Lords Sitting of 16 December 1902

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC
  TRADE REPORTS—ANNUAL SERIES
  No. 2922. Portugal (Province of St Thome and Principe). Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  SEAMEN'S SAVINGS BANKS, MONEY ORDERS, AND TRANSMISSION OK 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 1901, 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 1902. Also, statement showing the receipts and payments in connection with the transmission of seamen's wages, home and foreign, from 1878 to 31st March, 1902.
  GENERAL LIGHTHOUSE FUND
  An account of the General Lighthouse Fund, showing the income and expenditure for the year ended 31st March 1902. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  VENEZUELA—ANGLO-GERMAN NAVAL ACTION
  EARL SPENCER: I rise to ask the, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs: whether, in the event of the seizure of Venezuelan gunboats failing to produce the desired effect, His Majesty's Government propose to take further measures for the purpose of coercing the Venezuelan Government; and, if so, whether he is able to state what the nature of those measures will be.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (the MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE): In the event which the noble Lord supposes, further measures of coercion will, no doubt, be inevitable. The question has been considered by His Majesty's Government, in consultation with the German Government; and it has been decided, as I think will be
  1290
  evident from the general tenor of the Blue-book, to resort to a blockade of the Venezuelan ports, some of which will be blockaded by British and some by German ships of war. It is not, however, intended to land a British force, and still less to occupy Venezuelan territory.

  LONDON WATER BILL
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH)said there were a number of Amendments on the Paper in his name, but with only two exceptions they dealt purely with points of drafting. When they came to those two Amendments he would make a short statement explaining them.
  Drafting Amendments agreed to.
  LORD, BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHmoved to leave out the latter part of sub-Section 6 of Clause 9 (which deals with the transfer of the undertaking of the New River Company to the Water Board), in order to insert a new sub-Section. He said that the New River Company was different from all other companies in that the property was vested in the owners of the Adventurers' and King's shares, and that the Company only administered the property for the owners. The transfer of the undertaking would convert property which was now realty into personalty, and that change would work hardship in certain possible cases. The Clause as originally introduced proposed that the shares and water stock issued should be treated as land; but it had been objected that that form of Clause would impress the character of real property on the stock for all time. The object of the Amendment was to limit the time during which the stock should hold that character, and the limit proposed was the appointed day, and such time afterwards as elapsed before the property passed naturally into the hands of someone who was entitled to dispose of it. There could be no doubt as to the franchise question being covered by the Clause
  Amendment moved,—
  "In Clause 9, page 7, line 32, to leave out from 'section' to the end of the sub-Section, and to insert as a new sub-Section: (7.) Every Adventurers' share and every King's.
  share, and every part of an Adventurers' or King's share, and any water stock issuable or issued in respect of any such share or part of a share, and the right to receive any such water stock shall—(i) until the appointed day; and (ii) after the appointed day, but thereafter only unless or until—(a) some person who is suijuris is absolutely entitled beneficially in possession to or has a general power to dispose of such share or part of a share, or such water stock; or (b) such share or part of a share, or such water stock or the right to receive such water stock, is transferred on a sale to a purchaser for all purposes of disposition, transmission, and devolution, be considered as land, and (so far as regards such water stock or right to receive water stock) be held for and go to the same persons in the same manner and for and on the same estates, interests, and trusts as the Adventurers' or King's share, or the part of an Adventurers' or King's share, in respect of which the water stock is issuable or issued, would have been held and have gone under any will, settlement, or other instrument affecting that share or part of a share, or otherwise, if this Act had not been passed. For the purposes of this provision the expression 'general power' includes every power or authority enabling the donee or other holder thereof to appoint or dispose of the fee simple or absolute interest of or in property in possession as he thinks fit, but exclusively of any power exercisable in a fiduciary capacity or exercisable as tenant for life under the Settled Land Acts, 1882 to 1890, or as mortgagee.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  LORD COLERIDGEsaid that the new Clause entirely met all objections, and, while saving existing rights, prevented the infinite multiplication of this franchise in future.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.

