Lords Sitting of 1 April 1909

GRANTHAM WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with amendments.
DUDLEY CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with amendments.
WANDSWORTH BOROUGH COUNCIL (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
ALLIANCE AND DUBLIN CONSUMERS GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  LONDON UNITED TRAMWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
  Read 2a (according to order), and committed: The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
LISKEARD AND LOOE AND LISKEARD AND CARADON RAILWAYS (VESTING, &c.) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a: Amendments made: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
EASTBOURNE GAS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
TORRENS' DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Minutes of evidence and proceedings before this House on the Second Reading, together with the documents deposited in the case, returned from the Commons.

THE NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY.
LORD NEWTONMy Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government why the National Portrait Gallery still remains closed on Sundays during five months in the year. In connection with this Question I may explain that last year, in consequence of paying a visit to the National Gallery on a Sunday during the month of March and finding that institution closed,
582
I drew attention to the matter in your Lordships' House, and although I did not succeed in extracting anything very definite from the Government, the proposal to open on Sundays throughout the year was received very favourably by the trustees. They consented to try the experiment, and I am happy to think that it has been a complete success in every way. The average Sunday attendances at the National Gallery and the Tate Gallery during the winter months has been 1,478, and as these galleries are open for only about two hours that represents a considerable number of visitors. On making inquiry I find that the directors, the trustees, and everybody concerned are strongly in favour of the change and anticipate that when the fact is generally known that these galleries are open throughout the year the attendance will continue to increase. I should also like to state that this operation has been carried out at an extremely trifling cost. The cost has been only £84 in the case of the National Gallery and £42 in the case of the Tate Gallery.
In view of the success which has attended this experiment I was rather surprised the other day upon going to the National Portrait Gallery to find that institution closed on a Sunday. As will be gathered from the terms of my Notice, this institution is closed on Sundays during five months of the year. I have communicated privately with the directors and find they are just as much in favour of opening all the year round as the directors and trustees of the other institutions, but they have been prevented from doing so by want of money. It is perfectly obvious that the amount of money required to open all the year round in the case of the National Portrait Gallery is ridiculously small; indeed, I should think it could be done for £30 a year. The sum involved is so small that I almost feel ashamed of myself for bringing the matter before the House at all. But the absurdity of all this business is that apparently you cannot effect these changes without calling the attention of Parliament to the matter in some form or other.
For years past thousands of people have been going to these galleries on Sundays under the impression that they were open, and have been turned away. It so happened accidentally that I went on a

583
Sunday myself, and being able to draw the attention of Parliament to it the matter was considered and the result has been that some of these institutions, at all events, are open all the year round. Whether or not it is a desirable thing that the question of the opening of a public institution should be settled in a haphazard manner of this kind does not much signify; but I think the noble Lord who represents the Treasury in this House will agree with me that there ought not to be much difficulty in obtaining the small sum I have mentioned in order to secure the permanent opening of the National Portrait Gallery. In view of the indisputable success which has attended the experiment of the Sunday opening of the London museums and galleries, I trust we shall receive a satisfactory assurance that it will be carried out in the case of the National Portrait Gallery.
THE EARL OF CARLISLEMy Lords, before the noble Lord replies for His Majesty's Government, I should like to confirm what Lord Newton has said as to the success which has attended the experiment of Sunday opening all the year round in the case of the National Gallery and the Tate Gallery. At present the fact of the opening of these galleries all the year round is not generally known, and we feel that when it becomes universally known still further advantage will be taken of it. But even as it is there have been 32,500 visitors during twenty-two Sundays to the National Gallery and the Tate Gallery. That, I think, proves that it has been well worth while to spend the small sum which this has cost, and it has been done with practically no hardship or inconvenience to any of the persons employed at those institutions. I hope, therefore, the example will be followed in the case of the National Portrait Gallery.
LORD DENMANMy Lords, it is with considerable diffidence that I rise to answer this Question, because I find myself in what is to me the entirely novel situation of being able to give a reply which will be satisfactory not only to the noble Lord opposite but also to the noble Earl on the Cross Benches. I have to state, on behalf of the Treasury, that provision has been made in the Estimates for the present financial year, beginning to-day, for opening the National Portrait Gallery on Sundays during the winter months.

