Lords Sitting of 14 December 1900

APPEAL COMMITTEE.
First Report from; read and agreed to.

ADDRESS.
The Queen's Answer to the Address of the 6th instant reported, and Address and Answer to be printed and published.
Several Lords took the Oath.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  FISHERY BOARD FOR SCOTLAND.
  Manual of the Sea Fisheries (Scotland) Acts and Statutory Byelaws in force at 31st December, 1900.
  COLONIES (MISCELLANEOUS).
  No. 15. Canada (Memorandum on the legal status of British North American Indians).

  RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.
  Returns of accidents and casualties as reported to the Board of Trade by the several railway companies in the United s Kingdom during the nine months ending g 30th September, 1900, in pursuance of the Regulation of Railways Act (1871), 34th and 35th Victoria, chap. 78; together with reports of the inspecting officers and sub-inspectors of the Railway Department to the Board of Trade upon certain accidents which were inquired into.
  Presented [by Command], and ordered to lie on the Table.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1888.
  Orders under Section 57 of the Act, as confirmed by the Local Government Board, of the following county councils—

  I. Brecon, for uniting the parishes of Aberystruth Brynmawr Urban, Llanelly Brynmawr Urban, and Llangattock Brynmawr Urban to form parish of Brynmawr.

  II. Bucks, for transferring part of the parish of Ashley Green from the Amersham Rural District to the parish and urban district of Chesham.

  800

  III. Bucks, for transferring parts o the parishes of Upton-cum-Chalvey and Eaton Wick from the Eton Rural District to the parish and urban district of Eton.

  IV. Bucks, for transferring parts of the parishes of Upton-cum-Chalvey, Stoke Poges, and Langley Marish from the Eton Rural District to the parish and urban district of Slough.

  V. Chester, for adding the parish of Kerridge to the Bollington Urban District and for uniting the parish of Kerridge with the township of Bollington.

  VI. Chester, for uniting the parish of Bosden and the townships of Bramhall Norbury, Offerton, and Torkington to form the parish of Hazel Grove-cum-Bramhall and the Hazel Grove and Bram-hall Urban District.

  VII. Hertford, for uniting the parishes of All Saints, Bengee Urban, Brickendon Urban, Saint Andrew Urban, and Saint John Urban to form the parish of Hertford.

  VIII. Kent, for transferring parts of the parish of Heme from the Blean Rural District to the parish and urban district of Heme Bay.

  IX. Pembroke, for the conversion of a portion of the parish of Llanstadwell into the parish and urban district of Neyland.

  X. East Suffolk, for the conversion of the parish of Saxmundham into the Sax-mundham Urban District.

  XI West Sussex, for transferring parts of the parishes of Bersted and Pagham from the Westhampnett Rural District to the parish and urban district of Bognor.

  INDIA (EXAMINATIONS).
  Regulations for examinations for Civil Service of India.
  NEWCASTLE CHAPTER ACT, 1884.
  Order in Council of the 26th November, 1900, establishing two Residentiary Canonries in the Cathedral Church of Newcastle.
  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1858
  Order in Council of the 26th of November, 1900, approving a statement of proposed now and revised appointments, alterations of salaries, and abolition of appointment in the establishment of the Secretary of State for India in Council.
  FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1890.
  Order in Council of the 26th of November, 1900, entitled "The Siam (Registration) Order in Council, 1900."

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894.
  Two Orders in Council of the 26th of November, 1900:—

  1. Fixing an increase of salary for a clerk in the establishment of the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses.

  2. Making rules concerning the lights and signals to be carried by vessels when within the Harbour of Galway.

  SEAMEN'S SAVINGS BANKS, MONEY ORDERS, AND TRANSMISSION OF WAGES.
  Account of all deposits received and repaid by the Board of Trade, under the authority of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, during the year ended 20th November, 1899, and of the interest thereon. Statement showing the number and amount of seamen's money orders issued and paid, at ports in the United Kingdom and at ports abroad, from 1855 to 31st March, 1900. Also, statement showing; the receipts and payments in connection with the transmission of seamen's wages from 1878 to 31st March, 1900.