  Drafting Amendments agreed to.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHmoved to insert a new sub-Section in Clause 43 (payment of dividends till discharge of compensation). He said that the object of the Amendment was to meet the case of the Kent Company, the proprietors of which had the right, if the maximum dividend was not paid in any year, to have the arrears made up in subsequent years. The Amendment provided that the proprietors should not receive more than ten per cent, on the capital between the appointed day and the date of satisfaction. That period of time would, he hoped, be a short one, but it had been suggested, to remove all possibility of dispute, that this proviso should be inserted, and he believed it was a matter of agreement.
  Amendment moved.
  "In Clause 43, page 28, line 30, after 'that' to insert, '(a) if the amount payable in any year under this section to any company exceeds the amount which, by reason of any limitation on the dividend of that company, would have been distributable as dividend if this Act had not been passed, the excess shall not be paid to the company; and (b),"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Drafting Amendments to Clauses 45 and 47 agreed to.
  Drafting Amendment to Second Schedule agreed to.
  On Schedule 3 (constitution and proceedings of Water Board:—
  LORD COLERIDGEproposed to amend Section 3 in order to provide that a director of a me ropolitan water company or a shareholder being himself beneficially interested in the share or shares standing in his name shall, until the compensation payable to the company is determined, be disqualified from being appointed or being a member of the Water Board. He said it seemed to him that the persons who were to enter into this contract should be without beneficial interest in it on one side or the other. This principle was carried through all their legislation. For instance, a licensing justice who might hold only one share in a brewery company at the other side of England was disqualified from acting as a licensing justice. Surely, it was only right, therefore, that no member of the Water Board should be a shareholder in any one of the companies which were to be purchased. They might be honest persons enough, but they could not be held to bo indifferent to the interests of the Water Companies of which they were shareholders. By only disqualifying a director, the Clause held out an encouragement to large shareholders to come forward for election on the Board. The Amendment would not affect trustees, and he hoped the noble Lord in charge of the Bill would accept it.
  Amendment moved—
  "In the Third Schedule, page 35, line 24, after 'director' to insert 'or shareholder.'" —(Lord Coleridge.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid he agreed generally that it was not right that people on public boards should deal with matters in which they had a private interest. The Section disqualified a director, and the noble Lord sought to disqualify the shareholders also. That Amendment was unnecessary, because sub-Section (c) of Section 2 provided that a shareholder in any company should not vote at any meeting of the Board on any question in which such company was interested. He could not think it was necessary, in the case of a shareholder who might hold only a single share, to disqualify him from a seat on the Board. That would be carrying a sound principle much too far. The provision in the Bill went as far as was reasonable in the matter.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  EARL CARRINGTONcalled attention to the fact that there was no provision in the Bill for the retirement of a Joint Committee, and moved that the election of the members of Joint Committees be triennial. Unless some Amendment of this kind were inserted, the members would, he imagined, be elected for life.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid the Joint Committee would only have the one function of electing a member to the Water Board. After it had done that, there would be no object in keeping the Joint Committee alive.
  EARL CARRINGTONsubmitted that as the Schedule at present stood the Joint Committee, when once elected, remained in office. No provision whatever was made for retirement.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid it was intended to deal with this matter by regulation prepared by the Local Government Board. It was distinctly intended that the Joint Committees should have a terminable period of existence. He would not pledge himself that it would be three years—it might be convenient that they should be elected for three and a half or four years—but their tenure of office would be for a limited period.
  EARL CARRINGTONsaid he gladly accepted the noble Lord's assurance that power was taken by the Local Government Board to regulate this matter. But would the noble Lord insert the words "and term of office" after the word "constitution" in the Section which provided that the Local Government Board might make regulations as to the constitution of the Water Board? That would make the matter perfectly clear.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid he was anxious to meet the noble Lord as far as possible, and, although he was doubtful as to the necessity of the suggested Amendment, he would accept it on condition that the noble Lord would not think the Amendment was not adhered to by the Government in another place.
  Amendment [of Lord Carrington's] agreed to.
  Standing order No. XXXIX. suspended.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  LORD WELBYinquired what the effect would be of the Amendment moved by the noble Lord on Report inserting, in Clause 9, page 7, line 8, after ''agreement.' the words "made in accordance with the provisions of Section 2 of this Act."
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid that Clause 9 provided that the compensation to the New River Company for the transfer of their undertaking should be discharged wholly in water stock, and should, in default of agreement, be determined by arbitration. Section 2 directed that any agreement for the transfer of the undertaking of the Company should require confirmation by the Court of Arbitration. The object of the Amendment was to make it clear that this would apply to an agreement under the firstnamed Section, so that there would be no dispute as to the necessity for confirmation.
  On Question, agreed to; Bill read 3 with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons; and to be printed as amended (No. 204.)

  MILITIA AND YEOMANRY BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without Amendment.

  Standing Orders Nos. XXXIX. and XLV. suspended.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (the EARL of HARDWICKE: In asking your Lordships to allow this Bill to be read a third time, I desire to answer a question that was put to me last night by Lord Hertford, and to which the noble Lord attached great importance. The question was whether the duration of the Yeomanry training was to be seventeen or fourteen days. The new regulations provide that the regimental training will take place between 21st May and 30th September during sixteen consecutive days, exclusive of day of arrival and dismissal, but there is a Regulation which provides that commanding officers may grant leave to officers and yeomen during the regimental training for a period not exceeding two days. Therefore the difficulty which the noble Lord referred to of men being required to serve into the third week does not arise, as the commanding officer in such a case can grant them the two days leave necessary to bring their term of training into two weeks.
  Bill read 3a (according to Order) and passed.

  TRAINING OF CADET CORPS AND BATTALIONS
  THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government whether their attention has been called to a speech delivered at Pietermaritzberg, in Natal, on the 4th December 1900, in which Field Marshal Earl
  Roberts said—
  "It gave him great pleasure to learn that everybody in the Colony was compelled, at one time or another, to join the corps and learn the principle of discipline and how to shoot, should, unhappily, the occasion ever arise for them to do so. This was an excellent idea. and he would like to see the example followed throughout Great Britain and Greater Britain.
  1296
  And whether Lord Roberts added—
  "I hope the Old Country will follow the example of one of her children, and insist upoe all boys joining cadet corps. I understann some of you have already been drafted intd volunteer corps which have been engaged io the war. I can tell you that these corps have rendered magnificent service." Also to the evidence given by Lieut.-General Sir Ian Hamilton before a Royal Commission at Edinburgh, on the 19th September 1902.
  "That if our boys were taught to handle arms, use the bayonet, march, skirmish, shoot, etc., they would be a great addition to our military strength. Young Boers between the ages of twelve and fifteen were little vipers, and had sent many a good man to his long account.]n their native land boys of fifteen would make excellent soldiers. After fourteen years, he would approve of a cadet corps being attached to every school."
  Also to the following General Order issued by General Lord Dundonald— who had special opportunities for studying the cadet system in Natal—on being placed in command of the Defence Forces in Canada:—
  "The General Officer Commanding desires to impress upon all officers commanding districts and regiments the desirability of encouraging in every way the formation of cadet companies or battalions throughout these districts."
  And whether, in view of the above strong expressions of expert opinion as to the importance to the country of encouraging cadet corps and battalions, they will be prepared to consent to the following proposals, or to any of them, and, if so, to which, made to the Secretary of State for War on the 25th November 1902, by the Lads Drill Association, the Reverend C. G. Gull, Head Master of the Grocers' School, and by officers commanding cadet battalions and corps

  1. That authority be granted for the formation of Public School Junior Volunteer Corps. in which uniform shall not be obligatory, but which in all other respects shall be on the same footing as cadet corps.

  2. That the arms fitted with Morris Tubes at present supplied to public schools on payment be issued free.

  3. That to junior volunteer corps as above defined D. P. arms be issued if applied for by the Commanding Officer in addition to the arms fitted with Morris Tubes.

  4. That a free issue of Morris Tube ammunition be made to such corps on the same scale as is now made to cadet corps in public schools.

  5. That the allowance now made to Volunteers attending camp should be made to all members of cadet battalions and companies.

  1297

  6. That travelling expenses to and from camp should be sanctioned to cadet battalions and companies under the same conditions as to Volunteers.

  7. That where the range accommodation possible for any cadet battalion or company necessitates a journey by rail the expenses should be borne by Government.

  8. That officers in cadet battalions and companies who have duly qualified as such shall be eligible for the grant for uniform on the same scale as now sanctioned for Volunteer officers.