WALWYN'S FREE SCHOOL.
THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDrose to move that an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying him to withhold his consent to the scheme settled by the Board of Education in the matter of the foundation known as Walwyn's Free School, in the parish of Colwall, in the county of Hereford, on the grounds set out in the petition of inhabitant ratepayers of the said parish, presented in pursuance of statutory enactment in that behalf to the said Board objecting to the said scheme, and praying that the same might be laid before Parliament.
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I have placed this Motion on the Paper on behalf of the parishioners of Colwall, an important parish in my diocese on the western slopes of the Malvern Hills, and a parish which, I am told, is likely in the not remote future to become something like a rival to Malvern. The inhabitants of this parish arc of opinion—I think rightly—that if they had an adequate scheme for what is known as the Walwyn Free School Trust it would be of great service to the parish and neighbourhood. The objection which the parishioners take to the scheme before your Lordships is that the Board of Education have not adequately, in this scheme, safeguarded the interests of the parishioners or given sufficient attention to the purpose for which this trust exists. The parishioners feel also that the Grocers' Company in London, who have hitherto been trustees of this endowment, are being allowed to commute their obligations—which are, as I think I shall be able to show your Lordships, long-standing and Serious obligations—for a very trifling sum of money.
The case is, very briefly, this. Mr. Humphry Walwyn was a native of Colwall and a member of the Grocers' Company, and in the year 1612 he ordered that a school should be erected in his native parish for the benefit of the poor inhabitants of that parish and of Little Malvern in the neighbourhood; and, in connection with this, he left a sum of £600 to his executors to be handed over to the Grocers' Company for the benefit of this school. This sum the Grocers' Company were to undertake to invest in good buildings in the City of London, and they showed no unwillingness to take up this trust. They had some little difficulty in obtaining the £600 from

585
the executors, and they actually, so I am informed, instituted proceedings against the executors before they secured the money. I mention this to show that the Grocers' Company were perfectly willing to undertake the trust, with all its obligations; and the £600 was paid over with the very distinct obligation that with the money the Grocers' Company were to purchase house property in the City of London.
According to the records, they actually took some preliminary steps with regard to purchase, but eventually, instead of purchasing property in the city, they placed the £600 as a charge on some property of their own, and thenceforth they allowed £40 a year to this school in Colwall, £10 of which was absorbed by members who paid visits with a view to ensuring proper administration. Therefore, as a matter of fact, instead of fulfilling their trust the Grocers' Company simply placed the money as a charge on their own property and paid to the school something like £30 a year. This seems to have gone on uninterruptedly till within the last thirty or forty years. We have it on the evidence of the clerk to the Grocers' Company, given before a Commission held in Colwall, that during this period of thirty or forty years the Grocers' Company have spent upon this school, which includes an elementary school, no less a sum than £260 or £270 a year; and naturally the inhabitants of Colwall are of opinion that when a new scheme is promulgated the trust ought at least to benefit by a sum equivalent to that which the Grocers' Company have been spending hitherto. It is assumed, and I presume with a fair amount of justice, that the Grocers' Company have not been doing this out of pure benevolence, but because they recognise some obligation; and if there ever was an obligation to do it it surely took its rise in the original neglect to fulfil the fundamental conditions of the trust by purchasing, as they were instructed to do, house property in the City of London. I do not know what that property might have been worth to-day if the trust had been properly fulfilled, but the opinion is held in Colwall and the neighbourhood that it would have been of great value by this time.
This brings me to the new scheme. The new scheme allows the Grocers' Company
586
to commute their obligations for the trifling payment of £2,000 down. It has also one or two other objectionable provisions. The scheme, as drawn by the Board of Education, seems to me a very reasonable one, except as regards the most important part of all, the financial part. The parishioners object to the scheme and hope that your Lordships will agree to my Motion on three particular grounds. First of all, the parishioners have been advised apparently that the endowment comes under the Elementary Education Act as a purely elementary endowment. In that I venture to think they have not been well advised. I find that in his will the founder of this trust expressed the desire that while it was to be a free school for the poor the better portion of the parishioners, meaning, apparently, those who were better off, might be charged fees, but should not be charged more than ten shillings a year. He further required that the master should be a learned person, which has generally been determined hitherto, I believe, in that particular instance, to be a clergyman of the Church of England, and that he should preach a certain number of sermons in the year. I venture to think that those conditions in the original document carry with them the conclusion that the school was not intended to be solely what we now call an elementary school. I do not suppose that the different types of education would be differentiated in those days as we now differentiate them, and my belief is that it was intended to be a school more of the general grammar school type. Therefore I do not press the first objection, though I may be wrong and the parishioners right.
I now come to the two other objections to the scheme. One is to Section 13, which provides that all the tenant's fixtures on the premises being the property of the present headmaster of the school, who will necessarily retire if this scheme takes effect, shall be taken over from him by the governors at a valuation. The parishioners ask why should not the ordinary law governing tenant's fixtures take effect in such a case as this. Why should this tenant be specially protected by a clause in the scheme? What has he done, they ask, to earn this very special protection? The present headmaster has occupied this sinecure office for over thirty years. The Grocers' Company have spent a certain amount of money year by year on the

