Lords Sitting of 5 July 1904

LORD HENNIKER.
Report made from the Lord Chancellor that the right of Charles Henry Chandos Henniker-Major, Baron Henniker in the Peerage of Ireland, to vote at the election of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have not been complied with:— London County Council (General Powers).
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
Leyton Urban District Council Bill. Report from His Majesty's Attorney -General received, and ordered to lie on the Table.
Thurles Urban District Council Water Bill. Reported, with Amendments.
London United Tramways Bill. Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, no parties having appeared in opposition thereto; read, and ordered to lie on the Table. The orders made on the 16th and 21st of June last discharged, and Bill committed for Thursday next.
Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [H.L.]. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
Water Orders Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, no parties having appeared in opposition thereto; read, and ordered to lie on the Table. The orders made on the
602
14th and 21st of June last discharged, and Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
Leith Corporation Tramways Order Confirmation Bill. Report from the Joint Committee that the Bill ought to be allowed to proceed; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
Melrose District Water Order Confirmation Bill. Brought from the Commons.
Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (Birmingham) Bill [H.L.]; Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Baker Street and Waterloo Railway Bill; Brymbo Water Bill; Great Central and Midland Joint Railways Bill; Humber Commercial Railway and Dock Bill; Southend-on-Sea Gas Bill. Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
Gas and Water Orders Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. House in Committee (according to order). The Amendments proposed by the Select Committee made. Standing Committee negatived. The Report of Amendments to be received on Thursday next.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill [H.L.]. House in Committee (according to order). The Amendments proposed by the Select Committee made; further Amendments made. Standing Committee negatived. The Report of Amendments to be received on Thursday next.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill [H.L.]; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill [H. L.]. Amendments reported (according to order), and Bills to be read 3a on Thursday next.
Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [H.L.]. House in Committee (according to order). Amendments made. Standing Committee negatived. The Report of Amendments to be received on Thursday next.
Melrose District Water Order Confirmation Bill. Read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation

603
Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899), deemed to have been read 2a (The Lord Kintore (E. Kintore)), and reported from the Committee. (No. 130.)

PETITION.
  SUPPLY OF ELECTRICITY BILL [H.L.]
  Petition to be heard by Counsel for Amendment of; of Electric Supply Companies; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  No. 3202. United States (Chicago); No. 3203. Venezuela (Caracas).
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  DEAN FOREST BILL.
  Order of yesterday referring the Bill to the Examiners discharged; and Bill to be printed. (No. 131.)
  RE-VACCINATION BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the Standing Committee without further Amendment. The Report of the Amendment made in Committee of the Whole House to be received on Thursday next.

  RAILWAYS (PRIVATE SIDINGS) BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, this is a very short Bill containing only two clauses, and it has passed through all its stages in the other House. The general idea of the Bill is to put back the law into the position which we always thought it occupied. It has always been considered that it was the law that facilities should be granted by the railway companies to traders and others owning private sidings. This idea has been rather rudely shaken by two decisions of the Courts in England and Scotland, and this
  604
  Bill has been framed to put back the law into the position which we considered it previously occupied.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Lord Wolverton.)
  On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House, on Friday next.

  HALL-MARKING OF FOREIGN PLATE. BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, I need detain your Lordships but a very few moments in explaining this Bill. Its object briefly is to secure that the mark which is required by the existing law to be placed upon all articles of gold and silver plate imported from foreign countries shall be of so distinctive a character as to fulfil the purposes which it was originally intended to serve. A casual glance at this Bill might perhaps lead some of your Lordships to imagine that it was an attempt to give some advantage to British over foreign-made plate. Such an opinion as that would be altogether erroneous. The Bill, it is true, has the support of, and is, indeed, largely promoted by the traders of Birmingham and Sheffield; but, nevertheless, it has no connection, however remote, with the now famous fiscal policy of Birmingham, or even with the milder, though not less famous, policy of Sheffield. If it had, I should not now be asking your Lordships to give it a Second Reading.
  The law at the present moment is as follows. By an Act of Parliament passed in the year 1876 all gold and silver plate which is imported from foreign countries, and which is taken to an assay office to be stamped, has placed upon it the letter F in an oval shield to denote that it is of foreign origin. The Act which enforces this regulation distinctly laid down the objects for impressing this letter. It was stated that the object was to denote that such gold and silver plate was imported from foreign ports, and not wrought or made in the United Kingdom. But this letter

