Lords Sitting of 26 May 1903

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with—
Ebbw Vale Water and Improvement; Crystal Palace District Gas; Leigh Corporation; Gas Light and Coke Company; Hampton Court Gas; Lancashire and Yorkshire and London and North-Western Railways (Steam Vessels).
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
  Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Petitions for additional provisions in the following Bills ought to be dispensed with, and leave given to the Committees on the Bills to introduce the respective additional provisions—
  Manchester Corporation [H.L.]; Bangor Corporation [H.L.]; Gosport, Fareham, and Cosham Tramways [H.L.).
  That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Coventry Electric Tramways Bill, ought to be dispensed with, and the Bill allowed to proceed. Read, and agreed to.
  North-Western Electricity and Power Gas Bill [H.L.]. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
  Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Tramways Bill [H.L.]. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
  Scottish-American Mortgage Company, Limited, Bill. Reported, with an Amendment.
  Burgess Hill and St. John's Common; Gas Bill; Sittingbourne District Gas Bill; Market Drayton Gas Bill; Scarborough Gas Bill. Reported, without Amendment.
  Carmarthenshire Electric Power Bill [H.L.]; Liverpool University Bill [H.L.];
  1750
  Barry Railway Bill [H.L.]; Didcot, Newbury, and Southampton Railway Bill [H.L.]; Winchester Water and Gas Bill. Reported, with Amendments.
  Hastings Harbour District Railway Bill [H.L.]. The King's Consent signified; and Bill reported, with Amendments.
  Fife Electric Power Bill [H.L.]. Reported, with Amendments.
  Kip's Patents Bill [H.L.]. Read 2a.
  London United Tramways Bill; New Hunstanton Improvement Bill. Read 2a, and committed. The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  Gorleston and Southtown Gas Bill. Read 2a, and committed.
  Poole and District Electric Traction Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  Maryport Harbour Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a; an Amendment made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
  Torquay Corporation Water Bill [H.L.]; Preston, Chorley, and Horwich Tramways Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  London and North-Western Railway Bill [H.L.]; London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Bill [H.L.]; Cardiff Railway Bill [H.L.]; Aston Manor Improvement Bill [H.L.]; King's College, London, Bill [H.L.]; St. Philip's Chapel (Regent Street) Bill [H.L.]; Port Talbot Railway and Docks Bill [H.L.]; British Gas Light Company (Norwich) Bill [H.L.]; Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation Bill [H.L.]; Tynemouth and District Tramways Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  North Middlesex Gas Bill, Read 3a, and passed.
  Bridgwater Gas Bill; Sutton District Water Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  London Hydraulic Power Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (Gas) Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Housing of the Working Classes) Bill; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill. Brought from the Commons.
  Cheshire Lines Committee Bill; East Ham Improvement Bill; Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbours Bill; London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill; London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway Bill. Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
  Wellingborough and District Tramroads Bill; West Cumberland Electric Tramways Bill; Highland and Invergarry and Fort Augustus Railway Companies Bill. Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
  Plymouth and Stonehouse Gas Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons amended; the said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  Chatham and District Light Railways Bill [H.L.]. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
  Rochester Corporation Tramways and Improvements Bill [H.L.]. Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill (No. 83); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill (No. 84); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill (No. 85); Local Government Provisional Orders (Gas) Bill (No. 86); Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Housing of the Working Classes) Bill (No. 87); Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4)
  1752
  Bill (No. 88). Read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
  Private and Provisional Order Confirmation Bills—Ordered, That Standing Orders Nos. 92 and 93 be suspended; and that the time for depositing petitions praying to be heard against Private and Provisional Order Confirmation Bills, also the time for depositing Documents relating to any Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, which would otherwise expire during the Adjournment of the House at Whitsuntide, be extended to the first day on which the House shall sit after the Recess.
  Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (East Ham, &c.) Bill [H.L.]; Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a (according to Order) and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill; Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
  North British Railway (General Powers) Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. Read 2a (according to Order), and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899), deemed to have been reported from the Committee.
  Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill. Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday, the 12th of June next.
  Local Government Provisional Order (Housing of the Working Classes) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill; House in Committee (according to Order). Bills reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bills to be read 3a on Thursday the 11th of June next.

PETITIONS.

