So far as the Report goes, it is not my purpose to say much about it, but, as one connected with the Press, I should say it is rather an excellent piece of picturesque and descriptive reporting than a great State Paper. I do not think the Government is to blame, because I do not think that any Government could have done more to sweep out the Augean stables at Pall Mall and put the War Office on a proper footing than the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in the present Government—
  "The mills of God grind slowly
  But they grind exceeding small,"
  and the mills of the War Office grind very slowly also, but I think they have made considerable progress during the last nine years. Neither the Government nor the War Office are to blame, but rather the man in the street and the

  171
  House of Commons. Everybody knows that when an Army debate is engaging the attention of the House everybody flies to the furthest corner of the building as if the plague was in this Chamber, and so far as the country is concerned everybody knows that for the last 200 years it has been impossible to get the country as a body to take an intelligent interest in the Army at all. It is abandoned by the country, which pays the men who do the fighting for it as little as it can. and grumbles when it pays the bill. We had a considerable amount of flash music-hall enthusiasm when the war was on—"killing Kruger with your mouth—"by men who would not pay 6d. towards it, and directly the war was over the Army was dropped like a hot potato. As to the present condition of things which make us the laughing stock of Europe, as we are in this matter, that is not the fault of the War Office or the Government, but the fault of the neglect of the Army by the country ever since the Army was instituted.
  DR. MACNAMARA: The balance of argument in favour of the defence so far has rested on the speech of the Secretary of State for India. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman questioned the competence of the Butler Committee and General Butler in particular, and his case was to sweep that away and the responsibility of the Government disappears entirely. Now I traverse that at once. If the Butler Committee had not been appointed the responsibility of the Government would have been as great. I do not intend to attack the Government on the ground of the Butler Committee Report—but on the Report of the Elgin Commission of 1902–3, and on the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General of January 31st this year. And I must say these two Reports constitute in my opinion a monumental record of administrative incapacity. I do not think there is anything more monumental than the incompetency displayed throughout the whole of this miserable South African affair, than the patience of the British public. Again and again have Reports been issued which have filled the public with shame and dismay at the disclosures of grate incompetence on the part of the
  172
  Government. The public grumbles for a few weeks and then, having footed the Bill for the millions out of which it is fleeced, they have gone away consoling themselves for some mysterious and inscrutable reason with the reflection that it will be just as bad or perhaps worse next time. And so, Mr. Speaker, will it be so long as the public attitude is what it is. So long as the public's only punishment for incapacity on the most colossal scale is to shrug its shoulders and say, "Oh, let bygones be bygones," things will be just as bad in the future as they have been in the past. To "let bygones be bygones" is a fine sporting instinct; but there are times when you dare not indulge it.
  I cannot pursue the subject at any length, but take the record of three years prior to the outbreak of the war. What was the experience of the Government? They were literally bombarded in 1896, 1897– 1898 with precise and detailed information as to the Boer preparations for the war. Sir William Butler, Sir John Ardagh, Major Altham, Mr. Conyngham Green, Admiral Harris, Sir Andrew Noble, and scores of others, sent week after week the most detailed statements of the state of affairs we should have to meet. What happened to those statements I do not know; nobody appears to have heard them, but as a matter of history, I know that the campaign had not opened three weeks before our supplies were all exhausted and we were brought to the verge of national disaster. What did Sir George Taubman Goldie report—
  "That only an extraordinary combination of fortunate circumstances, external and internal, saved the Empire during the early months of 1900."
  And Viscount Esher went further and added the note to the Report—
  "The condition in 1899 as disclosed in Sir Henry Brackenbury's memorandum shows that either the Secretary of State was guilty of culpable neglect or that he was in ignorance of the fact."
  What has happened since then? Was anybody brought to book? Certainly not. The Secretary of State for War was promoted to the office of Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and made Leader of the Government Party in another place. Now take what happened subsequently. Take the matter we are

  173
  dealing with now, which is only one incident of the contract scandals, bought before the House with the greatest possible detail on January 31st, 1902, by the hon. Member for East Mayo, particularly with reference to the Cold Storage Company. Nothing was done with regard to that. The most specific details were given as to the enormous profit these people were making by selling frozen meat when they had undertaken to sell fresh meat, and a few weeks later the matter was raised in a more acute form. On March 17th the Leader of the Opposition moved—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into all contracts and purchases made by or on behalf of the Government for His Majesty's forces in South Africa, in respect of remounts, meat, forage, and transport."
  and he said with great political prescience—
  "What we want to do is to protect the taxpayers' interest, which is our prime duty; and that protection can only be given by inquiring now while the matter is red hot."
  He was hotly opposed by the Government for the reason that, although the war was over in 1900, for the purposes of the general election, when it came to a question of inquiry in 1902, the war was not over, and the Secretary of State for War, the present Secretary of State for India, then said it would be playing into the hands of our enemies in the field to enter into the. question. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot finish a war for the purposes of an election and open it afresh when inquiry is demanded. I remember what the Secretary of State for India said in March, 1902, when this Commission was asked for. It was this—
  "I do appeal to all Members of the House who desire the campaign to be satisfactorily carried through to support the Government, not in burking any inquiry at the present moment for their own advantage, but in postponing it to a season when it can be properly carried through, being confident in the interval that everything which devotion to the public service can do will be done to provide our Army in the field with those things which will make it efficient with the least possible cost to the public."
  The disclosures of the Comptroller and Auditor-General's Report of 1904–5 show how that promise has been carried out for the four years. The answer to the refusal of the right hon. Gentleman and
  174
  the Government grant an inquiry in 1902 is to be found not only in the Report of the Butler Committee, but in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. I should like to know how many millions have been wasted as the result of the refusal of the Government to grant the inquiry in March, 1902. The hon. Member for King's Lynn says it is about £6,000,000. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India took one small point and said we had bought material to the amount of £1,270,000, and sold it at a loss of £50,000—a loss of 40 per cent, on the transactions. The right hon. Gentleman took that small point out of the whole of this expenditure of £250,000,000, and then he laid his hand upon his heart and said, "What fine sound business men we are." If the right hon. Gentleman conducted his own private affairs in that way he would find he would make the acquaintance of the Official Receiver in Bankruptcy in about a fortnight. Nobody was punished. The right hon. Gentleman was promoted to be Secretary of State for India as a reward for his great incompetence. The Government has been conspicuously consistent in all these dealings. Their attitude has been one of supercilious indifference and unconcern either to Parliamentary or public opinion. So long as that attitude could be maintained the Government maintained it.
  The Government has had to be pushed on in all these matters by the House of Commons, which has had to wring replies out of them. Take one proof of what I say; take the specific cases dealt with by the Butler Committee which were also dealt with in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, which was issued to Members on Friday, March 10th. Those who read that Report saw that it was an appalling document. I asked a Question on Monday, March 13, of which I had given private notice, as to whether the Prime Minister would grant facilities for the discussion of this Report issued on the previous Friday. What was the Answer I received? The right hon. Gentleman replied—
  "As I have regretfully had to say more than once, in the present state of public business, it is impossible for me to grant the facilities asked for."

  175
  Then the Press began to take notice of the Report, and to comment upon it, and it was then seen to be a State document of the gravest importance. A storm began to brew. I put the Question down again on Thursday, March 16 four days after, and this was the reply I received—
  "In my opinion the matter of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General is of a very serious character and requires to be thoroughly sifted. The very last thing I desire is that the House should be excluded from any legitimate opportunity of probing the matter to the bottom."
  That is the Answer I received on the Thursday following the statement on the Monday that no facilities could be given. Why this sudden change? Because the Government saw that there was going to be trouble over this matter and that the public were going to take a real interest in it.
  Now I turn to the speech of the present Secretary of State for War to deal with one point he made this afternoon. The light hon. Gentleman stated this afternoon that he did not know of this dual system of sales to the Government from a contractor and repurchases back from the Government by the contractor until January 7th this year. I accept his statement, but when I turn to the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, issued to this House on March 10th, but signed on January 31st this year, I see on this point the Comptroller and Auditor-General says—
  "In paragraph 82 of last year's Report a brief reference was made to certain large sales and purchases of forage apparently entailing a considerable loss which seemed to require further explanation. Further transactions of a similar nature have been observed in the course of the examination of the accounts for 1903–4, and in March last I drew the attention of the War Office to the different rates at which similar stores brought to account in the same month had been sold to, and purchased from Contractor 'A.' To this query, which will be found printed in the appendix, no reply has been received."
  It is a very serious thing for a conscientious Minister to be left in such a position as to have to get up and say that he did not know about this until January 7th this year.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I said that I did not know anything had arisen out
  176
  of it calling for inquiry. We made the inquiry, it is quite true.
  DR. MACNAMARA: If the War Office made the inquiry why did they not send it on to the Comptroller and Auditor-General?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: It was sent.
  DR. MACNAMARA: It was not received when this Report was issued on January 31st. Remember the inquiry was fifteen months before this. Why did it take fifteen months to transmit? Now Contractor B and Contractor C are similar cases. I need not go into the details except to say that oats were sold to the Government at 17s. 10d. per 100 1bs. and repurchased at 11s. All this is set out in great detail in this Report and the information must have been in the possession of the War Office in March, 1904. The right hon. Gentleman told the hon. Member for Monmouth on Friday last that those firms were no longer contractors. Pressed with further inquiry on Friday last as to when these contractors' names had been struck off the list of Army contractors, the right hon. Gentleman answered "on June 1st this year." Why did the War Office take fifteen months to strike off their names? There is one other point. If the War Office was not familiar with all this, has not the right hon. Gentleman any comment to make on the evidence of Colonel Morgan before the Butler Committee? Question No. 5150 was addressed to Colonel Morgan by Colonel Had field, and attention was drawn to the following telegram sent out in September, 1903, addressed to the general at Pretoria—
  "Central Supply Account, June last, shows large sales of hay, bran, mealies, and meal to contractors, and purchases of same class articles from the same persons at higher prices; telegraph explanation of institution of this, and report by post."
  The reply arrived in October stating that Meyer, Limited, had purchased for large sums hay, bran, and mealies, and that on December 4th last a tender was accepted from the same firm to supply first-class goods. Public money was