  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
  General Order for the regulation of proceedings under and in pursuance of the Act amending General Orders Nos. 70 and 71, already issued.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Standing Order No. XXXIX. to be considered To-morrow, in order to its being suspended for the day's sitting.

  LORD HARDWICKE AND LORD ROSE-BERY—PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (The Earl of HARDWICKE): My Lords, I crave your Lordships' indulgence while I make a few remarks in reply to the comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, in his speech on the Address, in reference to my appointment as Under Secretary
  802
  for India.* I have given the noble Earl private notice of my intention to make a statement this afternoon, a courtesy which he did not think fit to extend to me, or I should have been able at once to reply to his observations, and thus to have saved your Lordships' time this afternoon. I could hardly have been expected to foresee that the noble Earl would have included my humble name in the list of personalities he introduced into his versatile and entertaining speech. In making this statement this afternoon I have only one object in view, and that is, to place your Lordships and the public in full and entire possession of the whole of the facts in connection with my position in the City. It is, I think, a fourfold duty I owe to the noble Marquess the Prime Minister, to your Lordships, to the public, and, perhaps, to the noble Earl himself, who expressed the conviction that I had severed my connection with the London Stock Exchange before accepting office. But why, my Lords, if the noble Earl was so convinced, was it necessary to introduce the question of my appointment into his speech at all? Did the noble Earl mean, when he insisted on the perils arising from any connection between Her Majesty's Government and the Stock Exchange, that no man can serve in any Government who has ever been a member of the Stock Exchange? If that was the noble Earl's meaning there is very little I can say in answer to it. The facts, my Lords, with regard to myself are these. About a month ago the noble Marquess the Prime Minister offered me this appointment. I pointed out to him, through his private secretary, and personally to the Secretary of State for India, that though I could undertake to relinquish all active share in the conduct of the business of the firm of Messrs. Basil Montgomery and Co., in which I am a partner, I could not undertake to sever my connection with that firm; and, my Lords, I will explain why. Eighteen or twenty years ago a private Bill was passed through Parliament, known as the Hardwicke Estates Act. This Act transferred to trustees the administration of the estates, and it seems almost like the relentless irony of fate that after ten years those estates should have passed into the hands of the mortgagees, who became the possessors of all that that Act
  *See page 48.