  LICENSING ACT AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  Petitions in favour of: of Doncaster and District Licensed Victuallers Wine and Beer Sellers Association; Aberdeen Excise License Holders Association; Berkshire Brewers' Union; Isle of Wight Licensed Victuallers Protection and Benevolent Society; Southampton and District Licensed Victuallers Association; Kendal, County of Westmorland, and District Licensed Victuallers Association; Ashton-under-Lyne and neighbourhood Licensed Victuallers Association; Campbeltown Distillers Association; Neath and District Licensed Victuallers Association; St. Helens, Widnes, and District Licensed Victuallers Association; Bolton Brewers Association; Aberystwyth Licensed Victuallers Association; Goole and District Licensed Victuallers Protection Association; Faversham Licensed Victuallers Association; Burton-on-Trent and District Licensed Victuallers Protection and Benevolent Association; Plymouth, Devonport, Stonehouse, and District Licensed Victuallers Society; Farnworth, Kearsley, Little Hutton, and Little Lever Beer and Wine Trade Defence Association; Ashford and District Licensed Victuallers Association; Boston and District Licensed Victuallers Association; Leith Wine, Spirit, and Beer Trade Association; Bristol and District Beer, Spirit and Wine Trade Protection and Benevolent Association; Crewe, Nantwich, and District Licensed Victuallers and Wine and Beer Sellers Association; Malton, Norton, and District Licensed Victuallers Association; Paisley and Renfrew Wine, Spirit, and Beer Trade Association; Newcastle and District Off Licence Holders Protection Association; Bristol Licensed Victuallers Protection Benevolent Association; Portsmouth and District Off Licence Holders Association: Oldham Brewers and Licensed Victuallers Association; Helensburgh and Gareloch Wine, Beer, and Spirit Trade Association; Cirencester and District Licensed Victuallers Association; City of Westminster and Borough of Chelsea Licensed Victuallers Association; North Staffordshire Licensed Victuallers Association; Ramsbottom Beer and Wine Trade Association; Largs Licensed Traders
  1754
  Defence Association; Ilkeston and District Off Licence Holders Protection Association; Walsall and District Licensed Victuallers and Beer Retailers Friendly Society; Keighley Licensed Victuallers Association; Grays and District Licensed Victuallers Association; Bolton Off Licence Holders Association; South Wales Brewers Association; Chelmsford and District Licensed Victuallers Association; Whitstable and Seasalter Licensed Victuallers Protection Association; Eastbourne and District Licensed Victuallers and Beer Retailers Association; Mining Division of the County of Cornwall Licensed Victuallers Association; Bradford Licensed Victuallers Trade Protection Association; Preston and District Licensed Victuallers Association; The Wine and Spirit Association; Droitwich, Bromsgrove and District Licensed Victuallers and Beer Sellers Protection Association; Torquay and District Licensed Victuallers and Beer House Keepers Protection Association; Devon County Brewers Association; Wigan and District Off Licence Holders Association; Bury and District Wine and Beersellers Association; Maidenhead and District Licensed Victuallers and Beersellers Protection Association; Vale of Irvine Branch Wine, Spirit, and Beer Trade Defence Association; Bellshill and District Wine, Spirit, and Beer Trade Association; Devizes and District Licensed Victuallers and Beer Retailers Protection Association; Rochdale and District Wine and Beer Trade Association; Welshpool and District Licensed Victuallers Association; Gloucestershire Brewers Association; Stamford and District Licensed Victuallers Association; Chorley and District Licensed Victuallers and Beersellers Protection and Benevolent Association; Nuneaton, Atherstone and District Licensed Victuallers Association; Bridgend District Licensed Victuallers Association; Hull and District Licensed Victuallers Association; Dundalk Licensed Vintners Association; South East London Licensed Victuallers and Beersellers Trade Protection Society; Bolton Licensed Victuallers Association; Brighton and County Beer Retailers Protection Association; Carnarvonshire, Anglesey and Merioneth Licensed Victuallers Association; Southport, Birkdale, Ainsdale, Freshfield and

  1755
  Formby Association of Licensed Victuallers; Vale of Leven Wine, Spirit and Beer Trade Association; Lawford's Gate (West Gloucester) Licensed Victuallers Protection Association; Solihull, King's Heath, and South Birmingham Licensed Victuallers and Brewers Protection Society; Canterbury Association of Licensed Victuallers; Bolton Beer and Wine Trade Protection Society; Stranraer Association of Licensed Victuallers; Gloucestershire Association of Licensed Victuallers; Harrogate Association of Licensed Victuallers; Biggleswade Association of Licensed Victuallers; Hartlepool Association of Licensed Victuallers; Bedford Association of Licensed Victuallers; Stockport, Heaton Norris and District Beer and Wine and Spirit Retailers Protection Association; Wolverhampton and District Incorporated Society of Licensed Victuallers; Cumberland Brewers and Wholesale Wine and Spirit Merchants Association; Burnley and District Beer and Wine Trade Association; Brierley Hill, Pensnett, Kingswinford and District Licensed Victuallers Association; Borough of Portsmouth, Gosport and District Licensed Victuallers Protection and Benevolent Association; Newport (Mon.) Licensed Victuallers and Beerhouse Keepers Association; Rochester, Chatham, Brompton, Gillingham and Vicinity Licensed Victuallers Protection Association; Gravesend, Northfleet and District Licensed Victuallers and Beerhouse Keepers Protection Association; National Trade Defence Northern District Association; Reigate and District Licensed Victuallers Protection Association; Sheffield, Rotherham, and Surrounding Districts Wine and Beer Trade Association; Southend and District Licensed Victuallers and Beer Sellers Protection Association; Bacup and Rossendale Beer and Wine Trade Association; Warrington and District Off Licence Protection Association; Sevenoaks and District Licensed Victuallers Protection Association; Rochdale and District Off Licence Holders Protection Association; North and South Shropshire Licensed Victuallers and Beersellers Association; Stourbridge, Lye and District Licensed Victuallers and Beer Retailers Protection Society; Wiltshire Brewers Association; Leeds and District Off Licence Holders Protection and Benevolent Association; Darwen and District Licensed Victuallers
  1756
  and Beersellers Association; Harwich, Dovercourt and District Licensed Victuallers Trade Protection Association; Girvan and District Wine, Spirit, and Beer Trade Association; Dunoon and District Licensed Trade Defence Association; Belfast and Ulster Licensed Vintners Association; Metropolitan Beer and Wine Trade Protection Society; Coalville and District Licensed Victuallers Protection and Benevolent Association (Leicestershire); Peebles-shire Licensed Trade Defence Association; Somersetshire Brewers Association; Kirkcaldy and District Licensed Grocers Association; Northamptonshire Licensed Trades Association, Limited; North-West Wilts Licensed Victuallers and Beer Retailers Association; Hamilton and District Wine, Spirit, and Beer Trade Defence Association; East Lothian Licensed Trade Defence Association; Lincoln and Lincolnshire Licensed Victuallers, Beer Sellers, and Wine Dealers Association; Leicester and District Off Licence Association; Chesterfield and District Licensed Victuallers Association; Pontefract, Castleford, and District Licensed Victuallers and Wine and Beer Sellers Protection Association; West Hartlepool and District Licensed Victuallers and Wine Trade Protection Society; Bucks Brewers Association; Wisbech and District Licensed Victuallers Association; Shettleston, Tollcross, and District Licensed Trade Defence Association; Monmouthshire Brewers Association; Peterborough Licensed Victuallers Protection and Benevolent Association; Leek and District Licensed Victuallers and Wine and Beersellers Association; Liverpool and District Incorporated Brewers and Spirit Merchants Association; Crail, Anstruther, and District License Trade Defence Association; Hawick and District Licensed Victuallers Association; Buxton and District Licensed Victuallers and Wine and Beersellers Association; Bedfordshire Brewers Association; Nottinghamshire Brewers Association; Aberdeenshire Licensed Trade Defence Association; Manchester, Salford, and District Licensed Victuallers Association; Wakefield and District Licensed Victuallers Association; Pontypridd and Rhondda Valleys Licensed Victuallers Association; West Bromwich, Smethwick, and District Licensed Trade Association; Workington