  9. That an amount in the case of cadet battalions shall be provided to meet the pay of a sergeant major, and, in the case of cadet battalions of more than six companies, of one sergeant instructor.

  10. That paragraph 37 of the Volunteer Regulations be modified so that cadet officers shall occupy in regard to Volunteer officers the same position that the latter hold in respect of Militia officers, namely. junior of their rank.

  11. That Militia officers appointed to cadet battalions take rank according to the date of their appointment to such battalion.

  12. That sanction shall be given for the enrolment of cadets in cadet companies on the same conditions as now hold good for cadet corps.

  13. That serviceable arms shall be served out to the full establishment of cadet battalions and not to 60 per cent, as at present.

  These are not very formidable requests, nor do I think it can be said that, if granted, they will seriously affect the finances of the country. The Secretary of State for War, in an official account that was sent to the Press of the interview which, on November 25th, he granted to the deputation mentioned in my Question, is reported to have said that the policy of His Majesty's Government in regard to Reserve forces was rather in the direction of efficiency than of numbers. That is a very excellent and laudable desire. I readily admit that efficiency with moderate numbers is more valuable than large numbers without efficiency. So far as I am concerned. I certainly have no desire to increase numbers at the expense of efficiency. I would be no party to any such policy of national suicide. On the other hand, with the experience of the South African war in our minds, can it honestly be said that the country, within the last three years, has found itself in the position of having at command too many soldiers? I think I. remember a time, not so far distant, when the Government were straining every nerve to get men to come forward,
  1298
  and could not get trained men even though they offered five shillings a day. I do not think, therefore, that it is possible, even with the shortest of memories, for His Majesty's Government to assert that there are too many trained men at their command anxious and desirous for military service. The modern theory of military preparedness is that the country should possess a small efficient Army, capable of very rapid expansion. Now, the cadet system, in conjunction with a small efficient Army, exactly fulfils that condition. It provides immense reserves without the drawbacks of conscription. In modern warfare with civilised nations, one cannot separate the nation from the Army or the Army from the nation; the two must either stand or fall together. That has been proved often in the case of what may be called, comparatively speaking, small continental and oversea wars. The proposals contained in my Question all tend towards efficiency, and not towards a mere increase of numbers, and, therefore, they ought to be entirely in accord with the policy of His Majesty's Government, as expressed by the Secretary of State for War in November last. I trust, therefore, that the answer which I shall receive later on will be a favourable one.
  In order accurately to appreciate the object and scope of these proposals, it is necessary to thoroughly understand the technical terms used in regard to cadets. The proposals do not affect in any way organisations such as the Church Lads' Brigade or the Boys' Brigade, which are supported for the moral, spiritual, and physical welfare of the lads who join them, and are in no sense military organisations. The organisations to which these proposals refer are strictly military, and are known by the names of cadet corps, cadet battalions, and cadet companies. Of these organisations there are in all 112, and of that number 101 are cadet corps, composed of lads belonging to the upper and middle classes who are at public schools. These 101 corps, with the exception of Eton and Harrow, are attached to local adult Volunteer battalions. The lads are permitted to join them at the age of twelve years, and

  1299
  when they attain the age of seventeen, they are eli ible for the Government capitation grant which is given to every efficient Volunteer. Until recently, the capitation grant went to the benefit of the Volunteer adult battalion, to which the cadet corps was connected, but by a recent concession, the money gained by these lads now goes to the cadet corps attached to the school.
  EARL SPENCER: With the exception of Eton and Harrow.
  THE EARL OF MEATH: Yes, with those two exceptions. These 101 corps, being composed of the sons of well-to-do parents, do not require, and do not demand, pecuniary assistance to any great amount, and I do not know that they desire any at the hands or His Majesty's Government. Therefore 101 corps out of the 112 do not ask anything from His Majesty's Government. But there are a larger number of public schools attended by the sons of respectable, if not well-to-do parents, who are unwilling or unable to provide their sons with the luxury of a uniform. They can manage to give them a good education, but consider that membership of a cadet corps is a luxury which they cannot afford. Consequently, there are a large number of lads belonging to the middle classes who have no opportunity of preparing themselves in any way for the military service of the country. The Lads' Drill Association, the headmaster of the Grocers School, and officers commanding cadet battalions and corps have therefore approached His Majesty's Government and asked whether they would permit corps to be formed in connection with these schools in which uniform should not be obligatory. They desire, also, that a free gift of arms should be made to them, and that they should have as much free ammunition as is at present given to the corps belonging to the richer public schools. These are not very great demands, and I trust that something may be done by His Majesty's Government to facilitate the training of those youths of the middle class, many of whom might attain a liking for the military profession and become very valuable officers in His Majesty's service. I have dealt with
  1300
  those corps which are formed of lads attending the upper middle-class schools.
  I now come to those organisations which are called cadet battalions, of which there are only nine throughout the whole kingdom—four in London and five in the provinces. They are composed exclusively of working lads, who must be fourteen years of age before they are permitted to join them. They are not connected with Volunteer battalions, but are independent organisations, although they take their place in the territorial system. How is it that throughout the United Kingdom there are only nine of these battalions, which ought to be a great deal more numerous than the cadet corps? It is simply because they are expensive organisations, and the parents of the lads are unable to provide their uniforms and the other expenses. These corps are dependent on voluntary subscriptions; they are largely maintained by the officers, and great difficulty has been experienced in finding men sufficiently well off to become officers in these battalions. Each lad costs from £2 to £5 per head, according to what the commanding officer considers necessary in the shape of equipment, but £2 is, I believe, ample for the purpose. The organisations are far too costly ever to be numerous without State assistance, and five out of the thirteen proposals which I have laid before His Majesty's Government refer to these battalions. If we are ever to have our youth properly trained, and trained in any large numbers, it will have to be accomplished by means of these battalions. There is one other organisation, called cadet companies There are only two companies throughout the United Kingdom, for the same reason that they are composed of working lads, and that it is impossible for the parents of those lads to find the necessary money. Like the cadet corps, they are connected with adult Volunteer battalions, and without State assistance they cannot possibly be increased.
  As I have said, the cadet corps, battalions, and companies together number 112, of which 101 ask for no assistance, but only for encouragement; the remaining eleven are bodies which need financial help. Of the thirteen proposals on the Paper, five entail no