  803
  was passed to secure to myself. I was left without a shilling, and I had to consider what I should do, and which way I should turn. I decided to embark on a career in the City, and it is eight years since my connection with my present firm commenced. I do not say, my Lords, that the course I elected to pursue was the only course open to a Peer who, early in life, finds himself involved in financial embarrassment. I am told there are pleasanter and easier methods of rehabilitating one's fortune than working for a living in the City. But, my Lords, however that may be, I took that course, and I am very glad of the connection I have had with the London Stock Exchange. In the City a man can gain an experience and a knowledge of men and matters that is not easily obtainable elsewhere. The plain fact of the matter is that I cannot afford to cut off my only means of livelihood for the sake of a few years of office—no, not even to oblige the noble Earl. What, therefore, I decided and have arranged is this. I remain a partner in my firm; I remain a member of the Stock Exchange, and I have the right in the future to return to it; but in the meantime I shall never enter the Stock Exchange, and I shall take no active part of any kind in the conduct of the business of the firm. Naturally, my Lords, this arrangement could not be carried out in a day, and I therefore asked that I might be allowed to defer taking up my duties at the India Office until the beginning of the new year, and to this request the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State acceded; and I have to thank the noble Earl the Under Secretary for the Colonies for having so kindly undertaken to discharge my duties in the meantime. Perhaps I may mention, to save the noble Earl a personal explanation if the question was raised, that though he is doing the duties of two Under Secretaries he is only receiving one salary. Seeing that the Opposition are making much of a personal line of attack I have been scrupulously careful to avoid even the most formal communication with the officials of the India Office. I have not even had the pleasure of being introduced to the heads of the Department. We have recently learned that the most harmless and natural acts can be made the pretext for unjust and unworthy insinua-
  804
  tions; and, further, in case the noble Marquess might have been convinced by the noble Earl's arguments, I took the earliest opportunity to offer to resign the appointment. Perhaps the noble Earl will be surprised to learn that the noble Marquess did not see the necessity. As regards the observations of the noble Earl, I am not ungrateful to him for his generous and kindly expression of pleasure at my appointment, apart from the dangerous principle he deems my appointment to involve. But I cannot help thinking that the noble Earl came down to this House, having taken as little trouble to consider my position as ho did that of Mr. Gerald Balfour. He insinuated that the right hon. Gentleman was a director of several companies, while, as a matter of fact, he is not a director of any company at all. I do not doubt that the noble Earl has already apologised for his mistake. Then, if the noble Earl had considered the past administration of the India Office, I think he would have left alone the question of my appointment, as he would undoubtedly have left alone the question of Mr. Gerald Balfour and his supposed directorships. Noble Lords are aware that the powers of the India Office in respect of finance are wholly in the hands of the India Council. Its members have it in their power to use any special knowledge they may have for their own personal advantage in the City through the medium of the Stock Exchange. Now my Lords, whom did Mr. Gladstone appoint as finance member of the India Council in 1880? Mr. Bertram Currie, a leading banker in active business, a member of the important bank of Messrs. Glynn, Mills, and Co. The noble Earl was a member of that Government. Did he protest against that appointment? And again, my Lords, in this same Administration whom did Mr. Gladstone appoint as Under Secretary for India? He appointed Mr. Kynaston Cross, a partner in a firm of cotton merchants; and it may not be uninteresting to your lordships to be reminded that the two principal questions which the India Office had to deal with during the life of that Government were the fall in silver and the cotton duties. I should like to know if the noble Earl pointed out to Mr. Gladstone that the purity of his Ministry was in question? However that may be, I do know that the practical commercial experience and

  805
  trained financial ability of Mr. Currie and Mr. Cross were of great value to the Secretary of State in one of the most serious economic crises through which India has passed. I do not for a moment mean to say, or even to suggest, that I shall be of any special value to my noble friend the Secretary of State for India, but I must say that I fail to see why any practical experience I may have gained in the City is to be considered a disqualification. To-day, my Lords, on the India Council there are two gentlemen, both of distinguished and conspicuous ability, both of unquestionable integrity, but they are both members of business firms in the City of London. From the noble Earl's speech we must assume that he has the merest, the simplest, knowledge of matters connected with the Stock Exchange, or he would know that it does not require a man to be a member of the Stock Exchange to make use of any special knowledge for speculative purposes. Anyone in the public service, from a Cabinet Minister to a Permanent Secretary, can in ten minutes send an order for the purchase or the sale of any security in the world without anyone being one whit the wiser. If, however, the noble Earl, on highly technical and moral grounds, holds that there is a danger in a member of the Stock Exchange, who, after all, is only the agent who executes the business of others, being a member of Her Majesty's Government, what are we to say of the stockbroker's client? Surely, if the stockbroker is to be debarred the client must be debarred also; and it comes to this. Does the noble Earl hold that a man who at any time has been engaged in financial or speculative operations is not worthy to be a Minister of the Crown, or even an Under Secretary? Does the noble Earl accept that proposition? Is he prepared to adhere to that principle? The noble Earl gives no sign of dissent or assent. I pass to the general public question raised in his speech, only to say that I think it would be almost an impertinence in me to discuss it. While I was made the peg on which to hang an argument, the argument was obviously directed against the noble Marquess the Prime Minister, for it was he, not I, who made the choice of an Under Secretary—a choice which the noble Earl thinks is so fraught with peril to Her Majesty's
  806
  Government. I have endeavoured plainly to place my position before the House, and, while thanking your Lordships for the indulgent hearing accorded me, I desire to express my regret at the unpleasant necessity which has compelled my first utterance at this Table to take the form of a personal explanation.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, I confess that the speech of the noble Earl has placed me in a position of considerable difficulty, because no one could have heard it without the liveliest sympathy at the position which he has described. I was aware of that position as far as regards the private Act of Parliament of which he spoke when I addressed your Lordships the other night; and it was my knowledge of the circumstances attending that Act and following upon that Act relating to himself that caused me to speak in terms which he, I think, acknowledges as warm and generous with regard to his career. In the circumstances I am, therefore, in a position of great delicacy, because, as the noble Earl has pointed out, though I spoke of him, as I felt, in warm and generous tones, I also asserted a public principle. Now I am sorry to say that there is nothing in what the noble Earl has said which shakes my maintenance of the public principle I laid down. He said: "Are we to understand that no one who has ever been connected with the Stock Exchange or with commercial pursuits is ever to be a Minister or to form part of the Government of the country?" Of course this is reducing my argument to an absurdity. My argument did not refer to the past, it referred to the present; and if the noble Earl asks me whether I maintain the principle that no member of a firm on the Stock Exchange should be a Minister of the Crown I am obliged to say that I maintain my opinion. I say it with the deepest regret. I do not mean in saying that to disparage the Stock Exchange. Many of my friends are connected with the Stock Exchange, and I know how high and honourable a pursuit it is, or it may be. But that is not the point. The point is whether connection with a firm on the Stock Exchange is or is not compatible with the position of a Minister of the Crown. It has never been so held in the past, and I hope it will never be so held in the future, because, though I am