  177
  saved by the transaction. My question is, if the present Secretary for War did not know that there was anything to call for explanation till January 7th, 1905, how was it that the War Office sent that telegram in September, 1903, to South Africa calling for this explanation? I accept the right hon. Gentleman's statement that he did not know. But why did he not know? Who was keeping him in the dark?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: It is perfectly obvious why I did not know of the queries which had been made. The answer to that telegram was regarded at the time as satisfactory, but when the Finance Department came to examine the accounts and vouchers, they considered the explanation was. not satisfactory, and it was because they considered it unsatisfactory that we appointed this Departmental Committee.
  DR. MACNAMARA: The reply came back on October 1st, 1903, and was deemed to be satisfactory by the then Secretary for State, and yet these people were allowed to go on contracting till June 1st, 1905. I consider the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman most unsatisfactory. This is only one characteristic incident in the whole story of administrative incompetence. I believe that the whole thing was a muddle, that the War Office authorities did not know about it, and that now on June 1st, when the row began, these people were struck off the list. The House of Commons must not be told that fifteen months were allowed to pass without some explanation being given. Take another characteristic incident from the amazing mass of ineptitude. Here is a Parliamentary Paper giving details of stores destroyed in South Africa because of their deterioration, or because they were defective in the first instance. Between 1889 and 1901 £250,000 worth of stores were destroyed, and, with regard to £106,000 worth of that amount the War Office is not in a position to give the names of the contractors who supplied these stores! To whom did they pay the bill? Where are the receipts? They must have the receipts, and yet they cannot tell us the names of the contractors! Take
  178
  another characteristic instance which had to do with stores. Fifty million rounds of small arms ammunition were found to be unserviceable and completely useless, and they were broken up. Yet the War Office cannot tell us the names of the firms who supplied these 50,000,000 rounds of ammunition. We are bound to come to grief if we go on in this way. But I am quite hopeless of reform. I do not think anything will be done in this matter. Probably the House will reject this vote of censure and we shall go on in the same old way. The Government will be whitewashed; everybody will be whitewashed, just as they were after the terrible Report of the Roebuck Commission fifty years ago. The public will be angry for about six weeks, and then there will be test cricket matches, billiard tournaments, and bridge problems, and all will be forgotten. But one fine day we British muddlers will run up against a thoroughly and scientifically organised Power like Japan, and then John Bull will awake in real earnest, cursing the happy-go-lucky folly and unconcern which in the end will have been his undoing.
  SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE: A serious feature of this debate is the very Right-hearted way in which the present Secretary for War has treated a very serious matter. We are not discussing the individual responsibility of the officers in South Africa or at the War Office; we are discussing the responsibility of His Majesty's Ministers for a very tremendous waste of money. The question is—Has the indictment of my hon. and learned friend been brought home to the conviction of this House? I have not the slightest doubt that if the vote were to be taken by ballot every Member in the House would be found against the Government. Not a single Member on the Ministerial side of the House, who was not officially connected with the Government, has stood up in his place to defend the Government. And certainly the defence put forward by the right hon. Gentleman who was primarily responsible, the Secretary for India, and by the present Secretary for War is not any real defence to the charges made against them. So far as the

  179
  knowledge of the House is concerned the dual system of contracting was the primary cause of the enormous waste of money to the nation. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for India, under whose administration the dual system was set up, has admitted to-day that he knew nothing about the dual contract system, and that it was wholly indefensible. That fact in itself goes to condemn the Government. The right hon. Gentleman knew nothing whatever about it, and yet he, in a mysterious manner, hints that there are parties of whom we know nothing yet to be brought to account. So far as it can be called a defence, it is the weakest defence ever offered by a responsible Administration to this House and the country. I ask every business man in the House whether, if they were directors of a company and the secretary or managing director were guilty of such larches, would not the shareholders insist at once on such a secretary or such a managing director being dismissed from the management of the company? Why should we not apply the same action to the political directors of the nation? In September, 1903, it was known to the War Office that there were grave irregularities in respect to these contracts which had resulted in the large loss, and a telegram was sent to Sir Neville Lyttelton, the representative of the Government in South Africa, to know what was the explanation; and yet to day the director at the War Office stood up and said that he knew nothing about this dual system of contractors until December, 1904.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I did not know anything at that date arising out of the dual system which called for action.
  SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE: Did you, or did you not, know? I desire to put my Question with-every courtesy, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will have the courtesy to give me a proper Answer.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman must address the Chair, and put his Question in the third person.
  SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE: Did the right hon. Gentleman know before the month of December last, that on October 1st, 1903, this telegram was sent by the War Office to General Lyttelton?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Most certainly not.
  SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE: Then when did the right hon. Gentleman first become aware of this inquiry being made by the War Office at the end of September, 1903?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I have already stated that as soon as I became aware there was any irregularity I took proceedings by instituting an inquiry. I was aware in June and July that there was matter for inquiry, and, as I have already informed the hon. Member, inquiry was being made. I was not aware at all for months that this telegram had passed. After all, it was one of thousands of transactions which were going through the Financial Department of the War Office in connection with transactions which had taken place long before I had anything to do with it. I had nothing whatever to do with the initiation of these transactions. When the vouchers came to hand to be checked I took what steps I could to bee the checking was effective.
  SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE: I gather from that statement that the right hon. Gentleman really did not know of that inquiry by the War Office in September, 1903, until the month of June, 1901. It is something to get such an admission as that. The right hon. Gentleman then caused further inquiries to be made in South Africa and got no reply until October 31st, 1904.
  MR. ARNOLD FORSTER: That is not what I said; that is not the fact. I said the final reply was not given until the date I named. I explained what took place; that there had been intermediate correspondence in order to enable the authorities in South Africa to give us their reply.
  SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE: Between June, 1904, and October 1st, 1904, correspondence was being carried on on the subject of these contracts, and then the authorities in South Africa said: "Why, you have in England Captain Limond who could tell you all about this. What are you writing to us about?"
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: That is not the fact. I s id the authorities in South Africa we had communicated with were not able to answer this inquiry without communicating with Captain Limond, and when they bad communicated with him they communicated with us.
  SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE: It is typical of the way the War Office conduct their business.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The War Office had nothing whatever to do with it.
  SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE: If the answer is that the War Office had nothing whatever to do with it, that is not the view which the country will take.
  MR. ARNOLD FORSTER: They had nothing whatever to do with the fact that the authorities in South Africa thought it necessary, in order to make out their reply, to communicate with Captain Limond. They had nothing whatever to do with it. They were not aware of it. The hon. Member has no right to travesty that into a statement that the War Office had nothing whatever to do with the matter.
  SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE: My only wish is to elicit information from the right hon. Gentleman. I understood him to say that Captain Limond was in England, and that he could give information. Why did the right hon. Gentleman not get hold of Captain Limond and get to the bottom of that matter at that time. It seems to me that the War Office did not wish to take a shortened cut to get at the bottom of any case. Everything that they have done shows the ineptitude of the War Office. The real origin of this matter
  182
  was the establishment of the system of dual contracts, and the ineptitude of the War Office in dealing with it. If the Quartermaster-General's original view, that there ought to be no local contracts, had been acted upon, there would never have been this dual system.
  Another very extraordinary action on the part of the War Office was that, having ordered monthly returns of all sales and supplies to be sent, that was not carried out. That would have formed a most substantial check against this wastage and the, consequent less. I want to know who was responsible for the War Office cancelling that order in April, 1903.
  MR. BRODRICK, rising amidst OPPOSITION cries of "Answer!": I cannot name in this House, when the Commission is about to sit, names which will be brought before that Commission. I have my own views who is responsible; the Commission must decide.
  SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE: The Commission will deal with that point as affecting other individuals, but my point is that this is a serious matter for His Majesty's Ministers. As the right hon. Gentleman is responsible to this House, we have the right to ask him why there was cancelled on April, 24th 1903, an order for the return every month of the sales and stores in South Africa.
  MR. BRODRICK: I entirely decline to reply to these interrogatories. The Leader of the Opposition has chosen to impeach the Government on this question at the moment that the whole question is placed before a Commission. Am I to lay down before the decision what is or is not my view as to the responsibility attaching to certain persons? I know the persons and I know the facts.
  MR. MCKENNA: Yon are responsible.
  MR. BRODRICK: I am not in a position to do it, and I cannot do it. If I am not in a position to do it, it is because I am in the hands of those who have chosen to impeach the Government at this moment.
  SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE: This position is most extraordinary. It is treating the House like a lot of children. Hon. Members Opposite may support the Government in the lobby with their votes, but I am perfectly certain the nation at large will not do so. The right hon. Gentleman was the managing director of this concern at that time, and stood up in the House and said he knew why that order was cancelled, but he declined to tell the House of Commons why. If hon. Members opposite after that could go into the lobby in support of the Government, there was an end to wise and prudent administration. Mr. Flynn, the officer sent out to South Africa on purpose to look into the administration of that matter, attributed the loss caused to the public to placing in the position of Director of Supplies an officer who, in his opinion, was obviously unequal to the post. The right hon. Gentleman was responsible for that, and that incapacity was not limited to the Director of Supplies. It extended to the Commander-in-Chief whom they sent to South Africa. General Lyttelton convicted himself as an incompetent officer, so far as those supplies were concerned, by his own evidence. The vague way he answered questions, and his forgetful-ness on all material points, showed that he was no more capable of managing that matter than one of His Majesty's Ministers. A most extraordinary procedure took place. Meyer took all the stocks of oats at £127,000. He took them over under contract, having previously entered into a contract to sell back what he had bought. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No, no!"] But that is the evidence. I can give the exact dates. Meyer's tender was submitted on October 10th, and accepted on November 25th. Having secured the right to have all this forage he submits a tender to buy from us on December 4th. That is accepted on January 10th, although a fortnight before telegrams had gone forth giving instructions to hand over the whole supply at 11s. per 100 1bs., to Meyer. Having secured the right to have all this forage from the Government, and having become responsible for this large sum of money, Meyer discovered that some of the oats were bad—or rather, that is the allegation, though there is not the slightest
  184
  tittle of evidence in support of it. He made a claim in respect to these alleged bad oats, and was given a refund of £21,000. He actually got a cheque for this amount before we received a farthing of money from him. But my complaint in this matter is against the General Officer Commanding. When General Lyttelton was asked how it was that such a cheque could be given without his authority he replied, "There may have been a practice of writing on a paper 'G. O. C. approves, but it does not follow that I had seen it." If you have a commanding officer carrying on a system like that, it is not surprising that these large sums of money should have disapeared in South Africa in the way they have done. I should like to know, apropos of what the Secretary of State for India has said this afternoon, when he tried to belittle the figures as to the loss to the nation as against the five or six millions we un doubtedly did lose—
  MR. BRODRICK: No.
  SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the War Office did not advise the right hon. Member for Croydon, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, that there would be five or six millions of money resulting from these resales?
  MR. BRODRICKdissented.
  SIR. JAMES WOODHOUSE: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon is not in his place or I would have asked him the question. Perhaps we shall get that important piece of evidence, which I believe exists, established by the Royal Commission. [At this moment Mr. RITCHIE entered the House and took his seat.] I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman in his place, and I will repeat the statement. I will ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not the fact that, during his tenure of the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, the War Office led him to believe that five or six millions sterling would be forthcoming from the sales of these surplus stores in South Africa?
  MR. RITCHIE: I do not know that I ought to be interrogated