  1757
  and District Licensed Victuallers Association; Rye and District Licensed Victuallers Association; Southport and District Off License Holders Association; Barnsley and District Licensed Victuallers Association; Stockport and District Off License Holders Protection Association; Port Glasgow Wine, Spirit, and Beer Trade Association; Dorking District Licensed Victuallers Protection Society; Midlothian Licensed Trade Defence Association; Brechin and District Wine, Spirit, and Beer Trade Defence Association; Bridlington and District Licensed Victuallers Association; Dudley and District Licensed Victuallers Benevolent and Protection Society; Great Grimsby and Neighbourhood Brewers, Wine and Spirit Merchants, and Licensed Victuallers Association; Weston-super-Mare, East and Mid Somerset Licensed Victuallers Association; Barnet Licensed Victuallers Protection Association; Dewsbury and District Licensed Victuallers and Beer and Wine Sellers Association; Number Four District of the Licensed Victuallers National Defence League of England and Wales; Tunbridge Wells, Tonbridge, and District Licensed Victuallers Association; East London Licensed Victuallers Protection Association; Exeter and District Off License Holders Association; Exeter and District Licensed Victuallers Protection Society; Falmouth, Penryn, and Flushing Licensed Victuallers Association; Brigg and District Licensed Victuallers Association; Blackburn and District Licensed Trade Association; Skiptonand District Licensed Victuallers Association; Ashton-under-Lyne and District Beer, Spirit, and Wine Trade Association; Bradford and District Beer, Wine, and Spirit Trade Protection Association; Dundee Wine, Spirit and Beer Trade Protection Association; Stafford, Rugeley, and District Licensed Victuallers Protection Association; Falkirk and District Licensed Trade Defence Association; Penzance and Western Division Licensed Victuallers Trade Protection Society; Carlisle and District Licensed Victuallers Association; Scottish Licensed Trade Defence Association; West Suffolk Licensed Victuallers Protection Association; South-West London Licensed Victuallers Protection Association; Leicester and Leicestershire Licensed Victuallers Association; Fraserburgh and District Licensed Trade
  1758
  Association; Partick and District Wine, Spirit, and Beer Trade Association; Peterhead and District Wine, Spirit, and Beer Trade Defence Association; Spilsby and District Licensed Trades Association; Bradford and District Off License Holders Association; Luton Licensed Victuallers Protection Association; Brighouse and District Licensed Victuallers Protection Association; Hammersmith and North Kensington Licensed Victuallers Protection Association; Leigh and District Licensed Victuallers Wine and Beer Retailers Association; Eccles Division Licensed Victuallers Defence Association; Manchester Brewers Central Association; Pollokshaws and District Wine, Spirit, and Beer Defence Association; Monmouth and District Licensed Victuallers Association; Birmingham and Midland Counties Wholesale Brewers Association. Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SHOPS (EARLY CLOSING) BILL [H.L.]
  Petition in favour of; of Harbour Traders and Early Closing Association; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  EMIGRATION AND IMMIGRATION.
  Statistical Tables relating to emigration and immigration from and into the United Kingdom in the year 1902, and Report to the Board of Trade thereon: Ordered to be laid before the House (The Lord Wolverton).
  COLLEGE CHARTER ACT, 1871.
  Applications received from the Owen's College, Manchester, and the University College, Liverpool, for the establishment of Universities in those cities, which were referred by His Majesty in Council for the consideration and Report of a Committee of His Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council; together with the Drafts of the Charters applied for: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Statement of schemes for the formation of education committees, approved during the month of April, 1903, by the Board of Education, under Section 17 of the

  1759
  Education Act of 1902 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper (Command No. 1564) of Session 1903) showing—Name of local authority; Number of the council; Number of members on the education committee; Number of members of the education committee who are necessarily members of the council; Number of women who are necessarily on the education committee; Forms of educational experience to be represented on the committee; Recommendations or nominations (if any).

  NAVIGATION AND SHIPPING.
  Annual Statement of Navigation and Shipping of the United Kingdom, for the year 1902. Presented [by Command] and ordered to lie on the Table.
  EMIGRATION AND IMMIGRATION.
  Return respecting; Laid before the House (pursuant to Order of this day), and to be printed. (No. 94.)
  PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO CHILDREN (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the Standing Committee with further Amendments. The Report of the Amendments made in Committee of the Whole House, and by the Standing Committee, to be received and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 89.)
  UNION OF BENEFICES ACT, 1860, AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the Standing Committee with Amendments. The Report thereof to be received on Thursday, the 11th of June next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 90.)
  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY COUNCILS) BILL [H.L.] (No. 91.) POLLING ARRANGEMENTS (PARLIAMENTARY BOROUGHS) BILL [H.L.] (No. 92.)
  Reported from the Standing Committee without further Amendment. The Report of the Amendment made to each Bill in Committee of the Whole House to be received on Thursday the 11th of June next; and Bills to be printed as amended.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING (LONDON) BILL [H.L.]
  Amendments reported (according to Order): Then Standing Order No. XXXIX. considered (according to Order) and dispensed with. Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  STATUTE LAW REVISION (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to Order). Bill reported without Amendment, and re-committed to the Standing Committee.
  SUPPLY OF ELECTRICITY BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Acts relating to Electric Lighting, was presented by the Lord Wolverton. Read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 95.)
  ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to order).
  On the Motion of the Lord Chancellor, a new clause was inserted, providing that a solicitor may be appointed a Justice of the Peace for any county in England or Wales, but it shall not be lawful for any solicitor being a Justice to practice himself or by any partner directly or indirectly before any Court of summary jurisdiction or quarter sessions for that county.
  Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee, and to be printed as amended. (No. 93.)