  807
  perfectly certain that the noble Earl is as incapable of misusing his position as Minister of the Crown as any of those who have occupied that high and honourable position, yet it is unfitting in these days that there should be any circumstances connected with a Ministry of the Crown which should in any degree lend the slightest foundation to any suspicion affecting their honour as Ministers. The noble Earl has referred to past precedents. I do not thoroughly carry them in my mind. He has said that even now there are two members of the India Council who are connected with firms. But members of the India Council are not members, so to speak, of the current Administration of the country. They are in the position of permanent advisers for a fixed term to the Minister responsible for the Government of India. In these circumstances they do not fall in the same category as those more responsible Ministers who sit in this and the other House of Parliament. The Minister who makes these appointments is responsible for them, and behind that responsibility, where I know nothing of the case, I am not willing to inquire. The noble Earl also referred to a case which occurred twenty years ago—that of an Under Secretary for India appointed by Mr. Gladstone in 1880; and he says to me, "Were you not a member of that Government?" Well, in 1880 I was not. But there is a Member of this House who was Secretary of State for India at that time, and he can give every information to the noble Earl on that appointment—I mean the noble Duke the Lord President of the Council. It is, therefore, going over his head to seek information from a private Member of this House as to that appointment. Later on, no doubt, I did become an Under Secretary; but I do not think that it is a practice of Cabinet Ministers, and especially of Prime Ministers, to inquire of Under Secretaries their opinions as to appointments. I am not sure that it is a precedent which even now the noble Marquess would care to have set, because Under Secretaries are naturally apt to be critical of those who are placed over them. But, in any case, I had nothing more to do with the appointment of the Under Secretary for India in 1880 than the noble Earl himself. I am quite sure of this: that, according to the high and honourable tradition which inspired Mr. Gladstone, he made
  808
  himself perfectly clear that there was no actual connection between a firm doing business in India and Mr. Cross at the time of his appointment; and if Mr. Gladstone failed in that duty I am quite sure that the noble Duke himself very carefully made that inquiry. I do not know that I have anything more to say in pursuance of this ungracious and ungrateful task. Except this. The noble Earl charged me with having misrepresented the position of Mr. Gerald Balfour as regards being the director of a public company. It is quite true that I stated my belief the other night and expressed my regret that Mr. Balfour should have accepted the Presidency of the Board of Trade—a Ministry mainly concerned with companies and company matters—he being a director of public companies. I was delighted to receive the promptest contradiction of that statement from Mr. Gerald Balfour. Mr. Balfour, as I understand, had been a director of a public company, or of public companies, up to the time of his appointment to the Presidency of the Board of Trade, and had resigned his directorship on being appointed to that post. I am very glad to have elicited from Mr. Balfour the statement that he had done so; but I venture to think that as these appointments to directorships are published and public, and as much comment is naturally directed to these positions, it would be well if those who hold them and who are also Ministers of the Crown when they divest themselves of them should make their resignation as public as the fact of their appointment. We cannot be supposed to know that they have resigned these directorships unless they say so; and we are bound to go on the public information which is conveyed with regard to them. I must say that I feel less shame in my ignorance as it appeared to be shared by the noble Duke who replied to me, and, as far as any contradiction goes, by all the other Ministers on the Bench opposite. On that part of the case I have no more to say. I was told by the noble Earl that he was coming here to make a personal statement. It was a personal statement from two points of view. It was personal as regards himself, and perhaps a little personal as regards myself. But of that I cannot complain. I am very much obliged to him for giving me notice. I would have given him notice the other night if I had had the slightest