  605
  F has not been found to be sufficiently distinctive in character, because it is very easily confused with either the initial of the manufacturer of the plate, or even with the letter which denotes the year in which the plate was marked. Your Lordships will know that there are letters frequently placed upon gold and silver plate; this letter F is very easily confused with one of those letters, and the hall-mark which is placed upon articles of plate and was originally intended merely to denote the quality of the plate, has now been generally looked upon as an indication of British manufacture. The result of this is that large quantities of gold and silver plate of foreign origin have been imported into this country, and having received an hall-mark at an Assay Office in this country, have been sold in this country, and even exported to other countries and there sold, as plate of British manufacture. In other words, my Lords, the object of the Act of 1876 has not been carried out, and it is the intention of this Bill to remedy that particular matter.
  There is no new principle involved in this Bill. No plate which is not obliged to be marked at present will have to receive a mark in future. In fact, the only result of the passing of this Bill will be that what has in the past been done inadequately will in the future be done adequately. The precise mark which in future is to be placed upon imported gold and silver plate is to be decided by an Order in Council, because it is a very technical matter, and no doubt the decision will ultimately be arrived at after consultation with the Assay officers and the members of the trade. One word as to the history of the Bill. The Bill was introduced last year into the House of Commons, and in March of that year a very large and influential deputation, representing the traders of London, Birmingham, and Sheffield, waited upon the President of the Board of Trade to urge its claims. The principle was accepted by the Government, and the Bill has since been redrafted under the direct supervision of the Board of Trade. It has been introduced into the House of Commons again this year, and has passed through all its stages, and in its present form it receives the support of all the members engaged
  606
  in the gold and silver trade in this country. The Association of Chambers of Commerce has passed a resolution in its favour, as also have the trades unions in this country. In fact, the Bill has the support both of the masters and of the men. In those circumstances I feel sure your Lordships will not hesitate to read it a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a.— (The Earl of Lytton.)
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

  YEOMANRY WEAPONS.
  LORD ASHBURTON: My Lords, I rise to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War whether in deciding upon a second weapon for the Yeomanry regiments due consideration will be given to the fact that, while fully armed for fighting on foot, they require a weapon for use when mounted and carrying out the work of scouting and patrolling, in the execution of which they would be liable to sudden attack by those of the enemy's forces engaged in the same duties.
  I have to ask your Lordships' indulgence on rising to address the House for the first time. About six weeks ago a Question was asked relating to the Yeomanry by a noble Lord who served with great distinction in South Africa, and who is now in command of one of the newly raised Scottish Yeomanry regiments. Out of that Question a somewhat long debate arose, in which the necessity for a second weapon for the Yeomanry was freely mentioned. I think the consensus of opinion in your Lordships' House was entirely in favour of such a weapon. I cannot help thinking at the same time that the main factor in deciding what that weapon should be was rather overlooked. The Yeomanry are now, like the Regular cavalry, trained to fight on foot, and for their foot work they cannot want a better weapon than the one they have got—the long-range magazine rifle. But they are taught other duties which I venture to think are even more important than their foot work—namely, those of scouting and patrolling.