  1301
  expense at all on His Majesty's Government. Last year, when the late Lord Frankfort de Montmorency introduced the Military Instruction (Schools and Cadets) Bill, Lord Raglan, who was then Under Secretary of State for War, asserted that cadet corps and battalions did not directly add to the defensive and offensive power of the kingdom, and that was his argument why no assistance should be given. Is it possible, notwithstanding the sad experiences we have gone through in South Africa, that his Majesty's Government think that no one can be counted as taking a really effective part in the defence of his country unless he is found in a Line regiment and actually drilled in the barrack square? We all know that if it had not been for the services of the Yeomanry and the Volunteers, both of the Mother Country and of the Colonies, many of whom had received at least a half-training, and many a great deal more, in their youth, we should have found ourselves in a much more difficult position, and in all probability the war would still be going on at the present moment. The cadet corps do not provide a large number of the rank and file of the Army. It is not to be expected that they should, because they are recruited from the upper and middle classes But they do provide a large proportion of officers, and the cadet battalions provide, in proportion to their numbers, a very considerable number of rank and rifle. The colonel commanding the cadet battalion of the King's Royal Rifles informs me that 92 per cent, of his lads, on leaving him, join the Army, Navy, Militia, Yeomanry, and Volunteers, and that actually ninety-eight of his old lads, or 20 per cent., served His Majesty in South Africa. He confesses that the average from his battalion is higher than the average if you take all the nine battalions; but, taking the average of the nine battalions, you will find that 14 per cent, of the lads go to the Army and the Militia, 3 per cent, to the Navy, and 65 per cent. to the Yeomanry and the Volunteers, a total of 82 per cent. I think, after these very striking figures, it cannot be asserted that cadet battalions do not directly contribute towards the rank and file of the Army. I hope, therefore.
  1302
  that I shall hear no more of the kind of argument used by Lord Raglan.
  I cannot, for the life of me, understand why His Majesty's Government should hesitate for one moment in encouraging and supporting the training to arms of the youth of this country. It cannot be denied that during the war men were sent out who could not shoot, who never made the least profession of being able to shoot, and who had probably never seen a gun before in their lives. Over and over again there were cases where untrained men were sent to South Africa who proved absolutely useless, and had to be sent back without ever having done anything in return for the heavy expenditure incurred upon them. On the other hand, we all know what splendid service Lovat's Scouts performed. These men were not men who were found in the barrack yard, or who had been in the Regular Army; they were men who in their youth, had been trained to scout and shoot and look after themselves. They were notoriously the eyes and ears of the force with which they were connected, and it cannot be denied that if we train our you the in a somewhat similar way they would be of very much more service in time of stress than lads who had never used a gun. I am not asking for any large pecuniary assistance for cadets. If your Lordships look through the proposals on the Paper you will see that the sums needed are comparatively small; but, if I were asking for large pecuniary assistance, I should have the greatest confidence in doing so. because, I should feel that we were obtaining for our money a, sense of security which would be invaluable. If it had been known in 1898 and 1899 that the lads of this country had gone through a course of training which enabled them to shoot straight, and to march and scout, I am perfectly certain that we should never have had a Boer war. There is an idea throughout the Continent that Great Britain is a powerful Colossus in some directions, but a Colossus with legs of clay, the clay being the want of smilitary defence. That has been proved to be a fallacious idea. It has been proved over and over again, that Great Britain has such resources that it has been able to

  1303
  contend against almost the whole world in arms. But, at the same time, there is sufficient truth in the idea to invite attack. But if we trained our youth to arms, and if it were known that our lads had had such a training and could shoot straight, we should not hear so much of rumours of war, and I believe firmly that we should be respected in a way perhaps that we are not now, and that we should be spared the expenditure of millions and millions of money.
  We are set a splendid example in this direction by our Colonies, throughout the whole of which the cadet system is almost general. The value of the training given in our Colonies has been proved by the splendid services rendered to the Empire by the Colonial troops. His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales said in December, 1901, at the Guildhall—
  "I am anxious to refer to an admirable movement which has taken strong root both in Australia and New Zealand, namely, the establishment of cadet corps. I had the gratification of seeing march past several thousand cadets who, at the expense of their respective Governments, are able to go through a military course, in some cases with an ample grant of ammunition. I will not presume, in these days of Army reform, to do more than call the attention of my friend the Secretary of State for War to this interesting fact."
  In New South Wales the Government give a capitation grant to cadets, and annually 30,000 lads are trained and turned out fit to defend the Colony, and, if necessary, assist the Empire in offensive and defensive operations. In Victoria, until the recent financial crisis, every effective cadet received ten shillings per head, and, in addition, from £3 to £10 per corps was given by the Government. Rifles, as well as ammunition and camp equipment, were given free, and free railway tickets to ranges were also provided. In South Australia, Tasmania, and Queensland the system has been established, and is popular and progressive. In New Zealand, too, the cadet system has been received with enthusiasm. Arms and accoutrements are given free by the Government, and in no part of His Majesty's Empire has the movement been more taken up than by the Maories. In Natal compulsory service is the order of the day as regards lads, although I doubt whether there is one lad in ten who knows that it is
  1304
  compulsory. From the ages of six to ten, every lad has to be drilled; at the age of ten he is compelled to join a cadet corps, and when ho reaches the age of fourteen he is compelled to go to the butts to learn to shoot. Can it be said that Natal would have made such a grand defence if it had not been for the fact that her sons had had this military training? Natal spends between £3,500 and £4,000 a year in this way.
  I have quoted the opinions of Lord Roberts, of General Lord Dundonald, and of Lieut.-General Sir Ian Hamilton. If I had not felt that it would have unnecessarily added to the already lengthy extracts quoted, I should have given also the opinion of Lord Kitchener, but I think his opinion is well known. I trust that after this expression of expert opinion His Majesty's Government will take courage and grant the very moderate and economical proposals for the improvement of the cadet system of this country for which I ask—proposals which although they fall short of the steps taken, by our Colonies, will not, if granted, be without effect in strengthening the military power of the Empire.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: My Lords, the noble Earl stated in his concluding remarks that he hoped His Majesty's Government would take courage. I can assure him that I feel the necessity of courage to reply to the formidable looking question which he has addressed to me, and I do not think any of your Lordships can recollect ever having seen so long a question put to any member of the Government. The noble Earl asks, in the first place, whether the attention of His Majesty's Government has been called to certain observations by Lord Roberts, Sir Ian Hamilton, and Lord Dundonald. I do not know exactly whether the noble Earl asks if these speeches have been the subject of Departmental Minutes or have been circulated to the Cabinet, or whether he desires to know if the fact that the speeches have been made is within the knowledge of my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War. If that is all he wishes to know, the answer is in the affirmative. I can go further and tell the noble Earl that everything that Lord Roberts said in the speech referred to, and, I believe,