  809
  intention of making any attack upon him, but, as he truly said, I made no such attack, and I had no fixed intention of speaking. If I had in any way intended to impugn his honour or to attack him in' any personal manner I should have thought it my duty to warn him beforehand of the course which I was about to take. But I had no such intention; and the noble Earl admitted that he had no fault to find with the way in which I spoke of him. I only ventured to lay down a public principle, and I lay it down again. A precedent of this kind, though it may involve no present inconvenience and no reflection on any Minister, is full of the gravest peril to the largest interests of the Government of this country.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND LORD PRIVY SEAL: (The Marquess of: My Lords, I do not wish to pursue the personal aspect of this matter, so incautiously and so unfortunately raised. I can only assure my noble friend who sits beside me that nothing has passed that will diminish in any degree—rather will it increase— the very high esteem in which he is held by his party and his colleagues. But I rise not merely for the purpose of saying that, for I know that his position is too well established to be shaken by any action of this kind. I rise because I think that what the noble Earl was pleased to call a principle is not one of that clearness or certainty or advantage that, in the statement of it from his lips, no notice should be taken of it on the part of this House. The noble Earl has not stated any precedent for the doctrines which he laid down. As far as I know they rest at the present moment on his authority alone. I trust that nothing he has said will cause my noble friend beside me to alter his conduct in the slightest degree. I do not believe that the principles which are laid down are sound, and I think that if they are upheld they will rather be an excuse for gratuitous and wounding attack upon individuals than any advantage to the purity of the Government of the Queen. The noble Earl has given us no precedents in this matter I cannot exactly understand how, if the noble Earl were required to write down the new doctrine which he wishes to write into the code of public policy, it could be couched in Parliamen-
  810
  tary language. I understand a stockbroker to be a person who sells or buys stock on the order of somebody else. I have heard nothing to induce me to think that stockbrokers are in any special manner speculators in any public companies or funds. On the contrary, my belief is that there is far greater speculation among those who are clients of stockbrokers than in the ranks of the stockbrokers themselves. But what doctrine are you to lay down? My noble friend is a sleeping partner in a stock-broking firm. That is to say, he has invested money in the firm. Are you to lay it down that every one who invests money in the business of a British merchant, if that British merchant goes occasionally on the Stock Exchange, becomes unfit for the service of the Queen? It is an absolutely new doctrine. There is no sort of authority for it whatever. I cannot help feeling that, in thus raising this cry, the noble Earl has taken a superficial similarity of words as expressive of meanings which they do not really convey; and has made a sort of clap-trap cry against stockbrokers because their business is conducted on the Stock Exchange; as people have done against directors who are in no degree more guilty of any commercial sin than any other members of the mercantile community. There are directors and directors. There are directors of the most perfectly innocent kind; directors against whose business it would be impossible to raise any objection; directors whose business does not lead them to cross or to affect in any way the transactions of the Departments of the State. On the other hand, there are directors, undoubtedly, who are connected with the Departments of the State, and, as has been pointed out more than once, even of late, one or two of my colleagues have thought it right to retire from the position of director lest any suspicion should arise. But that does not give any licence generally to attack all directors: nor does the fact that stockbrokers conduct their business in a place where much speculation occurs give you a right to brand them as having naturally inherited such dishonesty that no one who is a stockbroker may be a servant of the Queen. It appears to me that these rash and headlong statements, which really can serve no other than a party purpose, are not of advantage to the public service, and will not maintain its purity against any