587
elementary school, and, I imagine, have spent something year by year on the repair of the premises which the headmaster has occupied. But this headmaster has himself done nothing in the elementary school, so I learn from the parish council. The elementary school has been conducted by the elementary schoolmaster, who has been paid an annual salary, partly, if not entirely, by the Grocers' Company.
What has this headmaster who is to be compensated under Section 13 for his fixtures been doing? He has been living the whole time as a privileged person on those premises, with three or four acres of land, and conducting a successful private boarding school preparatory for such schools as Winchester. I cannot gather that it has occurred to him as part of his duty that he should do anything for the education of Colwall children. I asked the question whether any of the cleverest children in the elementary school had been taken into this gentleman's private school, and the answer I received from the chairman of the parish council was that he could not remember during all those years a single case of that having been done. I am attributing no blame, but simply endeavouring to place before your Lordships the plain facts. This gentleman has been doing nothing for the parish of Colwall or for the trust under which he is established there. The object of this section, apparently, is that when this gentleman moves out the governors, out of the moneys of the trust, shall be compelled to pay him at a valuation for any fixtures he may leave. The parishioners think that is unreasonable, and I am bound to say I entirely agree with them. I think it is a hardship on this parish that this small sum should be depleted by possibly a rather heavy payment for these not very valuable fixtures, which, it should be borne in mind, were put up entirely for his own private purposes and for his own private profit. So much for that section.
There is another and more important provision to which exception is taken—the Schedule which allows the Grocers' Company to slip out of all their obligations on the payment of a sum of £2,000. Now, what are those obligations? I suppose a company never dies, and that its legal responsibilities go on from generation to generation. Then let us go back for a moment to the origin of this
588
foundation. The Grocers' Company took over the £600 from the testator knowing full well his benevolent desire, but, instead of fulfilling the fundamental condition by investing it in house property in the City of London, they made it a charge on some property of their own and paid, until thirty or forty years ago, the paltry sum of £30 a year. First there is their failure to fulfil the fundamental condition of the trust. The second part of their obligation, I hold, arises out of what they have been confessedly doing for the school for the last thirty or forty years, during which time they have been spending between £260 and £270 a year; and we feel that unless some explanation can be given, the Board of Education have not sufficiently safeguarded the interests of the trust and the parish. A capital sum of £2,000, I suppose, represents £60 a year, so that the Grocers' Company will now get off with a payment of £60 a year instead of the £260 or £270 which they have been spending during the last thirty or forty years of their own free motion and without the slightest pressure from any quarter. I repeat that I do not think that sum has been spent out of pure benevolence, but because they considered they had an obligation to spend it. Therefore we venture to ask that some further consideration should be given to this matter before it is finally decided in this, as we think, very inequitable way.
We appeal to your Lordships, if you are satisfied with my very inadequate description of the case, to ask for a suspension of judgment and for further inquiry, and we appeal to the Board of Education not to be too ready to acquiesce in the claim of the Grocers' Company to retire on these very easy teams, and certainly not to insert such a clause as I have referred to with regard to fixtures. I should also like, if I had the opportunity, to appeal to the Grocers' Company, who, like other great City companies, act, as a rule, very generously in educational matters. I think they would be very sorry to have it generally felt that they had acted shabbily in this particular case; yet, if this scheme goes through as it stands at present, I do not think I am using too strong language when I say that it would be a shabby proceeding. In their zeal for education the Grocers' Company have displayed much generosity in other parts of the country; and I feel sure that it would