  COAL MINES (CERTIFICATES) BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF JERSEY: My Lords, the object of this Bill is to provide an alternative qualification for those who wish to become managers of mines. Under the Act of 1887 it is necessary before a person can get a certificate to manage a mine that he must have been engaged in work underground for five years. The object of this Bill is to afford an alternative qualification as regards part of those five years; that is to say, a man who desires to

  1761
  obtain a certificate would have to have worked three years underground, but would have the option if he chose of going for two years to one of the mining colleges or Universities approved by the Secretary of State and obtaining their diploma. In this way it is hoped that managers who adopt this alternative may have a combination of scientific as well as factory knowledge. The Bill does not take away the right of anyone who chooses to come in under the present system. The measure is strongly supported by those interested in mining matters, and also by His Majesty's Inspectors. I may say also that in recent years the different University colleges of Wales and the mining colleges elsewhere have made important arrangements for giving scientific training in mining matters. In these circumstances, I hope your Lordships will consent to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a. (The Earl of Jersey.)
  LORD BELPER: My Lords, the Secretary of State for the Home Department quite approves of this Bill.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Friday, the 12th of June next.

  THE GROCERS' SCHOOL CADET CORPS.
  THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, I rise to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War when an answer may be expected to the application of the head-master of the Grocers' Company's School for the recognition of his school battalion as a non-uniformed cadet corps, in accordance with a reply which the noble Earl gave to my question of 16th December last.† It may be in the recollection of some of your Lordships that on that day I asked the Under Secretary several questions connected with cadets, and the noble Earl, in replying, professed great alarm, and said he would have to take his courage in both hands to reply to my most formidable list of questions. Why the noble Earl should have been so alarmed I cannot tell. One of those questions
  † See (4) Debates, cxvi., 1304.
  1762
  was in the sense of the one I have just asked, which certainly is not very alarming; it simply appertains to the clothing of little boys. I think that perhaps the alarm that was professed by the noble Earl did not apply to this request, because, while in answering the other questions which I submitted, he laid great stress upon the fearful financial burdens they would involve, in replying to this particular question I was very glad to hear him say he admitted that the suggestion would have very little financial effect. He went on to say—
  "I believe the only additional cost would be the charges for the instruction of such officers as might be granted commissions. If 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 Secretary of State had already previously given expression to similar views. On November 25th a deputation from the Lads Drill Association waited on Mr. Brodrick. Amongst other matters they brought this question of non-uniformed cadet corps to his attention, and in his reply he stated that he could see no objection to the request being granted. In consequence of having these two replies, those who had attended the deputation to the right hon. Gentleman and those who supported me in this House seemed to think that the privilege had been granted, and so Mr. Gull, who is the headmaster of the Grocers' Company's School, and has taken very great interest indeed in all matters connected with cadets, and who, I may add, is the chairman of the Headmasters Association and chairman also of their Military Training Committee, and consequently the representative of a very large body of masters, addressed a letter to the Secretary of State for War drawing attention to the reply that had been made in this House by the noble Earl, and requesting that his corps might be authorised as a non-uniformed public school junior Volunteer corps. Up to this date there has been no reply, unless the reply has been sent since I placed this notice on the Paper, and I cannot make out why there should have been such delay. Have the War Office changed their mind or have they not? In