  811
  temptations which may attack it. After all, you must remember that the field of selection is small in our country. We are the only country where Ministers are chosen either from this or from the other House of Parliament; and if you add to the difficulty which that circumstance involves the further condition that no one who has any special connection with any form of commercial business is capable of being selected, then I believe that you not only inflict a very undeserved stigma upon a very honourable profession, but you diminish our power of finding servants who are capable of serving the Queen in her administrative offices. Remember that the difficulty in our Administration and the difficulty in Parliament is not that, on the whole, people know too much about business, but that they know too little, that they belong generally to classes of society not brought into contact with business; and I hold it to be a positive evil if you do anything which will discourage mercantile men of high standing from taking part in the service of the Crown. But, my Lords, I wish to protest against the doctrine which has been laid down, and for my part I do not subscribe to the language which the noble Earl has used, and I earnestly hope that neither my noble friend nor any other gentleman will conceive that this doctrine, lately invented and of no value for any practical purpose, ought to limit the freedom and the opportunity which men of knowledge and experience may have of entering into the political service of the Crown.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I only rise to make one remark. It is this:— The noble Marquess says there are no precedents for the principle I have laid down. There is a very recent principle—that laid down by Mr. Gladstone's Government in 1892, which required members of the Government to relieve themselves of their directorships. Those members did so, and did not remain in any respect less efficient men of business than they were before.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is not the point. It is that people will not accept political offices if they are compelled to resign the means of livelihood which they previously possessed.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: It is exactly the point. These gentlemen did accept office under these terms, and remained Ministers.

SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—INVALIDED COLONIAL SOLDIERS.
LORD EURGHCLERE: My Lords, in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government what official medical inspections, if any, of the wounded and invalided colonial troops returning to Australia in the Royal Mail steamers, Orient Line, took place before their embarkment, and what medical supervision was provided for them during the voyages by the War Office, I hope I may be permitted to remind your Lordships of the circumstances which led me to put the question on the Paper. On Monday last* my noble friend beside me, Earl Carrington, asked Her Majesty's Government for some explanation with regard to the treatment of certain colonial troops who had been invalided home from active service and were about to undertake the voyage back to their respective colonies. The action of my noble friend in ventilating this subject has been entirely and amply justified by the observations which were subsequently made by the Secretary of State for War in another place.† The gravamen of my noble friend's complaint did not lie so much in the fact that these men had been sent home as third-class passengers, though that obviously lends itself to very substantial criticism. What my noble friend rightly complained of was that, though the majority of them were recovering from wounds or from enteric fever, they were put upon third-class dietary during the voyage, without the slightest discrimination. I am well aware that the third-class fare of our great liners is of excellent quality, and no doubt admirably adapted to a normal stomach; but when a man is recovering from enteric fever his digestive organs are not strong enough to enable him to eat food which may be in every way suitable for a man in the best of health. When the noble Earl brought the matter before the House the other evening, and stated that one man who had been ordered to embark as a third-class passenger had a temperature of 104 degrees, I ventured to ask whether these men had been medically examined before their embarkment. I put that question on the spur of the moment. I did not think it necessary to give notice of it, because it seemed to me a question of so elementary a nature, and so obviously germane to the original ques-
* See page 326.
† See page 553.