589
be a great satisfaction to them in time to come if they could see a really flourishing educational endowment in the important parish of Colwall as a result of action on their part and as some amends for what I cannot but think was very strange neglect on the part of their forefathers. We make this appeal very earnestly. It may seem a small matter to your Lordships, but I can assure you that to people living in a country parish like Colwall, with humble prospects and hopes, it is no small matter, but one of very real importance. Therefore we beg your favourable consideration to this Motion.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying him to withhold his consent to the scheme settled by the Board of Education in the matter of the foundation known as Walwyn's Free School, in the parish of Colwall, in the county of Hereford, on the grounds set out in the petition of inhabitant ratepayers of the said parish, presented in pursuance of statutory enactment in that behalf to the said Board objecting to the said scheme, and praying that the same might be laid before Parliament.—(The Lord Bishop of Hereford.)
THE LORD STEWARD (EARL BEAUCHAMP)My Lords, the right reverend Prelate has dealt with two matters of a very different character. In the first place, there is the question as to whether the £2,000 is a sufficient amount, and, in the second place, there is the question of the actual scheme which has been framed by the Board of Education. Technically speaking, the point in regard to the £2,000 is not really before the House. It has been already dealt with as an ordinary matter of administration by the Board of Education in the Order which they made on September 11th last year, and the scheme dealing with the establishment of the new school is really the only matter comprised in the Paper to which the right reverend Prelate has called your Lordships' attention. But the right reverend Prelate has said so much on the subject of the position of the Grocers' Company in this matter that it is only right I should explain the reasons which led the Board of Education to agree to this compromise.
The matter was first taken in hand by the Board in the year 1904. The company, who took the best advice they could get, were then told that their legal liability at the most was to provide a sum of £600.
590
I think your Lordships will agree that, supposing that to be the case or even likely to be the case, it would have been a foolish step on the part of the Board of Education to enter into a course of litigation which might have swallowed up the larger part of that £600. That was often done many years ago, with the result that a comparatively large amount of the moneys originally left disappeared in legal expenses. The Board of Education were anxious that that should not take place in this case, and as they found a disposition on the part of the Grocers' Company to go beyond what they had been told was their legal obligation they came to this reasonable compromise and agreed to the payment of £2,000; and this compromise is embodied in the Order to which I have already referred. Supposing this £600 had been strictly dealt with from the moment it was left by Walwyn. It must not be forgotten that the great Fire of London had a very adverse effect on the value of property in the City, and an especially bad effect on the affairs of the Grocers' Company, who were, I believe, obliged to appeal to Parliament for assistance. Certainly a Commission was held, and a release given to the company from obligations which at that moment were overpowering and too burdensome for them. So much for the question of the £2,000.
Three actual grounds of complaint have been urged on behalf of the Colwall Parish Council. With one of these—the inadequacy of the sum of £2,000—I have already dealt. The second ground of complaint was that, in their opinion, the money should go to the expenses of elementary education. The right reverend Prelate himself expressed his disagreement with the parish council on that point, and therefore it is perhaps unnecessary for me to deal with it. The last remaining ground of complaint has reference to the fixtures and the special compensation to be given to Mr. Black, the headmaster. As the right reverend Prelate told your Lordships, Mr. Black has for a great many years resided in Colwall, and it is not unreasonable in those circumstances that, on the conclusion of this arrangement between him and the Grocers' Company, he should receive some compensation. I will read the words of the section, which seem to me to be not unreasonable—
"Provided that in the case of such sale or letting all tenant's fixtures on the premises being the