  1763
  the face of the reply which the Secretary of State for War gave to the deputation, and in face of the statement of the noble Earl the Under-Secretary, I hardly think they can have changed their mind. Why is it, then, there has been any delay in replying? It does not seem a formidable matter as to whether little boys are to be put into uniform or not, and the Under Secretary himself admits that it will involve no very large additional charge on the country. Can it be that the War Office are unable to find in the pigeon-holes of the Department any stereotyped reply—I know they are very fond of stereotyped replies—to give to Mr. Gull? If there is no stereotyped reply I shall be very glad indeed, because I think that in regard to this matter they should fall back upon their own intelligence and form a precedent.
  I would like to draw your Lordships' attention to some remarks which were made by Mr. Gull at the deputation referred to, for I think he very clearly put before the Secretary of State the reasons why it was advisable that some schools should be permitted to allow their lads who wished to drill not to be in uniform. I want to make it perfectly clear to your Lordships that neither Mr. Gull nor anyone else desires to lay down any rule for others. He quite recognises that Eton, Harrow, Winchester and all the great schools where boys are sent from the upper and richer classes, are quite anxious and desirous that they should be put into uniform. The uniform is an attraction to the lads, but, on the other hand, there are a large number of schools filled by the sons of gentlemen of just as good birth, but whose purses are not so long as those of parents who send their sons to Eton and Harrow; and it is a matter of serious consideration to those parents when they are asked to supply a uniform for their sons to drill in. The result is that these lads are unable to learn the use of arms in early youth. I believe we ought to do all we can to train our young men from the ages of fourteen to eighteen in the use of arms. These young men, many of whom will afterwards, no doubt, enter the Army as officers, are unable in their early years to learn anything connected with the military profession. Quite irrespective
  1764
  of that, the head masters of these schools believe that this constitutes a very excellent training for the lads in the way of discipline. Mr. Gull says—
  "The aim of both the Head Masters Conference and the Head Masters Association—two bodies which together represent the whole of the public secondary schools—is that every boy, if in sufficient bodily health, in their schools should be trained in the use of arms. This object can never be attained by cadet corps, for the conditions laid down for them prevent universal enrolment."
  That is to say, they are obliged to have uniform, and as long as uniform is necessary the drill has to be carried on in play time, whereas if they were not required to have uniforms it could be carried on in school time as part of the curriculum of the school. Mr. Gull goes, on to say—
  "No school can make military service in a cadet corps part of its ordinary curriculum. The wearing of uniform is the real crux. So long as uniform is compulsory so long enrolment must be voluntary. I venture to submit that from the point of view of the national safety the important point is that all boys should be trained to shoot straight, to move at the word of command, and to be accustomed to obey the military signals. I look forward to the time, which I admit has not yet arrived, when no school shall be permitted to have a cadet corps which has not also universal military training.
  I have heard a rumour—I hope it is not true—that the War Office, unable to find a stereotyped reply in their pigeon-holes, and undesirous of using their own intelligence in the matter, are going to throw the whole responsibility of deciding this question on to the Royal Commission on Militia and Volunteers. I hope it is not true. I cannot for one moment imagine that His Majesty's Government would do anything which to my mind would seem so utterly ridiculous. What we want is that the War Office should themselves take the responsibility of deciding this matter. We want to see these lads at work during this summer, and if we are to wait till a Royal Commission—a Royal Commission which has absolutely nothing to do with little boys, but has been appointed to decide questions with regard, to the Militia and Volunteers—has reported, I do not know when we may get to work. The Grocers' Company's School has been giving sound military training for the last twenty-two years. The Head Masters Association has been recently taking active steps to encourage

  1765
  military training in their schools. They have sent out a series of questions to all the schools under their authority, and have received answers with regard to those schools that have military training and those that have not. These show that 201 already give training in military drill, and 103 give instruction in shooting on Morris Tube targets. The present is the psychological moment. The public schools of the country are ready to undertake this duty. They ask only for cordial recognition and helpful sympathy; they do not ask for money grants. The application from the Grocers' Company's School is a test case. The only difference between this application and others is that uniforms should not be required; and the sole object of this change is to enable schools to train the whole of their boys in military drill and in shooting, as part of the school course under official supervision, which is impossible so long as the regulation with respect to uniforms is in force. There can be no question that this school training, adequately given, will greatly increase the military strength of the Empire, and I trust that the War Office will see their way to grant this request.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The EARL of HARD-WICKE): My Lords, the specific question asked is, What reply is going to be sent to Mr. Gull's application to allow a corps to be formed without the boys being compelled to wear uniform? and my answer is that Mr. Gull is already aware that the matter is going to be, among other questions, referred to the Royal Commission—not the specific question as regards the wearing of uniform, but a much larger question, which this application is involved in. I will deal with that in a moment. When the noble Earl feigned such innocence as to whether it was true that this matter was going before the Royal Commission it seemed to me a little unnecessary, inasmuch as I myself wrote to say that it was going to be so referred, and I understand that the noble Earl is aware that I wrote that letter.
  THE EARL OF MEATH: I may say that I have not seen the letter, nor have I heard of it.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: Mr. Gull, at any rate, has received it. The noble Earl referred to remarks I made at the end of last year in replying to some questions he asked me, and he quoted, quite accurately, the statement I made with regard to the point in question. I certainly stated that I did not see any reason why the Secretary of State should not grant the request, but I also went on to point out that as regards the supply of arms, which is a very important matter, the difficulty was to know to what extent the War Office might be committed financially. The question whether a cadet corps wears a uniform or not I consider to be a very small one, but if the War Office sanction cadet corps without uniform it may result in a very large number of these cadet corps being formed. That would necessitate the War Office supplying to them 50 per cent. of serviceable arms and 50 per cent. of what are known as D.P. arms, and the War Office do not see their way to supply an unlimited amount of arms. At the present moment we have only 3,500 single-loading carbines available, and we require 9,000 for Volunteer noncommissioned officers and men and staff sergeants, and we have promised 5,400 rifles to uniformed cadet corps, so that even if we allowed this corps to be formed, at the present moment we could not possibly supply the arms, and if we are unable to supply arms it seems unnecessary to allow the cadet corps to be formed. The question that is going to be referred to the Royal Commission is, as I have said, a very much larger one. The question is, how far it is right that Army funds should be charged with the expenses of these cadet corps. We recently made an offer to cadet battalions of a bounty on each boy who joined the Regular Army, but that offer did not commend itself to the authorities concerned. They replied that they did not wish to be associated with the Army in any way, and that to let it be known that a bounty was given to any boy who joined the Regular forces would deter parents from allowing their boys to join these battalions.

  1767
  In these circumstances I think the question arises, if it is merely physical drill that these boys require, whether it is right that Army funds should be charged with the expenses? And that is a question we propose to put before the Royal Commission. In the meantime, I am afraid we shall be unable to give any decision with regard to the various applications that come from time to time from cadet corps and cadet battalions.
  THE EARL OF MEATH: The remarks of the noble Earl as regards the bounty are confined to cadet battalions, which are filled with lads of very much lower status.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: I meant to say battalions, not corps.

  AN IMPERIAL YEOMANRY RESERVE.
  LORD DENMAN: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government whether in view of the fact that a new Militia Reserve has been recently established, it is their intention to create an Imperial Yeomanry Reserve; and, if so, whether they propose to afford an opportunity to yeomen who have served in South Africa to join such a force. I should like to make myself quite clear as to what is understood by the term Imperial Yeomanry Reserve. Last autumn the Secretary of State for War introduced into Parliament a Militia and Yeomanry Bill. That part which dealt with the Militia was duly passed, but owing to the opposition of certain enthusiastic politicians, who are by way of being supporters of His Majesty Government, the part of the Bill which dealt with the Yeomanry was allowed to drop. That portion of the Bill provided for a Reserve or special service section of 5,000 men drawn from the regular Yeomanry, who, in return for certain considerations, undertook a liability to serve abroad in time of war should they be required to do so. I do not propose to make any observations on the advantages or disadvantages of that scheme. I would merely mention that a Militia Reserve existed before the war under somewhat similar conditions, that during the South African War over 14,000 men were taken from this Militia Reserve, and drafted straight into the Line, and that the complaints of commanding officers of Militia were naturally
  1768
  so bitter on this point that the War Office has now decided to stop enlistment for this Militia Reserve and to let it gradually die out. Possibly the noble Earl, the Under-Secretary will be able to tell me whether it is proposed to reintroduce into Parliament that part of the measure which dealt with the Yeomanry Reserve or special service section. But whether this measure be enacted or not, I think there is a more urgent need for another class of Yeomanry Reserve.
  And here I am obliged incidentally to touch upon the present constitution of the Yeomanry force. I will at once say that I do not wish to pass any criticism upon that force, and that in my humble judgment the success which has attended the raising of it does great credit to the authors of the scheme. There was, however, one defect—it may have been an inevitable defect—and that was that a comparatively small number of the yeomen who served in South Africa joined the force at home. I believe that in actual numbers less than 10 per cent. of men wearing the South African medal are now serving in the regular force of Imperial Yeomanry. Various causes, I think, contribute to this. Some of the men are tied down by their business affairs, others went out to the war at great personal inconvenience and think they have already made sufficient sacrifices, whilst there is a larger class of men who, while they would be perfectly willing and anxious to go wherever there is active service, either at home or abroad, yet are unwilling to undertake the comparative monotony of soldiering even for a very short time at home. There is another class of men—viz., the men who will shortly pass out of the present force of Yeomanry, and whose services will be altogether lost to the country. Now, I think it might be possible to form some Reserve which would attract both these classes of men.
  I will endeavour very briefly to outline such a scheme. I think that at the headquarters of every regiment of Yeomanry a roll might be kept of men willing to join, that they should be men who have served in South Africa or who have served not less than three trainings with the Imperial Yeomanry under the new regulations. I would suggest that the only obligatory period in the year should be attendances on the range at

  1769
  musketry for one or two days, or whatever was thought requisite, that the men should be invited to join the rifle club which exists in nearly every Yeomanry Corps at present, that they should be invited to attend all those social functions which are held in regiments at home, and that they should be treated, so to speak, as honorary members of the regiments to which they belong. On the question of pay there will, no doubt, be a diversity of opinion. For my own part, I believe that you could get a considerable number of men without any pay at all, but if it were necessary to give pay you might arrange to give the same scale of pay as you have given in the new Militia Reserve—that is, I believe, a bounty of £4 10s. for four years service. Lastly, I would touch briefly on the question of expense. I believe that there is a theory at the War Office at present that for every man you have on the Reserve strength you must keep in store for him a rifle, bandolier, a certain amount of ammunition, and uniform. For such a Reserve as I have endeavoured to outline I do not believe a uniform would be in the least necessary. In South Africa our uniforms were very often in rags, and men of my own squadron, instead of riding breeches had occasionally to wear a kilt made out of a sack. I do not think that with a good class of men the question of uniform affects them at all. With regard to officers, you would no doubt want officers for this Reserve. Naturally if you give these men no pay, or very small pay, they would only be liable for home defence; but I am convinced that in time of war, if you required them, a large number would be willing to serve either at home or abroad.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: My Lords, the noble Lord at the commencement of his speech referred to the fact that a Bill was introduced by the Secretary of State for War last autumn to constitute a Militia and Yeomanry Reserve and also a special section of Yeomanry for service abroad. It has some bearing on the Question on the Paper, because, as the House will recollect, the proposal to form a special section of Yeomanry for service abroad did not meet with the general approval of Members of the House of Commons and consequently was withdrawn by
  1770
  my right hon. friend the Secretary of State. The object of the Yeomanry Reserve for which the Bill provided—I may mention that we have the power now under that Bill to form a Yeomanry Reserve—really disappeared when the Secretary of State withdrew the proposal to form a special section, because it was intended that when the 5,000 men who formed the special section were called upon to serve abroad their places should have been filled by the Reserve that we proposed to constitute. As that part of the measure was withdrawn, for the present it was not considered necessary to take steps to form a Yeomanry Reserve, and more so in that at the present time, as the noble Lord is aware, the Yeomanry is not up to its full strength. It seems rather unnecessary to take steps to form a Yeomanry Reserve when your Yeomanry is not up to strength. We hope that in the course of a few months or a year, the Yeomanry will fill up to its full complement, and it is then the intention of the Secretary of State to see what can be done to form a Yeomanry Reserve. But I feel bound to mention to the noble Lord that all Yeomanry officers are not unanimous as to the desirability of forming a Yeomanry Reserve. There are some colonels who are very much opposed to it, and, therefore, the matter will want the very careful consideration of the military authorities before anything definite is done. At the same time I feel sure that the military authorities, and all concerned with the administration of the Army, would be sorry to lose any opportunity of having a lien on the services of those yeomen who have had experience in South Africa. Whether they will be prepared, as the noble Lord suggests, to serve without uniform in the same way as the cadet corps wish to serve, I am not prepared to say; but it certainly will be a novel idea to create a Reserve of Yeomanry without uniform, which, at the present time, is one of the attractions which induce men to join both Yeomanry and Volunteer regiments. The remarks which the noble Lord has made with reference to the scheme that is in his mind for the formation of a Yeomanry Reserve shall not be lost sight of when the time comes to consider the matter.
  LORD WENLOCK: Can the noble Earl state what number the Yeomanry are short?
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: I cannot state definitely. A few months ago the Yeomanry were about 6,000 short of their full strength, but I think the number is very much legs than that now.
  LORD WENLOCK: That is, 6,000 short of 35,000?
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: No, 6,000 short of their full strength of 30,000.
  LORD ROSMEAD: I understand that one of the reasons why it is not proposed to raise a Yeomanry Reserve is that the Yeomanry is not up to strength. May I ask if the Militia is up to strength? I understand there is a Militia Reserve.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: The Militia is not up to standard and never has been.