  1305
  everything that Sir Ian Hamilton and Lord Dundonald said, they believe now, and in similar circumstances would repeat them again. But if Lord Roberts or Sir Ian Hamilton were asked whether they consider that the training of these cadets is of such vital importance that part of the sums allocated by Parliament to the expenditure on the Army should be taken to meet the demands made by the noble Earl, I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that they would declare that they could not recommend such a course. Of course, if the resources of the Exchequer were unlimited, and if in peace time we could spend as much money as we liked on the Army, I am sure we should be most willing to meet, as far as possible, the requests of the noble Earl. The noble Earl suggests that the requests he makes for assistance from the Government do not involve a very large expenditure. I shall endeavour, in the course of my remarks, to show the noble Earl, and, I hope, to convince him, that he is not entirely accurate.
  Reference was made to the system which prevails in the Colonies, and the encouragement which is given to cadet corps there. I would ask the noble Earl to allow me to call his attention to the difference in the military expenditure per head of population the Clolnies compared to the military expenditure per head of the population in this country. So far as the Colonies are concerned, they have practically no naval expenditure; on the other hand, we have a very large naval expenditure. Canada has no naval expenditure at all, and her military expenditure is 2s. per head of the population. New South Wales has a naval expenditure of 81/4d., and a military expenditure of 3s. 5d.; Victoria has a naval expenditure of 1s., and a military expenditure of 3s. 3d,; Queensland has a naval expenditure of 1s. Id., and a military expenditure of 3s. 9d.; the Cape of Good Hope has a naval expenditure of 3 1/4d., and a military expenditure of 2s. 11d.; Natal has a naval expenditure of 31/4d., and a military expenditure of 5s. 1/34d. In this country we have a military expenditure of 14s. 13/4d. per head of the population, and a naval expenditure of 15s.; so that altogether we pay £1 9s. 1/34d. per head of the population in respect of
  1306
  naval and military expenditure, whereas no Colony pays more than Natal, which pays 5s. 5d. I do not think it is quite a sound argument for the noble Earl to advance that, because the Colonies have these cadet corps, therefore it is perfectly easy for us to spend the same amount of money and give the same encouragement. The noble Earl mentioned a Bill that was introduced last session and referred to the arguments that were advanced by my noble friend and predecessor in office, Lord Raglan, against that Bill; and he stated that my noble friend replied that the Government did not consider that cadet corps could be looked upon as valuable for the defence of the country. That, of course, is perfectly true, and I support my noble friend Lord Raglan in what he said. The amount of money which this country spends on the Volunteers is gigantic, and I would like to give the House a few figures. The Volunteers, however, are men who are valuable in the event of an emergency arising. But no one suggests for a moment that these little boys should take up arms like the Boers in South Africa.
  THE EARL OF MEATH: I suppose they will grow.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: I suppose they will. But the point I wish to make is that in the system of this country we spend an enormous sum of money on the Volunteers, and if we were to treat cadet corps on exactly the same lines—
  THE EARL OF MEATH: I do not ask that.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: With the exception of the capitation grant, I do not see a single point in which it differs. The general proposal is to place cadet corps on the same basis as Volunteers. In 1869 the Volunteers received a cash grant of £1.32; in 1899 it was £3.13; and at the present moment each Volunteer is costing £6 per head per annum. We are paying in cash, exclusive of rifles, permanent staff, and such like expenditure, £720,000 per annum for the Volunteers, whereas ten years ago we were only paying about half that amount. I think the noble Earl will admit that we have done a great deal towards encouraging the Volunteers; and if he

  1307
  will allow me to take his points seriatim, I think I shall be able to show that the cost involved by his proposals is by no means small. The noble Earl asks that authority be granted for the formation of Public School Junior Volunteer corps, in which uniform should not be obligatory, but which in all other respects shall be on the same footing as cadet corps. I admit that that question has very little financial effect. I believe that the only additional cost would be the charges for the instruction of such officers as might be granted commissions. But we have always understood that one of the inducements to boys to join these cadet corps was the uniform. If, however, the noble Earl is convinced that a uniform is not required, and that boys would be induced to join these corps if they were allowed to do so without the wearing of uniform being obligatory, I see no reason why the Secretary of State should not grant the request.
  The noble Earl referred to the deputation which waited upon the Secretary of State for War in November last. Since that deputation was received careful consideration has been, and is being given, to the points which were laid before the Secretary of State, but it is quite impossible tonight for me to give any definite answer as to what we may be able to do. I think, however, I am able to give a definite answer as to what we shall not be able to do, but though I am, able to give the noble Earl a certain amount of encouragement I hope he will not take anything I may say as binding, but merely as our ideas as to the assistance which can be given these corps in the future. The second request submitted by the noble Earl was that the arms fitted with Morris tubes, at present supplied to public schools on payment, be issued free. The noble Earl has already stated that something has been done in this direction for certain corps. The difficulty we have in dealing with all these proposals is the impossibility of telling to what extent we may be committed financially. The noble Earl asked why there were not more cadet battalions, and he supplied the answer himself by saying that it was because no financial assistance was given by Government. He therefore implies that if financial assistance is given by
  1308
  Government the number of these corps will be increased, and, of course, if they increase, the financial obligations on the Government will increase also, and it is perfectly impossible for me, or any one. to tell how far we may be committing ourselves if we agree to supply free arms fitted with Morris tubes to all the corps that required them. Taking the number of corps that exist at present the total value of 1,800 carbines and 1,800 tubes, and accessories, which would be required to supply the cadet battalions, would amount to £10,222. That, I say at once, is perfectly impossible to consent to. The third request submitted by the noble Earl was that D.P. arms be issued, if applied for by the commanding officer, in addition to the arms fitted with Morris Tubes. It is not clear exactly what is meant by D.P. arms, and whether carbines or rifles are intended. But taking the numbers in the cadet corps at present, and assuming that half of the boys in a school would join and. would require rifles, the number would be about 60,000, the value of the D.P. rifles would be £109,750, and the carbines £73,000.
  THE EARL OF MEATH: Do you assert that there are 60,000 lads in middle-class schools of that character?
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: Yes that is the number we assume. In fact, we think there would be more. The third request really hangs on the first. If authority is to be given for the formation of these corps without uniform, we can only calculate what our obligation will be by the numbers of boys in these schools. We calculate that if these boys were to form themselves into corps as suggested that would be the total number of rifles we might have to supply. As regards the fourth request—namely, that a tree issue of Morris tube ammunition be made to such corps on the same scale as is now made to cadet corps in public schools—that is also an expensive matter. The proportion of Morris tube ammunition is eighty rounds per member of a corps, and therefore for 60,000 scholars the total would come to 4,800,000 rounds, and that would cost £4,140 per annum. The fifth, sixth, seventh