591
property of the Rev. Charles Black, M.A., the present headmaster of the Free School, not previously removed by him, shall be taken over from him by the governors at a valuation in such manner as may, in case of dispute, be determined by the Board of Education."
The position of Mr. Black has, perhaps, been an anomalous one, but that is not unusual when the amount of money is so small. I think your Lordships will agree that the provision I have read is not an excessive one to insert in a scheme of this kind. In these circumstances, much as the Board of Education regret that they are unable to meet the wishes of the right reverend Prelate, they ask your Lordships to resist this Motion and to allow the scheme to go through.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYMy Lords, I had no intention of addressing your Lordships on this question, but as I was Minister for Education very shortly previous to the year 1906 I think it only right that I should say a few words in support of the view put forward by the noble Earl the Lord Steward. I have not had an opportunity of refreshing my memory as to what occurred shortly before the late Government left office, but I remember that the dispute between the trustees of this foundation and the Grocers' Company had been going on for a great number of years. In order to conclude this long-standing dispute the Board of Education stepped in, and the sum of £2,000 was agreed upon. That was carried out by my successor at the Board of Education, but I have no doubt that had His Majesty's late Government continued in office, I should have recommended the adoption of the same course. Then we come to the question as to how the £2,000 was to be spent. I gather from the observations of the right reverend Prelate that it was desired that the money should be devoted to the establishment of a secondary school. I think £2,000 for the establishment of a secondary school would be of no use whatever.
THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDNo objection was made to the rest of the scheme, which is for exhibitions, I think.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYIn my opinion the Government have pursued a wise course in giving scholarships in the schools of the two capital towns of Hereford and Gloucester; and the applica-
592
tion of £600, part of the sum of £2,000, to the purpose of improving the elementary school of the foundation, is putting the money to a practical use. In these circumstances, I venture to endorse most cordially what has fallen from the noble Earl.
THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDMay I be permitted to put a question to the noble Earl who spoke on behalf of the Board of Education, and who said that, so far as the Grocers' Company are concerned, this is a settled question and the House has no power to intervene with regard to the amount to be paid? If I rightly understood the noble Earl to say that, I should like to ask by what authority and on what ground the Company were allowed in that manner to slip out of their obligations.
EARL BEAUCHAMPI am quite out of order in answering the right reverend Prelate, but I would point out that these powers are conferred on the Board of Education by Act of Parliament. They are well known and are not unusual; indeed, the Board act upon these powers very frequently, if not hundreds of times, every year.
On Question, Motion negatived.

CATTLE-DRIVING.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREMy Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government—(l) Whether they will now consent to present to Parliament the Return with reference to proceedings in cases of cattle-driving which was moved for on 18th March last; and (2) whether they will lay before Parliament the evidence upon which they rely as showing the causes of and motives underlying cattle-driving referred to by the Lord Privy Seal on 18th March last.
LORD DENMANMy Lords, I am informed that it would be possible to give a Return by counties showing (1) the name of the county; (2) the number of cattle drives; (3) the number of persons convicted or bound over; and, with regard to occupations, column (4) would show who were farmers, (5) who were farmers' sons, (6) who were labourers, and (7) other occupations. But, as I think was said in a previous debate, a difficulty at once arises when it is attempted to ascertain the exact value of the holdings of the several offenders

593
in particular cases. I am informed by the police that they have no information which would lead them to accept the view held by the noble Earl that cattle-driving is carried on, not by poor men, but by well-to-do farmers desiring to add to the extent of their already considerable farms. On the contrary, the police believe that the vast majority of those concerned are poor farmers, men who have small and uneconomic holdings and wish to have larger holdings. There is one other piece of information afforded by the police which may be of interest to the noble Earl. Of 167 persons who have been bound to the peace, a rough analysis made by the constabulary shows that 108 were farmers, thirty were farmers sons, eleven were labourers, herds, &c., nine were artisans, four were shopkeepers two were journalists, and the three remaining were described as of miscellaneous occupations. I think it is obvious that the police, with the possible exception of the cattle-drivers themselves, are better able to give an opinion on this point than anybody else; and it does seem to me that we should be content to abide by the opinion they give on the question.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREIt is difficult to realise whether or not a Return in the form promised will be of any use. I will be glad to see it, however, and I thank the noble Lord for granting it. But I hope he will not have a grievance if we are subsequently discontented with what we have got. We recognise, of course, that the evidence of the police is valuable, but we must be forgiven if we think that the evidence of the people living in the districts is valuable, too, and ought not to be neglected.