  185
  quite in that way. I think I have already stated in the House during one of the financial discussions—I forget which—that I was informed by the War Office, at the time of my considering the Budget, that they hoped to be able to return about six millions, which I expected might pay off some of the Floating Debt.
  SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE: I thought my recollection was not so bad as the memory of the right hon. Gentleman. I am afraid I have already occupied the attention of the House too long ["No, no !"]—but in conclusion I wish to say that I hope the House will, after due consideration of the whole of the circumstances, come to the conclusion that this is a serious matter for the nation and the Government, and not one to be treated in the light-hearted way which has been adopted by right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  MR. McKENNA: I hope that after the statement just made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon that the Secretary for India will reconsider his decision in regard to this debate. The right hon. Gentleman asked the House for this money in order to purchase supplies, and we voted him that money. He stated, in June, 1902, that the value of stores in South Africa was about £7,000,000, and that he hoped to hand over to the Chancellor of the Exchequer between £5,000,00) and £6,000,000 as the result of the sale of these stores. Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that it is his duty to explain to this House why it is that £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 were not paid over. As part of the system of sales and contracts for supplies in South Africa, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India received monthly statements up to the had of October, 1902. He asked for the continuance of those statements, but he did not get them. Will the right hon. Gentleman still, fuse to tell the House, who gave him the money for the supplies and who has a right to ask what he had done with the money, why those statements were not made monthly? [OPPOSITION cries of "Answer, Brodrick."] I appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite to support this demand especially when
  186
  they are told by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer that £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 should have come back to the taxpayers, but did not. Why was it that the right hon. Gentleman did not insist upon getting a monthly statement as to the condition of our stores?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am going to speak later on; perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to reply. [OPPOSITION cries of "Brodick."]
  MR. McKENNA: The Prime Minister has not been in the House throughout the debate, but the right hon. Gentleman near him said that he knew the reason, but would not mention the names, because they would be disclosed before the Royal Commission. I maintain that the House of Commons has a prior right to the information. The money of the taxpayers has been voted on the responsibility of the House, and, as the right hon. Gentleman receives his salary out of the taxpayers' money, he is bound to account to those who represent the taxpayers, and inform us why the ordinary precautions were not taken to see that these stores were properly disposed of. I again appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to state who is the guilty party, and not screen himself behind someone else. You have had the money and you must account for it. Let the right hon. Gentleman disclose the name of that somebody else whom he says is really the guilty party, and let that somebody else be charged. Give the person charged an opportunity of being heard, but do not let this important matter be left to the Royal Commission. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to tell us why those monthly statements, which would have prevented the whole of this waste, were not sent in accordance with the plan made by the War Office at the time.
  MR. BRODRICK: I have already told the House quite clearly the reason why the monthly statements which should have been rendered to the War Office were not rendered, and the responsibility which was attached to those not rendering them. I have also stated that, although I may have a clear view as to who is responsible, I will not, in the

  187
  peculiar circumstances in which we stand, when the Government and not those persons are being impeached, and when it, has been clearly stated by the Leader of the Opposition that all other persons are to be brought before the Royal Commission, give my impression and my belief in order that every member of the reporters' gallery shall publish to the world to-morrow an incrimination of men whom it is the business of the Royal Commission to deal with. The hon. Member may be persistent, but he will find there is someone more persistent still on this side of the House. What hag been alleged by the right hon. Member for Croydon is not in the least inconsistent with what I have stated to the House. I have told the House what the amount of the actual transactions were and what was the loss as far as I can ascertain it. There is no concealment, but there is on my part an absolute determination not to be made a party in the House, on a debate which in my humble judgment ought never to have taken place, to incriminate persons on my testimony before the opening of the Royal Commission. The Royal Commission will call these persons and they will call me. and before the Commission the whole of the facts will be placed.
  MR. MCKENNA: If the right hon. Gentleman does not intend to disclose the name of some unknown person who he alleges is responsible he ought to have accepted the responsibility himself. He is the responsible Minister at the head of the Department, and if he accepts the advice of a junior officer he ought not to shield himself behind the name of that junior. The right hon. Gentleman is the guilty man—["Oh, oh !"]—unless he can show that this junior officer acted contrary to his orders and authority. In that case the right hon. Gentleman ought to disclose the name of the junior officer to the House, but if he accepts the action of the junior officer he ought to accept it now in the House and not attempt to shield himself behind it. Either the right hon. Gentleman is concealing from the House information which we ought to have, or he ought never to have charged against an unknown person, as he has done, the responsibility for this offence. The right hon. Gentlaman asks—Is it to go down
  188
  to the Royal Commission that this person is guilty? Will it not appear from what the right hon. Gentleman has already said that he considers this person is guilty? He has thrown the whole of the responsibility upon this unknown Lieutenant X, and when X is disclosed—and we can all guess who it is—it will be quite understood that the right ton. Gentleman charges him with having been the guilty party. And this is the right hon. Gentleman who was so careful to attack Sir William Butler's Report. If the debate is to be conducted with the concealments that have been apparent on the Ministerial Bench, then it is impossible to get at the truth, so far as fixing responsibility is concerned.
  There is still one other point, and that is the responsibility of the Secretary of State. The right hon. Gentleman said the facts were only brought to his knowledge in January, 1905; but last year he was questioned about these very matters. Why, of his own initiative, did he not direct attention to the fact that all these millions were being wasted in South Africa? Out of this whole scandal there is this satisfaction, that though the War Office and two successive Secretaries of State have disregarded their duty, though the papers are lost, yet two years after the event, by the ordinary operations and safeguards for our finance, the Comptroller and Auditor-General is enabled to discover the whole scandal.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Before I proceed to make a brief reply to the general debate, I wish at the instance of my right hon. friend near me to correct a small error into which he fell in the course of the very remarkable speech which he delivered to the House. He informed the House, quite truly, that he sent out two separate sets of auditors to deal with the immense financial transactions in which the war in South Africa necessarily involved us, and he added that to the second of those, which dealt with supply and contracts, had been added a representative of the office of the Auditor-General. It is quite true that a representative of the Auditor-General did go out to South Africa,

  189
  but his duty was not to deal financially with the second but with the first of these transactions. It is proper to make that correction, although it is not material to any of the great issues raised in the debate, but I do it at the request of my right hon. friend and in justice to the office of the Auditor-General. Now, having made that brief explanatory statement, may I ask the House whether there could have been a speech delivered which more clearly showed to all who listened to it, and to all, if such there be, who will read it to-morrow, than the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, the extreme inconvenience of the debate in which we are now engaged from the point of view of public procedure and the credit of this House, but not at all, as hon. Gentlemen seems rather rashly to suppose, otherwise than as giving my right hon. friend an opportunity of making a statement which, whatever they may think of it, will, I am convinced, produce a wide and deep impression upon the country?
  Let us just consider what the hon. Gentleman said, and take it in connection with the Motion before us. The hon. and learned Gentleman who opened this debate—than whom I do not believe, in spite of his strong political convictions, a juster man, a man with a greater natural love of justice, exists in this House—was scrupulously careful not to touch upon the performances or character of any individual subordinates except in so far as it was absolutely necessary for his purpose. But even he was forced against his will, by the necessities of the situation in which he has been placed by his friends near him, in order to support the thesis that the Government had behaved badly, to make some attacks on the subordinates of the Government, whose character, after all, they cannot come here to defend, which they will have an opportunity of defending before the Commission, but in regard to whom surely it is the grossest injustice and the most cruel hardship that they should find themselves attacked in a debate of this kind—a debate which hon. Gentlemen opposite, at all events, are not likely to deny is animated by the most bitter partisanship—that their personal honour
  190
  should be called in question because hon. Gentlemen opposite want to turn us out of office. The hon. and learned Gentleman could not wholly avoid these dangers. He was scrupulously anxious, I am sure, to attack nobody but those who could defend themselves in this House; but no such anxious scrupulosity animated the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. Observe the inevitable dilemma in which hon. Gentlemen place us upon this bench. [Ironical cheers] Yes, quite so. Just listen to what the dilemma is. They bring a vote of censure. There is a large body of persons concerned in these transactions, persons of different authorities and different grades, from the Ministerial heads of great Departments dawn to some subaltern in some far-off station in South Africa. They have been in one way or another connected with the great problem of dealing with supplies for a great Army, both during the war and after the war had come to its conclusion. The Opposition bring forward a Resolution in which, out of a great body of men, the Parliamentary heads of the Department, the late Secretary of State for War and the present Secretary of State for War, are alone attacked, and with them, no doubt, their colleagues; but they are primarily attacked; and if the fact be that neither of my right hon. friends was to blame, if the fact be that adequate precautions were taken by the late Secretary of State for War and that the present Secretary of State for War has done his best to get at the root of the scandals, or alleged scandals, with which we are dealing, what possible defence can be made except that the blame which does not attach to them does attach to some of their subordinates? [OPPOSITION cries of "Name."] I think that in some circumstances it might be necessary to name them.
  MR. MCKENNA: They ought to be dismissed if guilty.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is quite possible; but, at all events, are we going to drag these men into our debate on this particular day and in connection with this particular debate when we have