  1309
  and eight requests of the noble Earl are clearly financial ones, and I have endeavoured to find out what the cost would be likely to be. These requests apply both to cadet corps and cadet battalions.
  THE EARL OF MEATH: I beg the noble Earls pardon. They apply to cadet battalions and companies only.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: Taking requests numbers five and six, and assuming that allowances for regimental camps only are given—that is to say, 19s. for each boy and 52s. for each officer—the cost for 60,000 cadets would be £57,000, and for 750 officers, £1,950.
  THE EARL OF MEATH: I am not asking this for cadet corps, but only for cadet battalions and companies—about 6,000 lads.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: The noble Earl asks that the allowance now made to Volunteers attending camp should be made to all members of cadet battalions and companies.
  THE EARL OF MEATH: Yes, but not corps. There are only nine cadet battalions and two companies.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: I had taken companies as meaning corps. I will take the case of the nine battalions. I understand that there are about 5,200 boys in the cadet battalions and 200 officers. The total cost of sending them to camp would be £5,460 per annum. Them as regards the request that where the range accommodation possible for any cadet battalion or company exists within a journey by rail, the expenses should be borne by the Government, the cost of that would work out at £2,000.
  I think, my Lords, that on these five heads I have shown that it would be impossible to grant the assistance asked for unless we were prepared to go to the Treasury for a very large sum of money. I admit that in the request that an amount in the case of cadet battalions should be provided to meet the pay of a sergeant-major, and in the case of cadet battalions of more than six
  1310
  companies of one sergeant-instructor, a very large sum of money is not involved. It would cost £1,080 for the sergeant-majors, and about £186 for instructors. The total cost of these proposals excluding the cadet corps, would amount to £9,200. Of course, as I have said, it is impossible to calculate what the cost of the cadet corps would be, because we do not know how many would be formed. The request that paragraph 37 of the Volunteer Regulations be modified so that cadet officers shall occupy in regard to Volunteer officers the same position that the latter hold in respect of Militia officers, namely, junior of their rank, has already been granted.
  THE EARL OF MEATH: I am very glad to hear it, but I venture to think cadet officers are not aware of it.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: I come now to the request that Militia officers appointed to cadet battalions take rank according to the date of their appointment to such battalion. I confess I do not proposal is. No expense, of course, is involved. I do not think, military authorities could grant it, and if they did I do not think any Militia officers would join cadet battalions. A Militia officer joining a cadet battalion remains an officer in the Militia, and he does not join the cadet battalion for any other purpose except that he wishes to encourage these boys and has probably been applied to by those who are interested in the battalion. I can hold out no hope that the request contained in this paragraph will be granted. Then the noble Earl asks that sanction shall be given for the enrolment of cadet corps. I presume that the noble Earl wishes the age reduced so that lads can join between twelve and eighteen years of age.
  THE EARL OF MEATH: The idea is that they should be able to receive the capitation grant, and retain it the same as they do in cadet corps when they reach the age of seventeen.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: I am afraid I can hold out no hope that that will be granted. At the same time, it is a point that shall have very full consideration. The last request submitted by the noble Earl is that serviceable arms shall be served out to the full establishment of cadet battalions, and not to 50 per cent, as at present. I would point out that there is no demand for such a step. Take, for instance, the 1st Manchester, with a total strength of 547 boys. They only applied for fifty rifles. I think it is hardly reasonable that we should be asked to supply, at enormous cost, serviceable rifles to every boy in, a cadet battalion when an important battalion like that of the 1st Manchester only requires 50. I think it is obvious that a great many of these cadets are very young and cannot carry a large rifle, and to issue serviceable arms to boys of twelve and thirteen years of age, would be, in many cases, a waste of money.
  I am afraid the noble Earl may think that I have treated him somewhat unsympathetically and given him little encouragement, but what little hope of assistance I can hold out I have kept to the last. The noble Earl has pointed out that these lads, after leaving cadet battalions, join the military forces of the country. The military authorities will, I feel sure, be prepared to go a long way in assisting these cadet corps if they can be assured that they tend to increased efficiency of the forces, and especially of the regular forces. Some of these boys join various branches of the service, but we are particularly interested to find out how many join the regular army. I have the figures of one battalion. During the eighteen mouths ended September, 1902, 301 recruits who had been members of cadet battalions joined the regular army. I have no returns with regard to other battalions. We understand that these boys who had gone straight into the regular army have proved smart, and very quickly become efficient soldiers; and it will be a matter for the consideration of the Secretary of State and the Commander-in-Chief whether or not it will be possible to offer a bounty on every boy who goes into the regular army. That bounty would be paid to the corps, and would be a set-off against
  1312
  the expenses incurred. I think the noble Lord may entertain some hope that something of the kind may be done.