THE CASE OF LIEUTENANT-COLONEL PATTERSON.
LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTHrose to call attention to the case of Lieut.-Col. Patterson, D.S.O., late Game Warden in British East Africa, and to inquire as to the circumstances under which he had ceased to hold that position in the Colony.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in calling attention to the matter which is the subject of my Notice I do not propose to trouble your Lordships with a long statement, especially as I understand that the matter will be fully dealt with by the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies
594
in his reply. But perhaps I may be permitted to give a brief outline of the facts as I understand them. About the year 1907, Colonel Patterson, who is an old friend of mine and served with distinction in South Africa, being mentioned in despatches by both Lord Roberts and Lord Kitchener, the latter forwarding a special despatch with regard to a gallant action in which Colonel Patterson was concerned, was appointed by the then Secretary of State for the Colonies, Lord Elgin, as Game Warden in British East Africa, to succeed another gentleman who previously held that office.
In the course of 1907 he proceeded to his post to take up his duties, which included the delimitation of the northern game reserve and the survey of a certain part of the frontier. These duties necessitated a long, and, perhaps, somewhat perilous journey into the interior of the country, which, as your Lordships know, is to a great extent uncivilised. He went on his mission with what is called a safari, or escort of natives. He was accompanied also by some English friends, to whom permits were given by the Lieutenant-Governor. One of these friends unfortunately was taken ill on the journey, and instead of getting better, as everybody hoped, he got worse and died at Lersamis, about 35 miles from their destination. I believe it was a matter of comment afterwards that Colonel Patterson did not return at once with the rest of his party after this tragic event, but a very grave complication had occurred. Within an hour or two, as I understand, of this unfortunate death a serious mutiny arose among the native escort. They refused to proceed, although they were so near their journey's end. The circumstances were extremely critical, and in a position so far from civilisation it was almost literally a matter of life or death to Colonel Patterson and his party that he should assert his authority and insist up on proceeding. It will be easy for those of your Lordships who have travelled in uncivilised countries and met with serious difficulties of this sort to recognise the force of that. Had Colonel Patterson given way the probabilities are that the whole party would have run a very serious risk of being massacred. As will be seen, this did not make much difference in point of time because the journey was very nearly at an end. As soon as possible, however, the journey

595
was completed and the expedition returned.
On reaching Nairobi, on his return at the beginning of May, Colonel Patterson took the earliest opportunity of laying the matter before the Governor, and an inquiry was held at which he and others gave every detail relating to the unfortunate tragedy, and the whole matter was satisfactorily explained. Within a few days of this inquiry Colonel Patterson, who was now himself seriously ill having undergone many hardships in his journey, was seen by a medical board and ordered by them to leave the country on the ground of his health. He forthwith sailed for England, because it was supposed to be rather a matter of urgency for him that he should not lose time in leaving, and, through no fault of his own, he had to leave some of his papers in a somewhat unsettled state. After Colonel Patterson had left East Africa certain rumours appear to have been circulated concerning his general administration, some of them, perhaps, attributable to idle gossip, while others were of a more malevolent character. They related to the expedition which I have briefly referred to, and to other things, such as the killing of game, and so forth. It was alleged that he had exceeded his powers in killing game. I might mention that Colonel Patterson is a distinguished game hunter and in every way an eminent sportsman, and I think that fact should go far in refuting a charge of that kind. It must also be remembered that several of the natives were prejudiced against him because he had had to assert his authority very strongly, and perhaps had been obliged in self-defence to punish them.
As your Lordships know, gossip and rumour flourish apace in uncivilised countries where there are few people about to know the truth. Be that as it may, these rumours grew to such a pitch that Colonel Patterson, who, I may mention, seemed to hear of these rumours against his former administration perhaps later than his friends, felt obliged to take steps to vindicate himself. He appealed to the Colonial Office, where he was given a very courteous hearing; and the Colonial Office, as no doubt the noble Earl the Secretary of State in his reply will show, entered very fully into his case, and were, I think, inclined to take a favourable view of the circumstances. It is in order to follow up
596
this procedure that I have ventured to bring this matter before your Lordships.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF CREWE)My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for having raised this question in your Lordships' House, because the matter is one which has given some anxiety to me as being responsible for the administration of the Colonial Office. The question of the conduct of a public servant can, of course, never be a light one, and in this particular case the circumstances are so singular that it caused us at the Colonial Office no small degree of anxiety. As the noble Lord has said, Colonel Patterson has a distinguished record of service in South Africa and elsewhere. He has been mentioned in despatches more than once, and has obtained the Distinguished Service Order. He is also, I dare say, known to some of your Lordships through the account which he wrote of the extraordinary man-eating lions at Tsavo at the time of the making of the Uganda Railway, when the operations on that line were positively stopped by reason of the terror which those animals caused until they were finally disposed of by Colonel Patterson.
My predecessor, Lord Elgin, appointed Colonel Patterson to the post of Game Warden—that is, superintendent of game reserves in British East Africa. Last summer Colonel Patterson returned invalided from his post, and since that time rumours of a damaging and even of a sinister character have been prevalent regarding him, not merely in East Africa, but, as I have been told, they have reached England. As Lord Zouche said, in countries like East Africa rumours grow easily. You have among the native population what our fellow countrymen in India speak of as bazaar rumours; and in a small white community there is naturally an eager interest in all that concerns each member of that community, especially any one who holds an official position; and there is also, as is usual in new countries, a somewhat irresponsible Press.
The rumours to which I have alluded arose to a certain extent out of the unfortunate death of Mr. Blyth, the son of a respected member of your Lordships' House, who, I think, is not now in England. Colonel