  607
  The Yeomanry, though they are now a kind of mounted rifles, described by Sir John French as a "form of cavalry," are in reality, I think, the cavalry of the Auxiliary Forces, and on them, whenever the time should come for our Militia and infantry to be placed on the footing of active service, much of the scouting and patrolling would fall. If that patrolling is to be of the kind described by the present Inspector-General of Cavalry in India as "Blind-man's-dog scouting," then it is a waste of time to have it; but if, on the other hand, the scouting and patrolling is to be efficiently carried out, it will carry with it not the risk but the certainty of frequent hostile collisions with small bodies of the enemy. We cannot hope, I suppose, for the second time to be fighting a nation who will have no weapon except the rifle. You may take it for granted that whenever we are at war again the enemy's scouting will be done by men armed with other weapons than the rifle. In a wooded country the land lends itself to such fights; they will be short, and, if the Yeomanry are left as they are at present, I do not see what they can be expected to do.
  It is now nearly three years since the war ended, and the Yeomanry are in just the same position as they were then. They have only one weapon. When the noble and gallant Earl the late Commander-in-Chief spoke in the debate to which I refer, he told your Lordships that he was unable to remember why the issue of bayonets was discontinued to the Yeomanry. I think I may say with some confidence that 90 per cent, of the Yeomanry are deeply grateful to the person or the circumstances that caused that issue to cease, for a more unpopular weapon I do not think you could devise for the Yeomanry, and at the same time it would be an absolutely useless weapon. If it comes to bayonet work such as we have heard of in Manchuria, you cannot expect dismounted cavalry to compete with infantry. Masses of Yeomanry on foot would have very short shrift at the hands of trained infantry.
  The noble and gallant Earl seemed to be in favour of bayonets and against swords, but I should like to suggest that there are swords and swords. I am no advocate of the present sword. It is an
  608
  ill-balanced weapon, it has a cutting edge, and it requires no little skill to properly handle. It has the great disadvantage of requiring a considerable amount of instruction and an enormous amount of practice before a man can even be considered a fair swordsman; but because this particular type of sword is not a satisfactory one I fail to see that it is beyond the powers of the military authorities to design a weapon which, while being perfectly efficient, would be much simplified, and the use of which would be more easily acquired, The weapon that would be an ideal one for the Yeomanry would be one about the length, perhaps a trifle longer, of the present naval cutlass without a cutting edge and merely a point, but with the same hilt. It would only require very simple sword exercise, and if the Yeomanry were armed with such a weapon and with the rifle they have now they would be sufficiently armed for any work they might be called upon to do, I see no objection, if necessary, why that weapon should not be able to be fixed on the end of the rifle, provided that such means of attachment in no way interfered with its efficient use as a weapon for unmounted fighting for which it would, of course, be specially designed.
  The amount of dissatisfaction that exists in the Yeomanry now on the subject of their armament and equipment, I do not think is realised in quarters where it would be well that it should be. In common with many other Yeomanry I officers, I attach very serious importance? to our half-armed condition at present, and I hope the noble Earl the Under, Secretary of State for War will be able to ' give some assurance that the question of the helpless condition of the Yeomanry will receive that consideration at the hands of the authorities which I venture to think it deserves, and that no attempt will be made to turn the Yeomanry into a miserably bad mounted infantry by forcing that unpopular weapon, the bayonet, upon them.
  LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE: My Lords, I desire to associate myself with the remarks which have just fallen from the noble Lord. I was one of those who were very pleased to hear, in the course of the debate the other day, that