  THE MAHARAJAH OF PANNA.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government whether there is any objection to laying before Parliament the proceedings and the evidence on which it was determined to remove the Maharajah of Panna from the chiefship and rule of the principality of that name; and, if not, whether any statement can be made giving some indication of the nature of the procedure adopted and evidence taken. I will, in two or three sentences, shortly state the facts so far as they have been brought to my knowledge, which have induced me to place this Question on the Paper. Panna is a native state in Central India in the Bundelkhand Agency. Its territory is about 2,500 square miles and its population nearly 240,000. In 1898 the then Maharajah died and was succeeded by his son Mahendra Mahara Sing, who is the subject of this Question. He was then a young man of about twenty-seven, and apparently soon after that became attached to a young native woman about whom considerable difficulty arose, especially as to the question of whether she was a person with whom the Maharajah could contract a lawful marriage. This seems to have given a
  1772
  great deal of trouble, as these cases generally do, and in 1901 his uncle Rao Rajah Khuman Sing came to pay him a visit, apparently to deal with this question. At the palace of Raj Mandie Panna on June 24, 1901, he was suddenly taken ill and next day he died. Consequent on his death an inquiry took place by the political agent and other officers of the Indian Government there. Then two secret reports were sent by Capt. F. G. Beville to the Viceroy, who made an order that the Maharajah should be suspended, which order was enforced on September 13, 1901. On November 6 a Commission was appointed for inquiry and report. The Maharajah was represented by counsel at that inquiry and so had every opportunity of putting his case before them. The result of that inquiry and report was that five persons were charged with murder, of whom the Maharajah was not one, but the five persons so charged were ordered to be tried by the same two gentlemen who formed the Commission of Inquiry. The result of this trial was that on January 25, 1902, three of the suspects were acquitted and one was condemned to death and subsequently executed. The fifth man escaped and nothing more took place with regard to him, but the Commissioners further reported that the Maharajah was implicated. Consequently, by the order of the Viceroy, he was definitely removed from his Raj and banished to Bellary, in the Madras Presidency, where he now is. I do not enter on this question in an aggressive manner and do not wish to suggest that justice has not been done. I do not attempt to express an opinion as to whether the Commission were right or wrong in their report with regard to the Maharajah. My contention is this, that in a case where it is found necessary to deal in so strong a manner with a native prince it is desirable, and it is due to the native prince himself, that there should be no manner of doubt as to his guilt, and that there should be no secrecy at all with regard to it. In my own view the desirable thing would probably be that the evidence which caused the Commissioners to come to the conclusion which they did come, to should be made public and should be laid before Parliament. But I quite conceive there may be

  1773
  reasons for not doing so. I do not therefore press that, but I do think it is right that the Government of India should distinctly state the reasons which have induced them to take this summary step, and I think it is for the advantage of the good government of India that such a statement should be made.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: My Lords, the noble Lord, I think, made one mis-statement—inadvertently, I am sure—with regard to the proceedings, which perhaps I had better correct. He suggested that the Commission appointed by the Viceroy first of all had to enquire into the conduct of the Maharajah and afterwards tried the five persons charged.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I said they had to enquire into the whole of the circumstances of the case, and they reported that five people ought to be tried and it was then laid upon them to try them.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: The trial and the inquiry took place together. The five men and the Maharajah were tried at the same time, but the reference to the Commissioners was different as regards the Maharajah from that as regards the other prisoners. But what I was going to point out is that there is nothing special in the Report of the Commissioners appointed by the Viceroy, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, to try the Maharajah of Panna for being concerned in the murder of his uncle, Rao Raja Khuman Singh, that it would be undesirable to publish, but the Secretary of State for India has objection on general grounds to laying Papers, and I am therefore unable to assent to the first part of the question. I may mention that one very strong reason is that it would not be in the interests of the native State concerned that various details should be made public.
  In the second part of his Question the noble Lord asks whether any statement can be made giving some indication of the nature of the procedure adopted and evidence taken. I am able to make a statement that I trust will satisfy the noble Lord that nothing irregular has taken place in connection with the pro-1774
  ceedings brought about by the regrettable tragedy in question. The Government of India have kept the Secretary of State informed of everything that has transpired since suspicion attached to the Maharajah, and no step has been taken by the Government of India without the full concurrence of the Secretary of State for India. Raja Khuman Singh died suddenly on June 25, 1901. The deceased, on being taken ill, believed himself to have been poisoned, and wrote to this effect to the political agent and others living in the State. The political agent made an immediate enquiry, with the result that a plot to kill the Rao Raja was clearly shown to have existed, and also that there were grounds for thinking that his Highness the Maharajah was cognisant of the designs on his uncle's life. Thereupon an exhaustive police inquiry — that was the second inquiry—was instituted, which afterwards rendered necessary the trial of certain individuals on the capital charge. The Government of India decided, as "an act of State," to constitute by resolution, which was subsequently published in the Gazette of India for general information, a special Commission of two Judges to deal with the case, and they sanctioned a sum of 30,000 rupees for the expenses of the defence of the Maharajah. It having been imputed to the Maharajah that the Rao Raja was poisoned at his instigation, the Commissioners were instructed, while trying the other five prisoners, to report to the Viceroy how far in their opinion the imputation against the Maharajah was true.
  The Court sat at Panna, and the procedure was similar to that in an Indian Criminal Court. The following charges were presented:—Against Shambhu Panda, that he committed murder by causing the death of Rao Raja Khuman Singh; and against Haidari Yan, alias Rani Kamal Kuar, Achche Lal, Lachmi Panhad, and Rasul Muhammad, that they engaged in a conspiracy to murder the Rao Raja, in pursuance of which he was murdered on or about June 25, 1901. Shambhu Panda was a cook employed in the Maharajah's kitchen. He absconded, and has not been brought to trial. It is believed that he actually administered the poison. Haidari Yan was the lady to whom the noble Lord referred, and she was acquitted, there being no evidence