597
Patterson was going on duty with a safari of porters to the northern game reserve, and he was permitted by his superior officer to take with him Mr. Blyth and his safari also. As Lord Zouche has stated, Mr. Blyth died in the course of the expedition, died by a revolver shot wound, undoubtedly inflicted by himself, either by accident or in a fit of delirium consequent upon a severe attack of fever from which he suffered throughout the journey. It was a very painful, calamitous story, and all who were acquainted with it have felt warm sympathy for Lord Blyth and his family. Rumours concerning Colonel Patterson arose, in some cases absolutely taking the form that he was responsible for Mr. Blyth's death, owing to some disputes which were supposed to have taken place. At any rate he was accused of having shown distinct inhumanity at the time.
Well, my Lords, I have examined all the documents relating to the case and I can assure your Lordships that for these reports there is no foundation whatever. There was no tinge of evidence—quite the contrary indeed—to connect Colonel Patterson in any way with Mr. Blyth's death, a charge which some, I believe, have not scrupled to make, and there was no reason to believe there was any truth in the accusations of inhumanity; but, on the contrary, Colonel Patterson throughout treated Mr. Blyth with nothing but kindness and humanity during the journey. Colonel Patterson's expedition was undertaken, as the noble Lord has said, under orders from the Government, and he carried out the delimitation of the eastern boundary of the northern reserve, though there was, I think, some misunderstanding on one side or the other as to the precise nature of the duty he was intended to perform. Yet he drew out the boundary and brought back maps of the district, and there is no definite charge of dereliction of duty to bring against him on this side of the question.
Then, as Lord Zouche has said, there were reports circulated that Colonel Patterson had been guilty of some falsification of his accounts, and there again I was happy to be able to satisfy myself that there was no ground whatever for the rumour. Colonel Patterson did not keep his accounts in the best form, and I am not quite sure indeed that he was supplied with the means of doing so, and so far as any confusion
598
existed in them I was willing to ascribe it to the bad state of his health when the accounts had to be made up. As regards the charge of shooting game in the reserve, I have accepted Colonel Patterson's explanation of that charge brought against him, and have directed that the trophies, the heads and skins of animals left in East Africa, should be sent to him in England.
In fact, speaking generally, the best proof I can give to the House that I did not consider Colonel Patterson unworthy of continuing in His Majesty's service is that I sanctioned his return to East Africa. But his health, I am afraid, is broken down to a very great extent; this has prevented his return to East Africa, and he has in consequence ceased to hold the position of Game Warden there. I am glad to have been able to make this categorical and authoritative statement of the facts of the case, because it is one which, as the House will see from those facts, is of no small importance to the man concerned.
LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTHMy Lords, I should like to express my thanks to the noble Earl for what he has said and for the manner in which he has vindicated the character of an old friend. I should like also to say how much I feel indebted to the noble Earl for the courtesy shown to me at the Colonial Office.

STANDING ORDERS RELATING TO STANDING COMMITTEES.
The Lords following were named of the Select Committee:

L. Chancellor.

L. Privy Seal (E. Crewe).

M. Lansdowne.

L. Steward (E. Beauchamp).

E. Waldegrave.

E. Onslow.

E. Camperdown.

E. Halsbury.

V. Cross.

V. Knutsford.

L. Barnard.

L. Balfour.

L. Denman.

The Committee to appoint their own Chairman.

ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
THE EARL OF CREWEMy Lords, it is desirable that the Army (Annual) Bill should be read a first time before the Easter recess, that it may be printed, circulated to your Lordships, and dealt with immediately after the House reassembles on April 20. I therefore move that the House do adjourn until Wednesday next.
600
Moved, That the House do adjourn until Wednesday next, except for judicial business.—(The Earl of Crewe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.