  609
  the Yeomanry were going to be armed with a second weapon, but I must confess to a certain amount of alarm when I heard that it was going to take the shape of the bayonet, and for the same reason which the noble Lord has just brought forward. I should like, as a humble member of the Yeomanry, to join him in requesting the noble Earl the Under-Secretary to favourably consider the sword in preference to the bayonet. I venture to submit that the bayonet is not a weapon which can be used by a man on horseback. We were also told during the course of the debate on the Yeomanry not very long ago that the Yeomanry were not primarily intended for service abroad, and that in the event of invasion, which I suppose is improbable, their principal use would be in this country. I venture to submit that for a mounted man a sword in his hand would be a very much more useful weapon than anything else.
  It may be urged against the use of the sword by Yeomanry regiments that we should not have time to learn the sword exercise. Well, my Lords, in the old days before the Boer War, and before our swords were taken away from us, we used to cut the sword exercise. It was cut, you will say, with a blunt-edged weapon, but still the sword exercise was learnt with a considerable degree of efficiency, and I should like to call your attention to the fact that we now have almost three times the amount of training that we had before. We have fourteen working days in camp, and each officer and each man in our regiment, at any rate, attended five preliminary mounted drills before the Yeomanry assembled in camp. Therefore, I think we should have plenty of time in which to learn at any rate a modified form of the sword exercises. I should also like to ask the noble Earl the Under-Secretary if he could give us some kind of assurance as to the position as a mounted force that the Yeomanry are going to occupy, whether we are to be cavalry or mounted infantry, or something between the two.
  It may be that different conditions of service may be suitable to different regiments. For instance, Lord Lovat's Scouts may possibly desire to be treated
  610
  as mounted infantry, although I cannot speak for them. But there are certain Midland regiments which have always been cavalry ever since they were started, and which could produce a squadron of at least 100 or 120 men accustomed to ride across country, who I venture to assert would be quite equal to undertaking any of the functions of a cavalry regiment. The whole essence of these Midland regiments, is, in the first instance, their cavalry character. There are officers and men in those regiments who would never have dreamt of joining the Militia or Volunteers, but who joined the Yeomanry because it was mainly connected with horsemanship and riding, and because there was a prospect of doing the work mounted. For that reason I sincerely trust nothing more will be done to diminish the cavalry character of such regiments. I should like to respectfully assure the noble Earl that any attempt to whittle away the cavalry character of these regiments will be most unpopular with all ranks.
  THE EARL OF LONSDALE: My Lords, I do not wish to detain the House for many minutes, but on an occasion like this, when the weapon of the Yeomanry is concerned, I cannot refrain from asking your Lordships, as an Officer-in-Command of Yeomanry, to do all in your power to prevent the introduction of such a weapon as the bayonet into the Yeomanry. Anyone who is accustomed to the use of the rifle knows the absolute balance in its use, and anybody understanding horsemanship must realise that no one, however fine a horseman he may be, is capable of using a rifle with a bayonet attached to the end of it when it comes to lungeing. In fact I very much doubt if even a Sandow could use it. We have seen contests at various military competitions — sword versus lance, sword versus bayonet—but I do not know if any of your Lordships have ever witnessed a competition as between a rifle with a bayonet attached to it and a sword, the mounted competitor having the rifle. I have seen it twice, and each time it has ended in serious discomfort to the horseman, for it is absolutely impossible after lungeing for him to recover himself, and a defy even a Sandow to manipulate a horse with a rifle, having a

  611
  bayonet at the end of it, in his hand. When the whole secret of Yeomanry and Cavalry is dependent on the absolute balance of the man, whatever his weapon may be, with a view of remaining fixed in the saddle, it is obvious that such a weapon would be most prejudicial to Yeomanry, and it is for this reason I ask your Lordships to persuade the authorities not to introduce the bayonet as a second weapon into the Yeomanry.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Earl of DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I think your Lordships will have gathered from the character of the debate that I am not being asked by the three noble Lords who have addressed your Lordships to give a final decision on this subject to-night. The matter is under consideration. In fact, I spent some time discussing it with three of my colleagues this morning, and I can assure your Lordships that it has not been lost sight of. I hope a decision will be announced in another place at an early date. I can only repeat what I have said before. Although the three noble Lords who have addressed your Lordships this evening advocated the same view, I am sure your Lordships will admit that there are very many different opinions as to what the second arm for the Yeomanry should be. I addressed your Lordships at some length on that point the other day in the debate initiated by Lord Lovat, and I do not intend to repeat the arguments I then tried to lay before your Lordships. All sorts of weapons have been recommended to us, and all sorts of variations of every weapon have been recommended, and I sincerely hops we may be able to hit upon something which will be satisfactory, if not to all parties, at any rate to most parties, and I can assure the noble Lord who raised this question to-day that we are very anxious to come to a final settlement upon the point.
  I now come to the point raised by the noble Lord on the Cross Benches (Lord Willoughby de Broke). He is extremely anxious that nothing should be done, more especially in connection with the corps in the Midlands, to decrease what he calls their cavalry character. I can assure the
  612
  noble Lord that we have no intention of any action that could lead to that end. Your Lordships will, of course, understand that there are town corps and country corps of Yeomanry. The country corps generally consist of good riders, and not very good shots, when they are recruits, and the town corps generally consist of not very good riders and not very good shots, but still, as a rule, their shooting is better than their riding when they first come; and our desire is to train these two classss to reach as high a standard as thay possibly can in both these considerations. Our efforts naturally in the country corps are concentrated more on rifle shooting than on riding, and vice versa.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My Lords, it may seem somewhat presumptuous in me to interpose in this discussion in a House where so many of your Lordships are professionally acquainted with the matter before us, but I do think this House will be doing a good service in turning its attention for a short time this evening to this question of how you are going to arm your mounted troops in the future, and how those arms are to be carried. For my own part, I quite agree with what has fallen from the noble Lords who have spoken, that as a weapon for mounted men the bayonet is ridiculous. It is all very well to have a bayonet, no doubt, for a man to use if he is acting as an infantry soldier, but it is ridiculous to say that a bayonet can be of any use to a man on horseback. I have seen a very ingenious invention by which the great part of the stock of the rifle was cut away in order that the man might get a better grip of the rifle and use it at arm's length as a lance, but I agree that it would require a Sandow to use a weapon of that sort with any success.
  The question we have to consider is, is it not right that mounted men, now that they are used so very much in a double capacity, sometimes on horseback and sometimes on foot, should at least have one weapon suitable for each position? I think most people will agree to that, and I think that the idea which we sometimes see portrayed in the illustrated papers, of a gallant mounted infantryman galloping full speed, with his reins loose on the horse's neek and his