813
tion put by the noble Lord, Earl Carrington, that the information would naturally have been in the possession of the noble Lord to whom had been given the duty of replying on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. No definite information, however, was given to me on the subject, and the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, while expressing the opinion that such an examination had probably taken place, suggested that I should repeat the question in order to get a categorical answer. Since then, the Secretary of State for War has admitted in another place that there has been some omission or negligence with regard to the cases to which attention was called by the noble Earl beside me. That admission, I think, makes my question to-night even more necessary, because, if these troops were examined by a proper medical officer before they were embarked, the responsibility for any neglect that took place falls in great measure on that medical officer, and incidentally on those who selected him for the duty. If, on the contrary, these invalids home from the Cape, who had hardly recovered from fever or wounds, were about to be sent back to their respective colonies on third-class dietary, and with third-class accommodation, without any medical examination, then I venture to think some serious responsibility rests upon Her Majesty's Government. Official medical examination seems to me a matter of absolute necessity in all such cases, but I think even more care ought to have been taken in the case of invalided colonial volunteers, who for the first time in our history have been fighting side by side with the Regular army. It would be a matter of extreme regret to everyone if these gallant men returned to their homes with the feeling that there had been a want of that solicitude for their comfort and welfare in this country which their services to the Empire demanded. For my part I cannot believe it possible that no medical examination took place, and it is for the purpose of eliciting the truth on the subject that I have ventured to put the question standing in my name to Her Majesty's Government.
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord RAGLAN): My Lords, wherever it was possible these men were sent direct to their own homes from
814
South Africa, but in certain eases the men were brought to England to relieve the convalescent depôts at the Cape. A depôt was formed at Shorncliffe for the invalided colonial soldiers, and at the request of the Secretary of State for War I myself visited the depot on Wednesday and thoroughly inspected it. I will come to that later on. A large number of these men were convalescent, and were considered well enough to undertake the long voyage from the Cape to this country, and the greater part of them arrived, I am glad to say, in a state of advanced convalescence. Sick furlough was granted to those men who applied for it to the extent of three months, and for any furlough beyond that period they had to produce a medical certificate. Many of them returned to Shorncliffe before finally embarking for their respective colonies. I can assure your Lordships that the medical examination was most carefully conducted at Shorncliffe, and that no man left that dep6t to undertake the voyage who was not in an absolutely fit state of health to travel. The cases mentioned by the noble Earl on Monday were of men who had been either on furlough or in convalescent homes in various parts of the country, and who went direct to the port of embarkation. The arrangements by which these men went from the convalescent homes or from wherever they happened to be living direct to the port of embarkation were originally made, I believe, to save them trouble, and it was considered that they would not leave their convalescent homes or their furlough if they were not in a fit state to travel. In certain cases, therefore, the men were not medically examined before they went on board the ship. That is a most unfortunate circumstance, which the War Office very much regret. In future arrangements will be made to remedy that mistake. With regard to the accommodation provided for these men, the noble Lord was informed on Monday that there are on these liners three classes of third-class accommodation. These men were provided with superior third-class accommodation—that is to say, they had only two berths in a cabin—and were provided with a liberal and varied dietary. I will read to your Lordships the third-class dietary table, which, I think, speaks for itself—
"Breakfast, 8 a.m.—Porridge, with milk, fish, chops, steaks, sausages, Irish stew, curried