  THE RE-STOCKING OF SOUTH AFRICA.
  LORD BURGHCLERE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps, if any, are being taken to improve and increase the stock of cattle and horses in the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies. Your Lordships are, of course, aware that in consequence of the war a vast number of cattle and horses have been destroyed, and I suspect that the breeding establishments out there have become disorganised, if not completely destroyed. This is a question of the greatest importance to the prosperity of the new Colonies, and I desire to ascertain from the Government what steps they propose to take to restock the country with a proper supply of cattle and horses, and whether they have come to any decision as to the particular breeds of cattle best adapted to the climatic and other conditions of South Africa. Those conditions may make it necessary to import cattle from Australia and other parts of the world, but I venture to hope it may be found that there are hardy breeds at home, such as Herefords, available for the purpose. For some years past, cattle and horse diseases have been rife in South Africa, and it would be interesting to know what steps the Government have taken, or are going to take, to check, if not to thoroughly extirpate, these diseases. It is, of course, impossible to expect, owing to the disturbed condition of the country, that there should be an efficient Department such as our Board of Agriculture at home, but we should like to know what steps the Government propose to take to deal with this question. It is obvious that it will be necessary, for the prosperity of the new Colonies, to set up breeding establishments for horses. The native horses have been to a large extent exterminated, but I have no doubt that among the horses imported during the war there are many that would make excellent brood mares. I doubt, however, whether there is any adequate supply of sires, and I should like to know if the Government have any intention of importing or of encouraging the importation of sufficient stallions to secure a good breed
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of ONSLOW): My Lords, this matter has been brought to the notice of the Colonial Office, and by the Colonial Office to the notice of Lord Milner, through the Board of Agriculture, who have been in communication with some of the leading breeders of cattle and horses. Some generous and spontaneous offers have been made, and Lord Coventry has been good enough to say he will do what he can to assist the Department in improving the breed of cattle in South Africa. The noble Lord has correctly stated that a large amount of disease is prevalent in the new Colonies. Unfortunately, South Africa is a prey to all sorts of cattle diseases; but as the stock has been considerably reduced by the war, the moment seems to be propitious for concentrated efforts to stamp out these diseases, if not altogether, at any rate in certain quarters. The Government are considering whether they should not send out bacteriological experts to inquire into some of these diseases, which are little known anywhere outside of South Africa. They may, as the result of their experience, be able to suggest some manner in which we should be able to cope with these diseases. That is the first step to be taken. It is not possible to establish a Board of Agriculture in the new Colonies, but it is the purpose of the Transvaal Government to establish without delay a Veterinary Department. The Government are endeavouring to prevent the decrease of the stock in the Colonies, and have passed an ordinance, both in the Transvaal and Orange River Colony, making it a penal offence to slaughter and offer for sale a heifer or cow for two years to come. That will not prevent any one from using their own heifers or cows for food. By that means we hope to maintain the female cattle which were left after the war. We are now purchasing and importing from the neighbouring Colonies and Dependencies stock that are, to some extent, inured to South African diseases. We propose also to obtain stock from distant countries where similar diseases exist. An importer has been authorised to bring 500 cattle from Texas, where the disease known as red-water exists. They are to be kept for three months at the importer's risk, in small lots in different parts of the new Colonies, and if at the end of that
  1314
  Period they seem to be inured to this disease, they will be taken over by the Government. I hope that before long a certain number of bulls will be imported from England. We do not think that cows would be of much use, but Hereford or Shorthorn bulls might be imported. I am happy to say that this is likely to be done, not by the Government, but by private enterprise. As to sheep, we are importing a large number of Australian sheep and some English rams. Then with regard to horses, we have retained from amongst the horses the War Office no longer require, 1,500 specially selected mares, and we have also purchased a certain number of stallions, fifteen in all, including six English, two having won Queen's prizes at Islington, one from Argentina, and six Arabs. We have ordered a further twenty-five from Australia. Besides these matters, it is proposed to establish experimental farms, and it is intended by these to show the Boer farmers how to combat the diseases incidental to the climate of South Africa. I hope that as a result of these experiments, which will not be costly, we shall be able before long to considerably improve and increase the stock of cattle and horses in the new Colonies.

  BRUSSELS SUGAR CONVENTION
  LORD WELBY: My Lords, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with reference to the statement made by the Prime Minister that the Law Officers of the Crown in 1880 gave an opinion to the effect that to impose a countervailing duty in order to neutralise a foreign bounty on sugar would be contrary to the most-favoured-nation Clause in existing commercial treaties, whether His Majesty's Government, before advising His Majesty to ratify the Brussels Convention, will lay before Parliament information showing:—

  (a) what countries are engaged in the Production of sugar.

  (b) Which of the countries in list (a) have commercial treaties with the United

  Kingdom containing a most-favoured-nation Clause.

  (c) Which of the countries contained in list (b) are not parties to the Brussels Convention.

  1315

  (d) What is the annual value of the exports from the United Kingdom to each of the countries in list in the last five years.

  Of course, the opinion of the law officers is in no sense a declaration of law; it is only advice given to the Government of the day. But the law officers who, in 1880, gave that opinion were men of great legal repute—namely, Lord James of Hereford, and the late Lord Herschell, and no doubt foreign powers who are interested in the question will take full advantage of their admission. I full recognise the importance of the answer given by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons to the effect that the present law officers do not share the view of the law officers of 1880, but assuming that the opinion of the law officers of 1880 is correct the question will seriously affect English trade, which to a great extent depends upon the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause. I therefore appeal to the noble Marquess whether before the time arrives for the ratification of the Convention, he can lay before Parliament the information asked for in my Question.