  191
  just appointed by the general wish of the House a Royal Commission who are to examine, not merely into the conduct of my right hon. friends the present and the late Secretaries of State for War, but to examine into the whole of these transactions and into the conduct of everybody, military and civilian, official and unofficial, connected with them? Is it not an outrageous thing that with this Commission actually appointed the character of these men should be attacked? The hon. Member who has just sat down tried to drag out of my right hon. friend the names of persons who my right hon. friend, rightly or wrongly, thinks have withheld information from him that would have guided him to a knowledge of these transactions. But they have not been content with attempting to drag out the names of unknown persons. They have assailed by name other persons—for instance, Lord Milner has been dragged in. I was sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman dragged in Lord Milner.
  SIR ROBERT REID: Why not?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. and learned Gentleman asks, Why not? The reason why he ought not to be dragged in is that, if members of the Government and representatives of a Party may be first tried and then have the evidence against them taken by a Commission—while that is tolerable in the case of Party politicians, it is not tolerable in the case of persons who are not Patty politicians. It is, in my opinion, a monstrous thing that Lord Milner should be held up by more than one speaker this afternoon as having advocated a policy injurious to the British taxpayer, intrinsically unjust, because it suited the African trader and, as I understood the allegation, because it suited those great contractors who have been made the special object of attack this afternoon.
  MR. FLYNN: He is a Member of Parliament—a Member of the House of Peers. [OPPOSITION cheers.]
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Quite so and that is cheered. That is what is called justice on the other side of the House. A great public servant happens
  192
  also to be a Peer. He is abroad, and cannot be, and has not been, examined, his own story has never been told, and a Commission has been appointed before whom it will be told, and hon. Gentlemen opposite think it right and fair on reflection to defend the course of making an attack on that man before he has had an opportunity of stating his case to the Royal Commission.
  SIR ROBERT REID: I adverted to the fact that the observation by Lord Milner was stated in the evidence, and I expressly stated that I did not make a charge against him on the ground that he had not had the opportunity of being heard. I do not think it quite fair to accuse me of attacking Lord Milner.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I apologise. The hon. and learned Gentleman already knows how highly I think of him. I assure him I was not referring to him, but he has a learned brother sitting on the bench behind him who did not preserve the same decorous reticence. The Member for South Shields made a violent attack on Lord Milner.
  MR. McKENNA: He did no such thing.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not attacking the hon Member for Monmouthshire. It comes to this, that when the Leader of the House replies for his Party, and a Gentleman to whom he is referring is not in the House, it is regarded as unfair to advert to him, but it is not unfair to attack Lord Milner.
  MR. MCKENNA: What the Member for South Shields did was only to read an answer given by Lieutenant-Colonel Morgan to a question. That answer speaks for itself and is already public property. Otherwise he made rot a single suggestion against Lord Milner.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member is very chivalrous in answering for someone else, but he is, unfortunately, in error. One of the statements of the hon. Member for South Shields was that one of the worst parts of the scandal was connected with Lord Milner's refusal to take over the stores. What is true of the attacks

  193
  on Lord Milner is surety equally true of the attacks on General Lyttelton. What has General Lyttelton to do with the terms of this Motion? The hon. Gentleman can answer for himself now. Why did he attack General Lyttelton?
  MR. MCKENNA: I never mentioned General Lyttelton. I mentioned nobody's name. [Cries of "Withdraw."]
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I gladly withdraw and transfer the charge to the hon. Member for Huddersfield.
  SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE: The right hon. Gentleman says he has some charge to make against me. Will he kindly state what it is?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have stated it. The charge is simply that, while the Resolution attacks the Government alone—which I think in many respects is not a proper course, but of which I do not complain—hon. Gentlemen opposite have not confined the attack to members of the Government, who can answer for themselves, but have also attacked other persons who cannot answer for themselves, but who will have an opportunity of answering before the Commission. The hon. Gentleman attacked General Lyttelton a few moments ago.
  SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE: Had the right hon. Gentleman been in the House he would have known that—
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I was in the House.
  SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE: He would have known that the attack I made was against the Government for the appointment of an officer to supervise the administration in South Africa of these contracts and sales of stores who, upon his own evidence, to which I confined my quotations, proved his incompetence for the position. My charge was against the Government, not against him. [OPPOSITION cheers.]
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and those who cheer him on this felicitous distinction. His attack is on the Government, but it is
  194
  General Lyttelton who is incompetent. I do not think the hon. Member has gained by his interruption. Then the hon. Member for—I am not sure which, hon. Member it was—
  AN HON. MEMBER: Because you were not here.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I was hero, busily engaged in making the notes for the speech which I have now the satisfaction of making. I think it was the hon. Gentleman opposite who quoted the view of Mr. Flynn upon Colonel Hip well. Why should the hon. Gentleman attack Colonel Hipwell?
  SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE: I did not attack Colonel Hipwell.
  MR. A. J. BALFODR: He quoted very deprecatory observations on Colonel Hipwell, and now says he was not attacking him.
  SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE: With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman I was proving an indictment against the Government for sending out to South Africa to have charge of these stores an incompetent officer. I wish it to be clearly understood that I did not call him incompetent. Your own officer whom you sent out called him incompetent.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Precisely, the hon. Gentleman quoted Mr. Flynn making derogatory observations on Colonel Hipwell. That is not attacking Colonel Hipwell, but the Government! I do not know whether he would in his own casa accept that distinction. But does not the hon. Gentleman think it would be fair to hear Colonel Hipwell on Mr. Flynn? And that is doubtless what will happen before the Commission; but we cannot deal with it on an occasion like this; and that is only a further illustration of what I have been endeavouring to point out—that this idea of making an attack upon the Government, and on the Government alone, on an occasion of this kind is absolutely impossible. You drag in men whose characters you have no right to drag in, and you cause an infinity of undeserved pain to men who are incapable of defending themselves before this House. On what principle is this done I

  195
  On the ground that the Government as a Government are responsible for everything their subordinates do. I am not anxious to quarrel with that proposition, but a Government are not blameworthy for everything their subordinates do. They are not to be blamed for everything that happened and every error made by those under them. If so, I do not know what Government would escape that weekly vote of censure to which my hon. and gallant friend behind me referred. And the last persons who would themselves desire to be judged en that principle are the Gentlemen whom I see opposite, and who have had the responsibility of office in previous years.
  I desire to point out to the House that there have been the grossest mistakes made, so far as I can discover, with regard to the amount of loss which the public have suffered in this connection. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down c apparently was of opinion that the whole of the pound; 6,000,000 or £7,000,000 of which Lord Kitchener spoke was lost to the country; and he apparently adopted the rather rash estimate of my lion, friend the Member for King's Lynn, who, I think, uttered the extravagant proposition that only £500,000 of all that £6,000,000 or £7,000,000 had ever been realised, directly or indirectly, by the country. Lord Kitchener's estimate was, no doubt, made on a high estimate which was not, and could not be, realised; but, even taking it as you like, we realised for the repatriation fund £2,682,000—that includes blockhouses—for horses and for animals, £2,000,000, for the supplies sold to public contractors—the subject dealt with in this debate—£718,000, for the cost of feeding 140,000 persons six months in concentration camps, say, £1,000,000, and, in addition, the cost of feeding the Army that remained in South Africa for more than six months after the war. If you add all these figures together they come up, and more than come up, to Lord Kitchener's estimate. But I ought to remind the House that, of course, on the other side you have to put in the scores that came to South Africa under contracts after the war ended; and, although I cannot make out a balance-sheet precisely—nor do I imagine it is possible for anybody to make it out precisely at the present moment—
  196
  there can be no doubt whatever that the amount realised out of the stores came not to the £500,000 upon which hon. Gentlemen have been congratulating themselves in the course of the evening's operations, but to more than £6,000,000 or £7,000,000. I include all the saleable stores belonging to the Government at the end of the war, which is, I suppose, the only fair way of looking at it; and the conclusion I have been forced to come to from such investigation as I have been able to make diverges so widely and so violently from that of the hon. Gentlemen opposite that I thought they would like to know it. I rather gather that they think my figures are excessive, but I think I have better means'of information than they have. And although I may make an error, which, of course, is possible—["Oh !"]—I never profess to be infallible, nor do I profess to have obtained this information for myself—these figures are given on better authority than any figures of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and they are, therefore, more worthy of the consideration of the House and of the country.
  Now that I have disposed of the monstrous folly of the calculations upon which hon. Gentlemen have proceeded, I may say that upon one point I agree with the hon. Member for Lynn Regis, though I do not accept his calculations, that it is not wholly or in some respects the principal question what may be the amount of money lost to the country; the most important question undoubtedly is whether the honour of British officers is involved, and whether in their actions there has been anything in the nature of fraud or that which almost amounts to fraud. But although the amount of alleged loss is relatively unimportant as compared with that, it is of vital importance to the question upon which we are engaged, viz., whether the late Secretary for War took adequate precautions in regard to the matter. The precautions may or may not have been adequate, but at all events they have not resulted in great financial loss to the country. That loss has been grossly exaggerated, and. therefore, looked at in that aspect, my right hon. friend may well say they do not show that extraordinary laxity attributed to him.