815
meat with rice, cold meats, fresh bread, butter, jam, marmalade, tea.
"Dinner 1 p.m.—Soups, broths, fish, roast and boiled meats, fresh vegetables, puddings (various), stewed fruits, etc.
"Tea, 5 p.m.—Cold meats (various), with pickles or salad, cakes, buns, etc., bread, butter, jam, marmalade.
"Supper, 8 p.m.—Kread, butter, biscuits, and chesse."
In my opinion, therefore, there was some excuse for the War Office in thinking that these men, who were convalescent, were being provided with a sufficient dietary to thoroughly restore them to health. I can assure the noble Lord opposite that all possible care will be taken in the future with regard to their embarkation. In consequence of statements that have been made in reference to Shorncliffe, I myself visited the camp on Wednesday and found the aarangements of a satisfactory character. There were no colonial troops actually in mess on the day of my visit. Eight or ten, however, were living in the coffee shop, and seemed most comfortable. Men who are not there for more than two days are not put in mess, but live in the coffee shop. Practically they have no fatigue work of any sort to do, this work being done by defaulters in the provisional battalion. The bath accommodation is ample, there being eight baths for privates and five for non-commissioned officers. Hot water is available at all hours of the day. The difficulty has been very much increased owing to the sudden coming and going of men from a hundred different regiments, a great portion of them staying only for a short time. I can assure the House that the War Office are only too anxious that these men should receive the comfort and consideration to which their suffering and their services to the Empire entitle them.
LORD BURGHCLERE: I only rise to thank the noble Lord for his reply, and to point out to him that he has not entirely answered my question. I further asked what medical provision was provided for these men during the voyage. Judging from the menu which the noble Lord has read, medical supervision seems to be highly necessary, for cheese and pickles are not proper food to give men recovering from typhoid fever.
LORD RAGLAN: These liners all carry a qualified doctor, who would naturally be the person to whom the men would apply when they were unwell.
EARL CARRINGTON: My Lords, I desire to express the great satisfaction with which I have heard the statement of the noble Lord opposite. No doubt there was a very considerable grievance on the part of these men; but, as I said the other- night when I brought this subject before your Lordships, I was perfectly certain that it was not the wish of Her Majesty's Government to treat them in this way. I then expressed the opinion that it was due to departmental mismanagement. Your Lordships will remember that I was somewhat severely taken to task by the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who described my statement as exaggerated and misleading. I can assure you that it was very far from my desire to use exaggerated language. My only desire was to put the matter as plainly as I possibly could before the House. I have forwarded information of several cases to the Secretary of State for War, and I have to acknowledge the fairness and courtesy of the right hon. Gentleman, and the readiness with which he has listened to the representations made to him in regard to this matter. As I have been accused of exaggeration, I hope I may be permitted to refer to another case—the case of a man named Freeman. Trooper Freeman is the son of a New South Wales Government official, and was in the second contingent of the New South Wales Mounted Rifles. I knew the family very well in New South Wales. Freeman gave up a post worth £300 a year to fight for the Empire and the Queen. He was offered £350 a year if he would remain, but he declined, and went off to the front. I heard that this man was lying ill in Soho Square, and reported the matter to the Agent-General, who replied thanking me for bringing the case to his attention, and stating that when an official called at his lodging in Soho Square he was informed that Trooper Freeman had gone to see the Army doctor. On 10th November we received at the office of our fund, through the assistance of which every colonial returning to his home has been able to have the comforts of the second class, a letter from Freeman's late landlord in Soho Square to the effect that he had sailed on the previous day. He added—
"Trooper Freeman was very unwell, and really not fit to go, but his orders were im-

817
perative. I am grieved that a man in his state of health should have been sent steerage."
I mention this case in the hope that your Lordships will not think that in the statement I made on Monday I used exaggerated language. I hope I may take it from the noble Lord that for the future these men will be well cared for and provided with all the comforts of second-class travelling.
LORD RAGLAN: It is the case that these men will in the future be sent home with all the comforts of second-class travelling. The Lord Mayor's Fund, which so kindly came to their assistance before, will, I hope, not be called upon again. If the noble Earl will be good enough to send particulars of the case he mentioned it shall be inquired into. Any man who wishes it can obtain an extension of sick furlough if he sends a medical certificate. Of this fact probably the New South Wales trooper referred to by the noble Earl was not aware.
EARL CARRINGTON: Would a man be able to obtain an extension of furlough by sending a medical certificate from a country doctor?
LORD RAGLAN: A certificate from any qualified medical man would be accepted.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Six of the clock till To-morrow, Twelve of the clock.