  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE.
  My Lords, I understand that the argument of the noble Lord opposite is of this kind—that if we are to regard the opinion given by the law officers of the Crown in 1880 as still holding the field, we should thereby be precluded from imposing countervailing duties upon bounty fed sugar entering this country from other countries with which we have commercial treaties containing the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause. The form of the Return for which the noble Lord has moved suggests the idea that if that be the case we should be exposed to reprisals on a large scale at the hands of foreign Powers, with the result that our commerce might be very seriously checked. I think the Return is intended to show what the extent of that check might be. I can state in half-a-dozen words why it is that we are not deterred by these apprehensions. A good deal has happened since 1880. I think I am not wrong in saying that public opinion, both at home and abroad, with regard to the obligations imposed by the
  1316
  Most-Favoured-Nation Clause has undergone very considerable change; and I am also confident that I am not incorrect when I say that legal opinion upon the same subject has meanwhile undergone considerable modifications. Perhaps I should say rather that it is not so much legal opinion that has changed as the circumstances of the case, which have justified our legal advisers in giving advice of a different kind from that which was tendered to the Government of 1880. Since 1880 there have been what I may call two important leading cases bearing upon this subject. There was, in the first place, that of the United States of America, when they in 1897 resorted to the imposition of countervailing duties upon bounty fed sugar. The imposition of those duties involved the United States Government in considerable controversy with the Government of Russia, but the United States Government successfully maintained their rights. Two years later the Government of India found it necessary to impose countervailing duties on bounty fed sugar. At that time the Government of the day obtained the advice of high legal authorities both in India and in India and in this country, and that advice was to the effect that these duties did not involve an infraction of the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause in commercial treaties.
  I think I may say that the most instructive instance of all is the conduct during the present year of the Powers who were represented at the Conference at Brussels. At the Conference of 1888 the Powers thought it necessary to insert in the Convention then agreed to, but not ratified, an article pledging them not to render nugatory the penal Clause against bounty fed sugar to which they had agreed by any appeal to the privileges conferred by the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause. On the occasion of the recent Conference—the Conference of 1902—the Powers, with all those facts before them, deliberately came to the conclusion that the insertion of such an article was not necessary; I think, therefore, we may regard these Powers as deeply committed to the view that the imposition of countervailing duties or the prohibition of bounty fed sugar does not involve an infraction of the commercial treaties. As far as signatory Powers represented

  1317
  at the Brussels Conference are concerned it seems to me there can be no question as to their attitude. Then there are the remaining non-signatory Powers, of whom there are. I believe, altogether twenty-one, but a great number of these Powers do not occupy any very important position as producers or exporters of sugar. I find that of the whole twenty-one only six send sugar into this country. They are Argentina, Columbia, Mexico, Denmark, Russia, and the United States. The last two are the most important. So far as the United States are concerned, I do not believe it is unreasonable to contend that they are absolutely committed by their action in 1897 in insisting on the imposition of countervailing duties themselves. I do not see how they can possibly adopt any other policy. There remains Russia. I do not think the Russian Government can have any ground of complaint of the manner in which they have been treated in this matter. Russia did not think fit to be represented at the Brussels Conference; and in the, year 1899, when the Government of India resorted to countervailing duties, it was, in the course of a diplomatic correspondence which then took place, fully and clearly explained to the Russian Government that we claimed the right of imposing those duties and did not admit that their imposition involved an infraction of the most-favoured nation Clause. No reply was received to that representation. We thought it, however, not unreasonable to inform the Russian Government that, if they considered themselves aggrieved by what had taken place, we had no objection to denouncing our commercial treaty with them; and that offer has lately been renewed in consequence of what took place at the Brussels Convention. Therefore, if I may say so, I do not think there is any cause for apprehension of these wholesale reprisals, the expectation of which seems to be in the mind of the noble Lord opposite. We at any rate shall not be deterred by any fear of such reprisals. With regard to the return for which the noble Lord has asked, we are, of course, quite ready to afford any information which may be instructive to the public upon so important a subject: but I can hol
  1318
  out no hope that the information which the return is likely to disclose will deter us from advising his Majesty to ratify the treaty at the proper moment. There is a slight change in the form of the Return which I shall suggest privately to the noble Lord, but we shall be glad to give him substantially the information for which he asks.

  WESTMINSTER ABBEY—SUPPOSED ILLEGAL ORNAMENTS
  *LORD KINNAIRD: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty 's Government whether they are aware that there has been erected in Westminster Abbey a stone altar and a crucifix, together with two figures of saints, at the shrine of Edward the Confessor; and to ask who is responsible for their erection; and whether His Majesty's Government are prepared, if such erection is illegal, to correct this abuse of authority.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Lord WINDSOR): As regards the first part of the Question, I can only give the answer which has been given in another place, and that is that the stone altar and the sculptured group, consisting of a crucifix and figures, were removed to their present position at the shrine of Edward the Confessor on the sole authority and on the responsibility of the Dean and Chapter. It is not a matter with which His Majesty's Government have anything to do. The latter part of the Question touches a legal point which I have the Lord Chancellor's permission to leave to him.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): As to the legal side of the Question, the noble Lord must be aware that in the present state of the law any three male persons of full age living in a diocese who have any reason to complain of any new ornament being placed in a church or cathedral, have the right to appeal to the Bishop of the diocese. It is certainly not part of the duty of His Majesty's Government to inquire whether each ornament introduced into a church is

  1319
  illegal. I do not know whether this ornament is illegal or not. It is a delicate matter which may come before me judicially to determine. Speaking generally, it is not illegal to have ornamentation of this kind. I would remind the noble Lord of the decision in the case of Allcroft v. the Bishop of London. In that case the allegation was that—
  The Dean and Chapter of the Cathedra1 Church of St. Paul have introduced into the said Cathedral Church and set up upon the altarpiece or reredos therein an image or sculptured subject, representing our Lord upon the Cross, in a conspicuous position, immediately above the Communion Table, the figure of Our Lord being of the height of 5 ft, or thereabouts. The said image or sculptured subject is constructed so as to have the appearance of such an altar crucifix as was used in the Church of England immediately before the Reformation, and so far as to answer the purposes for which such a crucifix was intended. The said Dean and Chapter have introduced into the said Cathedral Church and set up upon the said altarpiece or reredos therein an image or sculptured subject representing the Blessed Virgin Mary with the Child in her arms, in a conspicuous position, a few feet above the image or sculptured subject, the figure of the Blessed Virgin being of the height of 5 feet 6 inches.
  In that case it was held that the Bishop had acted within his jurisdiction and exercised the discretion vested in him; that whether the reasons he gave were good or bad the Bishop, having considered all the circumstances which appeared to him, honestly exercising his judgment, to bear upon the particular case, his reasons could not be reviewed; and there was no ground for a mandamus. The noble Lord who has asked this question seems to assume that such sculptured subjects are illegal. No such proposition can be maintained for a moment. A matter of this kind requires careful examination; the noble Lord, however, has said nothing on such a point as to whether the group is made the subject of idolatrous worship. The Government have no reason to suppose the group is illegal, and if it were illegal it could properly be made the subject of complaint by three persons, as I have pointed out, under the Public Worship Act, and the question would then be determined in due course of law.
  House adjourned at Seveno'clock, till Tomorrow, Six o'clock.