  1775
  against her, as was also Rasul Muhammad, the companion and friend of the Maharajah, who was acquitted on the same grounds. Lachmi Panhad was head of the Maharajah's kitchen. There was evidence against him, but it was not very conclusive, and he was given the benefit of the doubt. Achche Lal was secretary to the Maharajah, and the Commission found it impossible to explain the facts proved against him, except upon the hypothesis of his being guilty. The Commissioners found no extenuating circumstances in his case, and therefore sentenced him to be hanged. The sentence was duly carried out. With regard to the Maharajah, the evidence showed that the Rao Raja at his dinner complained of the taste of the meat, and within a very short time became giddy, and was obviously seriously ill. Symptoms of the illness were observed by various witnesses, which undoubtedly went to show that the cause of death was poisoning. I may mention that at the time of the incident the Rao Raja was by special invitation staying with the Maharajah in one of his royal palaces.
  The course of the proceedings covered the actions and conduct of the Maharajah, both prior to and after the date of the murder. The Commissioners found that he had a motive—a very distinct motive—for getting rid of the Rao Raja, that his conduct at the time that the murder took place, and subsequently in the course of the police investigation, was inconsistent with any other hypothesis than that he was a member of the conspiracy.
  The Report of the Commission was submitted to the Government of India who considered it and also a lengthy memorial from the counsel who represented the Maharajah, and they came to the conclusion that the Commission had arrived at a right judgment. The Viceroy therefore proposed to hold that the Maharajah had forfeited his right to the Panna State, that he must be deposed, that he should be interned under surveillance on a fixed allowance, and that steps should be taken to select his successor. The recommendations of the Viceroy with the proceedings of the Commission were then sent home to the Secretary of State, who, after careful and full consideration, approved of the decision of the Viceroy. I may add that
  1776
  subsequently the Government of India recommended that the eldest son of the deceased Rao Raja should be selected to succeed the deposed Maharajah, and their choice was approved by the Secretary of State and effect given to it. I hope the noble Lord will be satisfied that the course which has been adopted has been in every way justified.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I must be satisfied with the statement of the noble Earl. My point is rather this—Is it not an extraordinary thing that the Commission should not have caused the Maharajah to be tried? The Commission reported that five people were to be tried for this murder.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: There was first of all the inquiry by the political agent, which showed a prima facie case that a plot had existed. A searching inquiry was instituted, and that inquiry reported. Then the Government of India appointed two Commissioners to try five persons, and at the same time to report to them as to whether the imputation that had been made against the Maharajah was true or not. The Maharajah was therefore on his trial at the same time as the five other prisoners. He was represented by counsel, and the only difference as regards his treatment and that of the other prisoners was that his name was not included in the judgment, but the Commissioners wrote a report to the Viceroy as to the part they considered he had played in the conspiracy.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My point is this—You have an inquiry into the circumstances of a certain case. As a result of that inquiry five persons are charged with and tried for murder; a sixth person is supposed to be implicated, but he is not put on his trial with the five persons charged with murder.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: To all intents and purposes he was on his trial.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: If the noble Earl says he was on his trial that alters the whole situation. But surely if the Maharajah is implicated in

  1777
  a grave murder case of this sort, he ought to be dealt with in a more severe manner than he has been. The course taken may have been a perfectly just one, but I think that the guilt of the sixth person should be established to the satisfaction of the general public both in this country and in India.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, I understand that the procedure adopted was procedure of a kind which should satisfy public opinion both in this country and in India that justice has been done to the deposed Maharajah. I listened attentively to my noble friend's account of the series of events which led to the deposition of the Maharajah. There was, in the first place, the death under very suspicious circumstances of the Maharajah's uncle. Then a police investigation took place which reported the discovery of a plot in which a number of persons were implicated, and upon that the Government of India sent down two Judges to try the case. During the trial the Maharajah was represented by counsel, and had therefore an opportunity of making himself heard. The result of that was, I understand, that the Commission made a report which satisfied the Government of India that the Maharajah was in fact implicated in the murder. There upon the Government of India determined to remove him from his Raj. The whole of the proceedings were examined, first in India by the Viceroy in Council, and then in this country by the Secretary of State in Council, and both these distinguished bodies supported the decision of the Government of India. As for publicity, I hold in my hand an extract from a Resolution of the Government of India in the Foreign Department dated 6th November, 1901, setting forth the facts my noble friend described, and I am told by my noble friend that this Resolution was actually published in the Gazette of India, and therefore the condition to which the noble Lord rightly attaches so much importance seems to have been fulfilled.
  House adjourned at twenty-minutes before Six o'clock, to Thursday, the 11th of June next, a quarter past Four o'clock.