  613
  rifle up to his shoulder taking aim, is quite impossible in modern warfare. It is possible to use the carbine on horseback, but if it is to be used effectively it must be sufficiently short to be used in one hand as a pistol. I remember many years ago, when there were still buffalo in the United States, that I killed a number of buffalo with a carbine used in that way; it is far better than any revolver that was ever invented. What is the weapon you are going to give to your mounted man? The two suggested are the lance and the sword. It seems to me that directly you give your mounted man a rifle the question of a lance drops out, because I do not see how a man can carry a rifle and a lance as well. Therefore, you are tied up at once to the sword. I believe that the sword should be such an one as Lord Ashburton suggested, and that it should be attached to the saddle so that it should be essentially a weapon which the man would rely upon on horseback to use from the horse.
  Then we come to the question of the rifle and how it is to be carried. It seems to me one of the most extraordinary incidents of the whole of the rearmament of our forces that a shortened rifle should have been adopted for the purpose of being handed to every mounted man— for that was the object of shortening the rifle—and that the manufacture of hundreds of thousands of shortened rifles should have been entered upon before any decision had been come to as to the manner in which that rifle was to be carried on horseback. All sorts of methods have been tried. A very distinguished general officer at Aldershot told me the other day that they were at their wits' ends to find a way of carrying this new rifle on horseback, and I have seen a number of the new rifles that have been so carried very much damaged by the operation. My Aldershot friend leans to carrying the rifle in a bucket on the saddle in the same way as the old carbine was carried, but that is not so easily done. Noble Lords who have tried it will not have found it so easy as in the case of the old carbine, and, if you fix your rifle in a bucket on the saddle, then, supposing your man is dismounted, both
  614
  his sword and his rifle are left on the saddle, and he is without any arm at all.
  I think a method of carrying the rifle or carbine should be decided upon which would allow of its being attached to the man, so that when he is dismounted he has a weapon with him, and that weapon the one which it is most convenient for him to use when on foot. I have another witness to call with regard to the question of carrying the rifle. A very capable cavalry officer writes to me—
  "We have not yet discovered how we are to carry the new rifle. We have been supplied with shoes to fit on the saddle, but the rifle is too short to carry with the sling and shoe."
  I understood that that was the great object of shortening the rifle, that you were to be able to carry it with a lance attachment and in a lance shoe. The extraordinary result of shortening the rifle has been that you cannot carry it in this way because the rifle is too short. This officer continues—
  "I hear the cavalry at Aldershot are carrying them slung on their backs with their butt in the shoe, which must be very dangerous and uncomfortable. They complain of having lost a lot of bolts. A bucket to carry the new rifle is too clumsy for words."
  My point is that it is an extraordinary thing that you should invent a new rifle for the express purpose of supplying to the cavalry, that you should shorten your rifle throughout the whole British Army and re-issue it to the cavalry, without making up your minds in which way it is to be carried by horsemen. I think the House may well give a little more time to this question, and I hope the result will be that our mounted men may be given an arm suitable to be used on horseback and another arm to be used on foot, and that both may be carried in a convenient way for man and beast.
  EARL ROBERTS: My Lords, as I have had something to say on this question of the rifle, the sword, and the bayonet, perhaps it will not be out of place if I make a few remarks on this occasion. When we went to South Africa the cavalry were armed with the carbine and sword or lance, as the case might be, or both. A very short time after I arrived out there I received a request from the officer commanding the 18th Hussars asking that his