  197
  But my right hon. friend can do more than rely on broad considerations; he can show that he has taken precautions that, so far as machinery of the kind can secure anything, he secured that no great scandal should occur in connection with contracts. I will not go over the various steps he took to secure financial supervision; he has detailed them to the House in a lucid and masterly manner, and I can add nothing to what he has said and which, no doubt, will carry due weight on both sides of the House. But is it not fair, when you are judging the action of a Minister responsible for very difficult transactions in difficult times, to compare that action with the conduct of his predecessors in similar circumstances? Does anybody contend that the War Office of 1901, 1902, and 1903 did not, on the whole, compare favourably in the questions of supply, transport, and contracts with—let us take the greatest preceding war, that in Egypt, or the war preceding that, in the Crimea? No one can compare these with the magnitude of the task which my right hon. friend successfully carried through. Consider the difficulties of the South African problem, the mere size of the country over which operations were carried on, which we are all apt to forget, the distance from home, the enormous strength of the Army engaged, incomparably greater than was ever sent from these shores before. [An HON. MEMBER: What was the number of the enemy?] What has the question of keeping up supplies for 300,000 men to do with the number of the enemy? Consider not merely the size of the Army, but the enormous mass of documents involved, in these distant and scattered transactions. All these matters necessarily carried with them special and great difficulties. These were difficulties affecting the period of war, and nobody can forget that 300,000 men were supplied, and never a general uttered a complaint of the way in which his troops were supplied.
  But peace has her difficulties as well as war, and we are now concerned with the manner in which my right hon. friend dealt with the problem after peace was declared. Was it an easy problem? Until he knew
  198
  that peace was signed, it was necessary to make full provision for the supply of that gigantic force as if the war was to go on, and the result was that on the day peace was signed the War Office found itself burdened with contracts entered into in all parts of the world for stores of every kind and description, which had to be dealt with, to be cancelled at a loss or allowed to be carried out at a loss. To a great extent the contracts could not be cancelled; the goods had to be carried to South Africa; and South Africa as a market presented special difficulties, difficulties not the creation of the Government or the creation of anybody in South Africa or Great Britain. It was an enormous country ill supplied i with population, ill supplied with stores, a country in which a commercial "ring" was peculiarly easy to engineer, and peculiarly difficult to deal with if it was engineered. I do not know—we must wait for the inquiry of the Commission to know—if such a ring existed and how far it penetrated. I have heard of rings being formed to deal with forced sales in this country; conceive a forced sale of perishable goods in such a country as South Africa. How was it possible for the Department to deal with the situaation without loss and much difficulty? I am not going into detail, but I regretted to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman who opened this debate try to induce the House to believe that it was an inherently bad transaction that stores of all kinds should be sold at a price lower than that at which a portion of those stores might ultimately have to be bought back, or were ultimately bought back by those responsible for. feeding the troops. There is nothing inherently absurd in that.
  SIR ROBERT REID: I did not say that.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I certainly got that impression from what the hon. and learned Gentleman said, and it is, of course, an easy platform charge that goods were sold at such and such a price and bought at such and such another price, the second price being much higher than the first. Of course that may be a most excellent financial transaction

  199
  [Laughter.] Very well. I understand the hon. Gentleman to declare that he did not make that charge, but it is constructively made by all the Members behind him. I advise them to think over the problem a little, and they will see that, when you are dealing with these large masses of perishable goods, there can be no question whatever that that plan, which, I believe, was the plan advocated by Lord Kitchener, is not only a right one, but the right one, and, I suspect, the only one. The Army Service Corps cannot turn themselves into retail dealers. If the things have to be sold they must be sold in bulk; if they are sold in bulk, all the difficulties I have described—incidents of all kinds, especially incidents in South Africa—are sure to assail them, and without doubt there would be many transactions of great difficulty and as to which it might be doubtful whether they were right or wrong. Some of the transactions which have been brought to my notice seem to me quite incapable of explanation. But I do not dwell upon that, because it really is not relevant to this vote. Unless it can be shown that my right hon. friend did not send out a sufficient body of expert financial advisers to deal with the situation the attack on the Government is an absurdity. I do not think that when the Commission come to examine into the matter they will find that the questionable, perhaps even the guilty, perhaps even the criminal, transactions are very many; and, what is more important at this moment, more relevant to the division we are going to take, I am confident they will not find that my right hon. friend did not take all the precautions which reasonable foresight could suggest. Of this I am certain, he took more precautions than have ever been taken by any man in his place in the whole previous history of the country.
  I confess that I do not think that the attacks made upon my right hon. friend in connection with the South African War show either much justice or much generosity on the part of those who make them. How easy it is to make criticisms upon the details of great transactions when those who make the criticisms have not been concerned in the transactions. The sacred poet compared wisdom to rubies,
  200
  but he was not thinking of wisdom after the event when he made that comparison. I do not think that anything is more contemptible, I do not think anything shows the House of Commons in a worse light than to survey a great series of transactions like those that took place during the late war and to see only the bad and put aside all the good. I have listened to debate after debate in this House of which my right hon. friend has. been the subject, but never have I heard from hon. Gentlemen opposite one word. of generous recognition for an administrative effort which I believe to be one of the greatest ever made by a Minister of the Crown, which I believe, on the whole, to be one of the most successful ever made by a Minister of the Crown, which enabled us to send an Army into the field far above that which this House ever contemplated in voting the Estimates and to provide for and supply it. Is that a small or contemptible performance? Is that a performance which my right hon. friend's critics think for one moment they could have performed? I do them, an injustice. I believe they all think they could have performed it, but does anybody else think they could have performed it? This attack has been made upon my right hon. friend under circumstances almost deliberately contrived to prevent him making a complete and full Answer. He nevertheless has made an Answer which believe has satisfied the House and will satisfy the country. I can only say that the great desire which I have that this question should be probed to the roots, that everything that is hidden should be brought to light, is based not merely upon a love of justice, not merely on a desire to see pure administration prevail in every branch of the public service, but also on the belief that nothing short of, that complete examination will enable the country at last to do full justice to the great qualities of my right hon. friend.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I think a good many Members of the House must be rubbing their eyes and wondering whether they have been dreaming all this time, because the right hon. Gentleman has got hold of a perfect, paragon of a War Minister, and what he has done with him is to make him the Minister for India.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: He is a paragon Indian Minister.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: He might be a paragon Prime Minister. I do not know that it is any great compliment to the right hon. Gentleman to imply that all this machinery is to be set up, that a Royal Commission is to be appointed and an Act of Parliament introduced to endow it with sufficient power, in order to show to the world what a man the right hon. Gentleman is. But that was a little by-play on the part of the Prime Minister. He was mainly occupied, it seemed to me, in his lively speech in two things. He wished to minimise the amount of damage in these transactions, and to minimise the amount of the loss inflicted upon the taxpayer in this country. But, unfortunately, we could not follow his figures. He told us that he had made great investigations, he had a paper covered with figures, and he was ready to show how mistaken we had all been. And what he said was that while, we had been glorying in the fact that the losses had amounted to £500,000, they had amounted to a much larger figure—namely, £7,000,000.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman did not follow MR. The allegation was that of £7,000,000 we had only realised £500,000. That allegation was wholly absurd. I have shown that we realised £6,000,000 or £7,000,000.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Then the right hon. Gentleman says we have realised £6,000,000 or £7,000,000. I hope they are all safe in some corner and that we may get the benefit of them by-and-by. Then the right hon. Gentleman was greatly exercised because attacks had been made upon individuals in this debate. Everyone who was mentioned, everyone who was quoted in relation to certain established facts, is said to have been attacked. There have been one or two casual phrases used, quotations from evidence, and so forth, not very complimentary to individua1s. But there has been no attack upon individuals, and when the right hon. Gentleman the paragon Secretary for India refuses to give the
  202
  name or names of those to whom he attributes a certain course of conduct, he implies that to mention their names would be necessarily to condemn them. The right hon. Gentleman has no title to shelter himself behind them and not tell the House of Commons who it is that he is sheltered behind. It comes to a pretty pass, and is not likely to enhance the efficiency or the usefulness of this Assembly, if those in power at any time they are likely to be condemned or denounced are themselves to issue a Royal Commission if the Royal Commission is in itself to stop any attacks upon them.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: You asked for it.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I never heard of such a plea being put forward before. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India began the debate by a very highly pitched and angry assault upon Sir William Butler. His great object appeared to be to vindicate himself against Sir William Butler's imputations. He conducted a sort of duel with Sir William Butler; but in Sir William Butler's absence, and when I reminded him by way of assuaging his wrath for a moment, that, after all, Sir William Butler's Committee had been appointed by himself, his retort upon me was, "Oh, the right hon. Gentleman thinks it is the business of a Minister to dictate to a Committee. "No, Sir; I never said that, and no one would think that any such opinion would be, expressed by anyone who had any knowledge of the subject whatever. But what I do say is that when a Departmental Committee is appointed, it is the business of the head of that Department, or some one acting on his behalf, to watch the proceedings of the Committee, to consider the evidence taken before it [MINISTERIAL cries of "No !"]—certainly, not with a view to interfering in any way beyond seeing whether it is necessary for the Department to offer witnesses. That is not interfering with or dictating to a Committee at all, but it is not the usual practice, or a becoming course, for a Minister to start a Departmental Committee, to launch it, and to let it take its own course without securing that the interests which he represents are

  203
  properly placed before the Committee. And, therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman makes a great complaint that this Committee of his own appointment—
  MR. BRODRICK: I did not appoint it.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Or of his right hon. friend's appointment, did not call for him as a witness and did not obtain his explanations, I say it was not the part of the Committee to take that course and that it ought to have been suggested by the Department itself. What seems to me is that the Government do not appear to apprehend the general bearing of the case and the impression on the public mind which has been created by it. That impression goes far beyond those smaller matters with which we have been dealing. The impression is that they lost hold of the business altogether. It was not the loss of the money; it was not the disclosures of incapacity, of failures or faults on the part of officers; it was not the eccentricities or the clevernesses of contractors that weighed upon the public mind, but the fact that the Government allowed these events to occur. And if I speak of the Government allowing them, it was especially strange of this Government, because let me remind the House, what we ought never to forget, that this Government's majority was created on the very ground that they were the only men in this country—so they told us—who could be trusted with the administration of the Army. The election was a military election. They were appointed to wind up the war, to reform the War Office, and to reconstitute the Army, and five years later the state of things which we are dealing with to-day is disclosed. But more than that. There has been a succession of one fugitive Minister after another and-one fugitive scheme after another, the Ministers disagreeing in opinion and the schemes none of them accepted or carried out. While this evanescent process has been going on one salient fact has been established, and that is that the responsibility of the Cabinet, and especially of the Prime Minister, in these matters has been increased to a degree greater than ever existed before and that gives intensity to the astonish
  204
  ment that, in the face of all these facts this state of things has been found to exist. The War Office has been reorganised—on what principle? On the principle of securing such a responsibility as shall, first of all, produce, efficiency and. also enable us to say at once, where anything goes wrong, on whom the blame is to rest. But that is the very thing we find does not exist under the present system. If your machinery was effective, what occasion could arise for such a Committee as the Butler Committee? The country, therefore, was not only shocked by loss, but still more by the standard of responsibility exhibited by the Government.
  I will not refer to the strange desire the Government appear to have shown, whether they felt it or not, to evade or postpone inquiry. The right hon. Gentleman gets up and declares to the House that he hardly lives for any other purpose than to have this matter probed to the bottom, but we found him day after day opposing to the very end the proposition to make the inquiry effective.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think a Royal Commission has ever been, appointed so quickly.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: None may have been appointed so I quickly, but even this might have been appointed more quickly still [MINISTERIAL cries of "No!"] if the right hon. Gentleman had proposed on the first day what he was literally driven to accept on the last day. Even then, when an hon. Member here spoke of a Statutory Commission, the right hon. Gentleman started up and said, "Only on condition, of the Bill being treated as unopposed." That showed how little importance he attached to the whole matter, for has actually thinks the spending of an hour or two in the House of Commons in discussing some point of the Bill, is a matter that might very well put the whole thing; into abeyance.
  The War Office should better have appreciated the fact of this enormous agglomeration of stores in South Africa. The right hon. Gentleman has given, I believe, not an over-drawn picture

  205
  of that quantity of stores, and he was right; but that was the very reason why the Department should have taken especial pains in this matter—precautions that would not be required in any ordinary emergency. In time of war you take the readiest means, whatever they may be. When three years ago we brought forward our Motion for a Committee of inquiry into contracts in South Africa, which has been referred to several times to-night, at that time it was possible mistakes were made, and great scandals even might have been allowed; but all of that was governed by the fact that in war you must take the weapons and instruments that come to your hand. You cannot allow any impediment, you may have to break financial rules. But when the war was over the urgency ceased; and for this process which ended in the system of sales and purchases there were six full months allowed. In my opinion the War Office should have insisted on full information being sent home, not only of the general scheme which was proposed, but of the details of the scheme, so that everything might be considered here at home, where there was the fullest information and the largest experience with regard to contracts in all parts of the world. When the right hon. Gentleman reminded us as he did that there were quantities of stores arriving in South Africa under contract for some time after the war had ended, let me point out that at home there were officials possessing he requisite knowledge to divert a large portion of those stores to other stations in other quarters, where they might be wanted for the public service. No attempt appears to have been made to do so.
  Then, in the second place, there was the failure to realise that this was a matter that must be watched closely as time went on. Then I come to the point which the right hon. Gentleman has dealt with so unsatisfactorily, the question of what was the reason why these monthly returns suddenly ceased, returns which would have prevented the evil arriving at the scale at which it did arrive. The Prime Minister blames the obsolete system of the War Office, and he says they have provided against that, and mat under their new system any such
  206
  thing will be impossible. But is that so? The machinery was switched off for this purpose, but the effective grip you must keep over these things is not the mere grip of audit, which comes after the play, it is the grip of immediate guidance and control at the time. Decentralisation in this instance has been carried surely to the pitch of folly. There is no central department under your new system at the War Office capable of dealing on a large scale with great undertakings and emergencies such as that. The Department of Director-General of Contracts has been abolished altogether, and the financial advisers are scattered under various authorities. I am no advocate of over-centralisation, from which we have suffered in the past But I do think, when we find the central authority denuded of these powers, that we can only expect that on future occasions the South African experience will be repeated—that evils which have occurred in this instance in South Africa may recur, under this system, all over the British Empire. Such a system exposes us to the maximum of corruption and plunder and the minimum of safety is secured. But decentralisation does not relieve the Minister of his responsibility. He is responsible, however much he sends his officials to check and control matters away from headquarters. It is the absolute duty of those at the centre to provide such checks and control as will be a safeguard against abuse and waste.
  But we are told that this is a Party Motion. The Prime Minister talks of it as a piece of bitter partisanship. There is no trace of partisanship about it. There never has been a great period in the history of this country when there has been less inconsiderate partisanship than in connection with the South African War. If you mean merely that the Motion will be decided by a Party vote agree. It will be a Party vote. We are accustomed to the practice. What a senseless thing, then, to meet the charges which we bring against the Government, invariably by the crack of the Party whip. We are taunted with bringing forward weekly votes of censure. There will be votes of censure, I hope, so long as the Government commit mistakes and so long as they appear to prevent the light of day

  207
  falling either upon their own transactions or those of their subordinates. The only direct Party move in the matter which I have noticed was taken by the Prime Minister himself. Twice last week he brought in the came of Mr. Gladstone, and with the old, stupid argument of tuquoque referred to the fact, which had nothing to do with this question, of bad swords in the Egyptian War. I think Mr. Gladstone is a man who ought to be spoken of with respect by the Prime Minister, for Mr. Gladstone is a man the latchets of whose shoes, in these matters of finance and thrifty administration, he is not worthy to loose, a man who called into. existence by the Exchequer and Audit Act the machinery by which the control of Parliament over expenditure is maintained, and who devoted his life to exalting instead of debasing the power of this House. But if you will take a Party view of this matter, then let us put aside this obsolete and used-up House of Commons. Let as go to the country. While wear? here, powerless in the lobbies as we are [MINISTERIAL cheers]—by the help of gentlemen who now cheer and who have, no doubt, been brought up from pleasant occupations to take part in the division—while we are here, I say, we shall maintain the high constitutional function of Parliament to discuss matters and try to preserve, if possible, the credit and interest of the nation.
  MR. HAVILAND BURKE: A few years ago we were told that there was what was called a corrupt oligarchy in power in the Transvaal. Now the British Empire has heaped £250,000,000 on the public debt, it has shed blood like water, and it has deposed the corrupt oligarchy. It has replaced that oligarchy by the splendid, hue, free, and enlightened power of Lord Milner's rule at Pretoria. What is the result? It is now admitted that the wretched British taxpayer who approved of the war, and the still more wretched Irish taxpayer who opposed the war all along the line, has been swindled out of anything from £5,000,000 to £7,000,000. That is a triumph of British civilisation. To my mind the identity of the swindlers is really a very small matter. The real thing that this House has to deal with is the responsibility of Ministers of
  208
  the Crown for the last three years, for by trying to prevent Members of this House from getting the information to which they are entitled, they have facilitated the operations of the swindlers in every possible way in their power. I remember one occasion on which a store scandal was under discussion and an influential Member of the Opposition put a Question to the then Secretary of State for War, the present Secretary of State for India. The Question was whether one of the partners in one of the incriminated firms was or was not a man who was a fugitive from justice in South Africa, a man who had been on his trial for illicit diamond dealing, who had come to London, who had left his bail to be estreated, and who had had his personal description published in the London police "Hue and Cry." The answer of the then Secretary of State for War was, "I have no information." I marvelled at the time that hon. Members on this side of the House could bow so quietly to the insolence displayed by the Answer to such a circumstantial Question. There are many forms of bad government, but I have no hesitation in saying that the worst of all bad governments is an oligarchy masquerading in the clothes of the Constitution, and that is what we are fast coming to in this House. We might as well save ourselves and everybody else a deal of trouble by passing a Resolution, when we thank His Majesty for his gracious Speech, appointing the members of the Government a permanent Executive until our meeting on the next occasion. What we have to complain of is that Ministers in this House have a system of refusing to answer Questions put on the Notice Paper. When Questions are put in relation to details of matters of fact they put every obstacle in the way of our getting information.
  There is another matter to which I would draw the attention of the House. You have got at this moment as a bid for cheap popularity an Aliens Bill. It is a Bill intended for the exclusion of poor aliens from this country. Now the slime of the alien is over the whole of these South African War transactions. Are there no English or Irish contractors? The closer you look into it, you will find that German Jews are involved

  209
  in the South African War scandals everywhere. Irish and English contractors have to take a back seat. I think we want a Bill for the exclusion of alien contractors from British Army war contracts.
  I regret that no note of protest has been raised in the course of the discussion on another question. A Member of Parliament cannot open his mouth in criticism of anything done by a military officer without being accused of attacking the Army. There are a certain number of Members on the opposite side of the House who have it in their mind to remove from this House any civilian criticism or control over the Army for which this House pays. All I would say is that this House has an absolute right of criticism in these matters. When incompetence is pleaded, and when I am told that this or that officer was not dishonest, but that he was only deceived or imposed upon, I reply that incompetency paves the way for the thief. It is incompetence that leaves the road open to corruption. Why is it that a householder who carelessly leaves his door open at night is liable to be summoned by the police for his neglect? It is because by his negligence he is the burglar's best friend, and because in addition to that he places temptation in the way of a man who never was a thief before. On the same principle a man who holds a great official position, and who by lack of supervision or by neglect of duty opens the way for corruption and the swindling of the taxpayers of the country, however much he may be acquitted of personal dishonesty, is a man who ought to be dismissed from the position he holds. On these grounds I shall vote for the Resolution of censure which has been moved. If these scandals had occurred under the late corrupt Boer oligarchy, in the United bates, or in Prance, we should have had endless reams of newspaper sermonettes on the subject. I think this matter shows that this House is losing control over public administration and expenditure, and that if the House does not look after itself, and stand upon its rights, the day will be near at hand when constitutional Government will be farce and the money of the taxpayer
  210
  will be at the mercy of any alien jobber to squander with impunity.
  MR. GUEST: I do not conceive the object of this debate to be to affix any particular blame on any individual whose name has been mentioned in connection with the scandals revealed, or partially revealed, by the investigations of the Butler Committee. I do not think it is the duty of, or, indeed, that it is advisable for, this House to attempt any such-task. Indeed, the object of the vote of censure is not to attempt to censure those officers who have been animadverted on by the Butler Report, but to attach, as far as this House can attach, responsibility—and there is responsibility—upon the present Government. It seems to me that the paragraph which most intimately concerns the debate which is now proceeding is that which deals with the complete carelessness on the part of the War Office with regard to the instructions which they issued to the Army Sales Department in South Africa. We want to know how far the War Office has assisted, or is responsible, for the state of affairs with which we are confronted. We know that Lord Kitchener, previous to leaving South Africa, telegraphed to the War Office that the accumulated stores involved a sum of between £6,000,000 and £7,000,000. We want to know how it was that that considerable matter escaped the attention of the Secretary of State for War. One would have thought that, great as is the responsibility and extensive as are the duties of that official, a sum of £6,000,000 or £7,000,000 would have received the attention to which it was entitled. But in spite of the knowledge of the War Office, in spite of the knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India, in spite of the fact that the War Office had ordered a monthly return, which was not made, the War Office on 24th April, 1903, cancelled the return and took no further steps whatever. What the officers in the Army feel, and what the public feel, is that they have been put into a position where they had no right to be put, owing to the carelessness, not of some individual swindler, but owing to the carelessness and malfeasance of the War Office

  211
  and the Secretary of State for War. We wish to attach responsibility to the Government for the things for which they are responsible, and to the War Office, which has passed through so many hands in so few years, with greater and increasing incapacity as it passed from one hand to another. We believe that there is fundamental weakness and wrong in the whole of the War Office administration. The hon. Member continued his speech amid interruptions and cries of "Divide" to which he replied—Go to the country and see how it is divided.
  MR. CHURCHILL: It is obviously impossible that the debate should terminate to-night. Not merely have an immense number of new facts been brought before the House, but a remarkable speech has been made by the late Secretary of State for War, who stated that while he was in charge of the
  War Office information of vital importance to the public, which certainly should lave been placed at his disposal, was withheld from him by some person or persons unknown, and concealed from he House of Commons, although the lames are perfectly well known on the Treasury Bench. I say, therefore, that these circumstances it is quite impossible that we should be asked to come to a decisive vote, and to terminate this debate to-night. I would ask permission to move the adjournment, if the debate.
  Mr. A. J. BALFOURrose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be low put."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 329; Noes, 256. (Division List No. 209.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Brassey, Albert

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

  Aird, Sir John

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tower Hamlets

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Bull, William James

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

  Butcher, John George

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Arrol, Sir William

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ.

  Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Carlile, William Walter

  Doughty, Sir George

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon A. Akers-

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart.

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Egerton, Hn. A. de Tatton

  Balcarres, Lord

  Chamberlain Rt Hn. J. A. (Worc.

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W)

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Chamberlayne, T. (Southamp'n

  Faber, George Denison (York)

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

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Balfour, Capt, C. B. (Horrsey)

  Chapman, Edward

  Fellowes, Rt. Hn. Ailwyn Edw.

  Balfour, Rt Hn. Gerald W (Leeds

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

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

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

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

  Finlay, Sir R. B. (Inv' rn' ssB' ghs

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

  Coddington, Sir William

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Fison, Frederick William

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John C. R.

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Flannery, Sir Fortes

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Bigwood, James

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Forster, Henry William

  Bill, Charles

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Foster, Philip S. (Warwick S. W.

  Bingham, Lord

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Bond, Edward

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Garfit, William

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Gordon, Hn J. E. (Elgin &amp; Nairn

  Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F (Middlesex

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Gordon, Maj. Evans (T'rH' mlets

  Lowe, Francis William

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Lucas Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Rutherford, John (Lancasnire)

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hoi. Alfred

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Macdona, John dimming

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Gray Ernest (West Ham)

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Samuel, Sir Harry S. (Limehouse

  Green, Walford D (Wednesbury

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos Myles

  Greene, Sir E W (B'ry SEdm'nds

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J.

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Grenfell, William Henry

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Gretton, John

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Malcolm, Ian

  Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew)

  Groves, James Grimble

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Skewes-Cox. Thomas

  Hain, Edward

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Massey-Main waring, Hn. W. F.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Halsey, Rt, Hon Thomas F

  Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H. E. (Wigt'n

  Smith, H. C. (North'mb Tynesid

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire

  Smith, Rt Hn J. Parker (Lanarks

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

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

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Spear, John Ward

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Middlemore, John Throgmort'n

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Mildmay Francis Bingham

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset)

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Milvain, Thomas

  Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Mitchell, William (Burnley)

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

  Moles worth, Sir Lewis

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Heath, Sir James (Staffords N W

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Stock, James Henry

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Helder, Augustus

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Stroyan, John

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Morgan, David J (Walthamstow

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxfd Univ

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Mount, William Arthur

  Tollemache Henry James

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. W.

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Tritton Charles Ernest

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Murray, Charles J. (Ccventry)

  Tuff, Charles

  Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Myers, William Henry

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Nicholson. William Graham

  Turnour, Viscount

  Hunt, Roland

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H (Sheffield

  Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H)

  Percy, Earl

  Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh.

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon

  Kerr, John

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

  Keswick, William

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Pryce-Jones Lt.-Col. Edward

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Purvis, Robert

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York E. R.)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Pym. C. Guy

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Randles, John S.

  Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks.)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Rankin, Sir James

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

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

  Rasch. Sir Frederick Carne

  Wolft, Gustav Wilhelm

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (Mile End)

  Reid, James (Greenock

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks. NR

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareh'm

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Wylie, Alexander

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Renwick, George

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. K.

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Younger, William

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Rollit Sir Albert Kaye

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

  Long, Rt. Hn Walter (Bristol, S)

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter.

  214

  215

  Abraham, William (Cork, N, E.

  Field, William

  Mitchell, Edw (Fermanagh, N.)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Findlay, Alexander (Lanark, N E

  Mooney, John J.

  Allen, Charles P.

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Asher, Alexander

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Morley, Rt. Hn John (Montrose

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Moss, Samuel

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Muldoon, John

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Murnaghan, George

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Murphy, John

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Bell, Richard

  Grant, Corrie

  Newnes, Sir George

  Benn, John Williams

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

  Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.)

  Black, Alexander William

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Blake, Edward

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Boland, John

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Brigg, John

  Hammond John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Harcourt, Lewis

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Methyr Tydvil)

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W)

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Harms worth, R. Leicester

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Harrington, Timothy

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Harwood, George

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Burns, John

  Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

  O'Dowd, John

  Burt, Thomas

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Buxton, N E. (York, NR, Whitby

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  O'Kelly, Jam s (Roscommon, N

  Buxton, Sydney Charles (Poplar

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Malley, William

  Caldwell, James

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Mara, James

  Cameron, Robert

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  O'Shee, James John

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Parrott, William

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Partington, Oswald

  Cawley, Frederick

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Paulton, James Mellon

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Joicey, Sir James

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

  Perks, Robert William

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Crean, Eugene

  Joyce, Michael

  Price, Robert John

  Cremer, William Randal

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Priestley, Arthur

  Crombie, John William

  Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Rea, Russell

  Crooks, William

  Kennedy, P. J. (Westmeath, N.)

  Reckitt. Harold James

  Cullinan, J.

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W

  Reddy, M.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Kilbride, Denis

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Kitson, Sir James

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

  Labouchere, Henry

  Richards, Thomas

  Delany, William

  Lambert, George

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Galw'y

  Lamont, Norman

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Langley, Batty

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

  Dewar, John, A. (Inverness-sh.

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Roche, John

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Rose, Charles Day

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Runciman, Walter

  Doogan, P. C.

  Leng, Sir John

  Russell, T. W.

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Levy, Maurice

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Duffy, William J.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Duncan, J. Hastings.

  Lloyd-George, David

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Edwards, Frank.

  Lough, Thomas

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Ellice, Capt. EC (S Andrw's Bghs

  Lundon, W.

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

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

  Emmott, Alfred

  Mac Neill. John Gordon Swift

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Evans, Sir Francis H. (Maidstone

  Mac Veagh, Jeremiah

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  M'Crae, George

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  M'Kean, John

  Sheehy, David

  Farrell. James Patrick

  M'Kenna, R'ginald

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Fenwick, Charles

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Sinclair, John (For farehire)

  Ferguson, R, C. Munro (Leith)

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Slack, John Bamford

  Ffrench, Peter

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  216

  217

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Toulmin, George

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Wills, Arthur Walters (N. Dorset

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. CR. (Northants

  Ure, Alexander

  Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Wallace, Robert

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.

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

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Wood, James

  Tennant, Harold John

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Woodhouse, Sir JT (Huddersf'd

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Young, Samuel

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Thomas, JA (Glamorgan, Gower

  White, George (Norfolk)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. William M'Arthur.

  Thoms n, F. W. (York, W. R.)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Tillett, Louis John

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Tomkinson, James

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Question put accordingly.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 255; Noes, 329. (Division List, No. 210.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, NE.

  Delany, William

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Galway

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Allen, Charles P.

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Ambrose, Robert

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Asher, Alexander

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Hutton Alfred E. (Morley)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Doogan, P. C.

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Joicey, Sir James

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Duffy, William J.

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

  Bell, Richard

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Benn, John Williams

  Edwards, Frank

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Black, Alexander William

  Ellice, Capt. E (SAndrew' sB' ghs)

  Jordan, Jeremia

  Blake, Edward

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Joyce, Michael

  Boland, John

  Emmott, Alfred

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Evans Sir Francis H. (Maidstone

  Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Kennedy, P. J. (Westmeath, N)

  Brigg, John

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Kilbride, Denis

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Kitson, Sir James

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Labouchere, Henry

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lambert, George

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Field, William

  Lamont, Norman

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Findlay, Alexander (Lanark, NE

  Langley, Batty

  Burns, John

  Fitzmaurice, Lord (Edmond

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W

  Burt, Thomas

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Buxton, N. E. (York, NR, Whitby

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Layland-Barratt Francis

  Buxton, Sydney Chas. (Poplar)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Lease, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

  Caldwell, James

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Cameron, Robert

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Leng, Sir John

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Levy, Maurice

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Lloyd-George, David

  Cawley, Frederick

  Grant, Corrie

  Lough, Thomas

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick

  Lundon, W.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Mac Neill, John Gordon Swift

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Mac Veagh, Jeremiah

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  M'Crae, George

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Hammond, John

  MKean, John

  Crean, Eugene

  Harcourt, Lewis

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Cremer, William Randal

  Hardie, J Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo North)

  Crombie, John William

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Crooks, William

  Harrington, Timothy

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Cullinan, J.

  Harwood, George

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Mooney, John J.

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John (Montrose

  Rea, Russell

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan E.

  Moss, Samuel

  Reckitt Harold James

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Reddy, M.

  Thomas J. A. Glamorgan, Gower

  Muldoon, John

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.

  Murnaghan, George

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Tillett, Louis John

  Murphy, John

  Richards, Thomas

  Tomkinson, James

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Toulmin, George

  Newnes, Sir George

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Nolan. Col. John P. (Galway N.

  Roberts, John' H. (Denbighs.)

  Ure, Alexander

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Roche, John

  Waldron, Lawrence Ambrose

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Wallace, Robert

  O'Brien, Kendal Tipperary Mid

  Rose, Charles Day

  Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Runciman, Walter

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Russell, T. W.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Weir, James Galloway

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Scott, Chas, Prestwich (Leigh)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

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

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  O'Dowd, John

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Whiteley, George (York, W R.)

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  O'Malley, William

  Sheehy, David

  Wills, Arthur Walters (N Dorset

  O'Mara, James

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Wilson, Charles Henry (Hull, W.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.

  O'Shee, James John

  Slack, John Bamford

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.

  Parrott, William

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Partington, Oswald

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Wood, James

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Spencer, Rt Hon. CR (Northants

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Huddersfi'd

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Young, Samuel

  Perks, Robert William

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Sullivan, Donal

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. William M'Arthur.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

  Price, Robert John

  Tennant, Harold John

  Priestley, Arthur

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Bigwood James

  Clive, Captain Percy N.

  Aird, Sir John

  Bill, Charles

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Bingham, Lord

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

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Coddington, Sir William

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Bond, Edward

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Arnold-Forster, Rt Hn Hugh O.

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Arrol, Sir William

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John C. R.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F (Middlesex

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Brassey, Albert

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Bigot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy

  Brodrick, Bt. Hon. St. John

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh)

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Bull, William James

  Cross, Herb, Shepherd (Bolton

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

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

  Butcher, John George

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ.

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Balfour, Rt Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds

  Carlile, William Walter

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Davenport, W. Bromley

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

  Banner, John S. (Harmood-

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Dewar, Sir T. R. Tower Hamlets

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A. Worc.

  Dimsdale, Rt Hon. Sir Joseph C.

  Beach, Rt Hn Sir Michael Hicks

  Chamberlayne T. (S'thampton

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Dixon-Hartland. Sir Fred Dixon

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Chapman, Edward

  Dorington, Rt Hon. Sir John E.

  220

  221

  Doughty, Sir George

  Hunt, Rowland

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Hutton, John (Yorks., N. R.)

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H

  Percy, Earl

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Fellowes, Rt Hn Ailwyn Edward

  Kerr, John

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

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

  Keswick, William

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Finlay, Sir R. B. (Inv'rn'ssB'ghs)

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Purvis, Robert

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Pym, C. Guy

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Randles, John S.

  Fison, Frederick William

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Rankin Sir James

  Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th)

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (Mile End)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks N. R

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Forster, Henry William

  Lee, Arthur, H. (Hants. Fareham

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Foster, Philip S. (Warwick. S. W.

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Renwick, George

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Legge, Col. Ho-. Heneage

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Gardner, Ernest

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N S.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas Thomson

  Garfit, William

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Godson Sir Augustus Frederick

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Gordon, Hn J. E. (Elgin & Nairn

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S)

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, South

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Gordon, Maj Evans (T' rH' mlets

  Lowe, Francis William

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby

  Loyd, Archie Kirknian

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Lyttleton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  MaeIver, David (Liverpool)

  Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse)

  Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos Myles

  Greene, Sir E W (B'ry S Edm'nds

  M Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J.

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Grenfell, William Henry

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Gretton, John

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Malcolm, Ian

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Groves, James Grimble

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew)

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Hain, Edward

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Hall, Eaward Marshall

  Massey-Main warhg, Hn. W. F.

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Maxwell, Rt Hn. Sir H. E (Wigt'n

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfiiesshire

  Smith, H. C. North'mb (Tyneside

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Smith, Rt Hn J. Parker (Lanarks

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'donderry

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

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

  Hardy, Lawrence (Kent, Ashford

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Spear, John Ward

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur Ormskirk

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Milvain, Thomas

  Stanley Edward Jas. (Somerset)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Mitchell, William (Burnley)

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

  Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Heath, Sir James (Staffords N W.

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Stock, James Henry

  Helder, Augustus

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

  Stroyan, John

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Stru'tt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Mount, William Arthur

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Howard, John Kent (Faversham

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Tuff, Charles

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Myers, William Henry

  Tufnell, Lieut. Col. Edward

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  222

  223

  Turnour, V'scount

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

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

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H (Sheffield)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Wyndham, Kt. Hon. George

  Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir William H

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks

  Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Question, "That this House do now idjourn," put, and agreed to.

  PUBLIC ROADS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. GRANT LAWSOK (Yorkshire, N. R. Thirsk) in the Chair.]
  Clause 1.
  Drafting Amendments made.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To insert after line 22 the words—
  '(2) Expenses under this section may be recovered if not exceeding two hundred and fifty pounds in the County Court, and if exceeding that sum in the High Court
  '(3) An appeal may be taken from any order of a County Court under this section, and the enactments in the County Courts (Ireland) Acts, 1851 to 1898, relating to appeals in the ease of ordinary civil bills shall apply accordingly.
  '(4) Proceedings for the recovery of any expenses under this section shall be commenced within twelve months of the time at which the damage was done, or where the damage is in consequence of any particular building contract or work extending over a long period shall be commenced not later than six months after the completion of the contract or work.
  '(5) In the case of a road not being a main road any expenses recovered or composition paid under this section by or to a county council in respect thereof shall be credited in manner prescribed by the Local Government Board for Ireland to the rural district or rural districts in which is situated that part of the road in respect of which the expenses were recovered or the composition was paid, ana in the case of a main road one-half of such expenses or composition shall be go credited to the rural or urban district as the case may be.'"—(Mr. A tkinson.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 2.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out Clause 2."—(Mr. Atkinson.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "After Clause 1, to insert as a new clause, he words' The proviso to Section 4 of The Locomotives Act, 1861, is hereby repealed so far a it applies to Ireland, and in lieu thereof it is enactea as follows: Provided that the reguation of weight herein mentioned shall not extend to any waggon carrying only one block, plate, cable, roll, vessel of stone or metal, or ither single article being of greater weight han fourteen tons, but the fellies, tyres, or hoes of such wagon shall not be less than eight nches in breadth, and any damage arising from the user of any such waggon shall be deemed o be damage caused by excessive weight within the meaning of Section 1 of this Act.'"—(Mr. Atkinson.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be con-idered to-morrow.

  MR. SPEAKER'S RETIREMENT BILL.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Sir A. ACLAND-HOOD,), in moving the adjournment of the louse, said this Bill would be the first order of the day on Tuesday.
  Adjourned at twenty minutes before One o'clock.