  615
  men should be given the rifle. He said that the carbine was practically useless against the Boer Mauser, and he hoped that his regiment might be given rifles. I was able to meet the request, and in a very short time all the other officers commanding cavalry regiments followed this officer's example and begged that their men should be given rifles too. Consequently rifles were given to them. I cannot understand how, if the cavalry found the carbine useless when on service, anyone can possibly propose that they should be armed with it now.
  Before the war began a Committee was sitting to see whether the existing rifle could not be made a little handier for general purposes by being made lighter and a little shorter. That Committee did not conclude its proceedings until the war was over, but when I came back to England I remembered that the cavalry had all begged they might have the rifle. It seemed that if this proposal, which had been made before the war began, that the rifle should be shortened could be carried out, it would be as well to have a rifle which would do for infantry and cavalry alike. That was the origin of the shorter rifle. It is as effective in every respect as the long one; it has the advantage of being 5-in. shorter and a pound lighter; and for cavalry purposes, therefore, it is more convenient. As to the question of how the rifle should be carried, the carbine has now a sling attached to it, so that it can be worn across a man's shoulders when on service. It is, of course, only on service that it is necessary that it should be thus carried, but, as the noble Lord has said, it is then essential.
  In Afghanistan on one occasion I had about two squadrons of the 9th Lancers numbering about 195 men, and on 11th December, 1879, when we were fighting beyond Kabul, the 9th Lancers were a great deal engaged, and lost a great many horses and a fair number of men. But what surprised me was to find that they had lost more than forty carbines. On inquiry I found that this was due to the fact that the carbine was carried in the bucket, and that when the horse was shot and fell over the weapon was lost. I saw many of the men on foot in this pre-
  616
  dicament, their sword was dangling between their legs, their lance was in their hands, and they were trying to recover the carbine from the horse. I immediately gave orders that the swords should be attached to the saddle, and that the carbine should be carried on the trooper's back. That did not find favour for many years in this country, and has not up to the present moment; but I believe that it is now to be settled that the carbine shall be carried in the bucket in peace time and in a sling across the back in war time. The proper place for the sword is, no doubt, on the saddle. I would observe, however, that, if the Yeomanry are given the sword, it is essential that they should learn how to use it. I remember hearing a story in the war of some Yeomanry who were chasing a Boer. They overtook him, and the Boer fell down, and they began to slash at him with their swords. Not very much damage was done, and one officer said, "Shoot the poor devil." Then the Boer, who said nothing so long as they merely hacked at him with their swords, called out, "Don't shoot me, Sir." When they proposed to shoot him he begged for his life. Therefore, if the Yeomanry are given swords they should know how to use them, and unless they have sufficient time to learn their use it would be no good giving them swords. I only made these observations in order to tell your Lordships why the cavalry are now given the rifle and why it is difficult to give the sword to men unless they learn how to use it.

  THE CHINESE IN THE TRANSVAAL.
  LORD COLERIDGE: My Lords, I desire to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Chinese labourers of those hitherto imported into-South Africa under the Chinese Labour Importation Ordinance can demand the importation of wife or children, under Clause 33 of the Regulations, and the numbers of such wives and children respectively. I would only remind the noble Duke that it was a week ago that he promised me this information. He said he would telegraph to Hong-kong to obtain it. I refrain from making any observations until I have heard the answer of my noble friend.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Duke of MARLBOROUGH): MyLords, I do not think I need detain your Lordships more than a minute or two in replying to the Question of the noble and learned Lord. As the noble and learned Lord has reminded us, on 28th June he asked me to find out from Hong-kong the number of Chinese labourers who had registered their wives and families. In pursuance of my promise to the noble and learned Lord a telegram was sent off on the 29th ultimo to the Acting Governor of Hong-kong, and the reply we have received from him is to this effect, that out of the first batch of Chinese who went over to South Africa on the "Tweeddale," which I think had on board nearly 1,000, 308 had registered their names as being anxious to have their wives and families sent out to them; that is to say, over a third of the total number in the first ship registered their names and will be able to have their wives and families sent over to them at some future date. I think, in view of this fact, that the doubts and misgivings which I detected in the mind of the noble and learned Lord on the last occasion the subject was mentioned must be entirely removed.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes past Five o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock.