Sitting of 29 June 1900

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS [Lords] (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the first Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—
  Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time upon Monday next.

HOYLAKE AND WEST KIRBY IMPROVEMENT BILL.
  WAKEFIELD CORPORATION MARKET BILL.
  Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
BRAY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Read the third time, and passed.
NEATH HARBOUR BILL [Lords].
Queen's consent signified; read the third time, and passed, without amendment.
TAFF VALE RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
Read the third time, and passed, without amendment.

BRAY AND ENNISKERRY RAILWAY BILL.
As amended, considered.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(Mr. Caldwell.)
Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
As amended, considered.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(Mr. Caldwell.)
Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

TOTTENHAM URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
As amended, considered.
Ordered, that Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(Mr. Caldwell.)
Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

WIRRAL RAILWAY BILL. [Lords].
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
MARGATE CORPORATION BILL [Lords]. (BY ORDER.)
Read a second time, and committed.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL.
Read the third time, and passed.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read, the third time upon Monday next.

PERTH AND PAISLEY GAS PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
Reported, without amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
Reported, without amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 13) BILL.
Reported, without amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 15) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) (No. 2) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (BRIGHTON AND PRESTON UNITED DISTRICT, ETC.) BILL [Lords].
Reported, without amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next.

NEW CASTLE-UPON-TYNE ELECTRIC SUPPLY BILL.
  BURNLEY CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
    GREAT SOUTHERN AND WESTERN RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
    Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
GREAT INDIAN PENINSULA RAILWAY COMPANY BILL.
The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, in pursuance of Standing Order 83 relating to Private Bills, informed the House that in his opinion the Great Indian Peninsula Railway Company Bill, though unopposed, ought to be treated as an opposed Private Bill.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill, changed to Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 2) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill; Hamilton Burgh Bill, with Amendments.
That they have agreed to Amendments to—Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Bill [Lords]; Paignton Urban District Water Bill [Lords], without amendment.
That they have agreed to—Mountain Ash Water Bill [Lords], with Amendments.
That they have passed a Bill intituled, "An Act to confer further powers on the Caledonian Railway Company in relation to their undertaking, to authorise the Lochearnhead St. Fillans and Comrie Railway Company to construct certain works in connection with their railway, to extend the periods for the purchase of lands for or for the completion of works by the before-mentioned companies and the Callander and Oban Railway Company; and for other purposes." Caledonian Railway Bill [Lords].
Also a Bill intituled, "An Act to reduce the capital and extend the powers of the London and San Francisco Bank, Limited; and for other purposes." London and San Francisco Bank Bill [Lords].
And also a Bill intituled, "An Act for reorganising the capital of the G. H. Hammond Company, Limited, and enabling that company to redeem and convert its debentures and income stock." Hammond (G. H.) Company Bill [Lords].

CALEDONIAN RAILWAY BILL [Lords]
  LONDON AND SAN FRANCISCO BANK BILL [Lords].
    HAMMOND (G. H.) COMPANY BILL [Lords].
    Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
PETITIONS.

  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Dunbar, against; to lie upon the Table.
  Petition of the General Assembly of; the Church of Scotland, in favour; to lie upon the Table.

LAND VALUES TAXATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Petition from Glasgow, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
LUNACY BILL.
Petition from Tadcaster, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
Petitions in favour, from Whaplode St. Catherine's; Ringwood; Romsey; Gringley; Beckingham; and Walkeringham; to lie upon the Table.

SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (No. 2) BILL.
Petition from Retford, against; to lie upon the Table.
Petitions in favour, from Chellaston; Weardale; Golborne (two); Lowton: Worksop; Whaplode St. Catherine's: Otley; Caxton; Blean; Wheatley; Beckingham; Fochriw; Ealing; Hamilton; St. Neots; Lymington (two); Romsey (two); Gringley; Ringwood; Daventry; Walkeringham; Liverpool; Ellsworth; Tiflield; Wigan; Malton; Graster; Tad-caster; Frome; and Dunnington; to lie upon the Table.

SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (No. 2) BILL AND SUNDAY CLOSING (MONMOUTHSHIRE) BILL.
Petition from Birmingham, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Petitions in favour, from West Calder; Glenbucket; and Torthorwald; to lie upon the Table.
SUNDAY CLOSING (MONMOUTHSHIRE) BILL.
Petitions in favour, from Lowton; Grolborne (two); Wimborne; Whaplode St. Catherine's; Thrupp; Sturton; Kingston - upon - Hull; Daventry: Blis-worth; Eccleshill (two); Gelligaer; Ealing; Hamilton; Ringwood: Tiffield; Wigan (two); Brynmawr; Romsey; Motherwell: Dunnington: Clifton; Craster; Leeds; and Stockport: to lie upon the Table.
SUNDAY CLOSING (WALES) ACT (1881) AMENDMENT BILL.
Petition from Gelligaer, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURN, REPORTS, ETC.
  FINANCE ACCOUNTS.
  Copy presented, of Finance Accounts of the United Kingdom for the year ended 31st March, 1900 [by Act]: to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 241.]

LIGHT RAIL WAYS ACT. 1896
Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of a Light Railway in the county of Sussex from Bexhill to St. Leonard's (Bexhill and St. Leonards Light Railway Order, 1900) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of a Light Railway in the county of Gloucester (Cheltenham and District Light. Railway (Extension) Order, 1900) [by Command]: to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of a Light Railway in the county of East Sussex, from Roberts-bridge to Pevensey (Robertsbridge and Pevensey Light Railway Order, 1900) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and

63
modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of a Light Railway in the county of Gloucester, from Cheltenham to Cleeve Hill (Cheltenham and District Light Railway Order, 1900) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

WOODS, FORESTS, AND LAND REVENUES.
Copy presented, of Seventy-eighth Report of the Commissioners, dated 29th June, 1900 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 242.]
ISLE OF MAN.
Account presented, of Revenue and Expenditure for the year ended 31st March, 1900, with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 243.]
PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
Medway Conservancy—Copy of Statement of Receipts and Expenditure of the Conservators for the year ending 25th March, 1900 [by Act].
EAST INDIA (INOCULATION AGAINST CHOLERA AND TYPHOID).
Address for "Return of Correspondence relating to preventive inoculation against Cholera and Typhoid in India."—(Sir Charles Cameron.)
PROSECUTION OF OFFENCES ACTS, 1879 and 1884.
Address for "Return showing the working of the Regulations made in 1886 for carrying out the Prosecution of Offences Acts, 1879 and 1884, with Statistics setting forth the number, nature, cost, and results of the Proceedings instituted by the Director in accordance with those Regulations from the 1st day of January, 1899, to the 31st day of December, 1899 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 238, of Session 1899)."—(Mr. Jesse Collings.)
QUESTIONS.

  CHINA—ANTI-FOREIGN OUTBREAK— RECENT OPERATIONS.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: May I ask whether the Government have received any news from China.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BRODRICK,): Her Majesty's Consul at Tientsin telegraphs that the British losses in Admiral Seymour's force which arrived 26th June, together with relief force, were as follows—
  "Captain Beyts, R. M. A., killed, seven officers wounded, twenty-four men killed, ninety-one wounded. Returns from foreign detachments not yet completed, but total is stated to be sixty-two killed, 212 wounded."
  Various reports have reached the Government as to the positions of the Legations, but the most recent one points to their being still in Peking.

SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—RESUMPTION OF INDUSTRIAL OPERATIONS IN THE TRANSVAAL.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been directed to the telegram, dated 8th June, to the Colonial Office from Sir Alfred Milner, in which it is stated that the Chamber of Mines, whose head- quarters is at Cape Town, has agreed upon 580 representatives of leading; mining and other companies, who will proceed to Johannesburg as soon as Lord Roberts can receive them, and that as many banking and other commercial representatives as possible will accompany them; will he say if a representative of the African Bank will be among them, specially privileged to enter Johannesburg; and, on what ground special facilities will be afforded to the representatives of the capitalist bodies of returning to Johannesburg, while British mining operatives have been warned that they cannot return to Johannesburg for a considerable time, and that they will be detained in their journey from England to the Transvaal at South African ports.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): (1) The substance of the telegram was communicated to the newspapers by my instructions. (2) I do not know. (3) The answer to the last paragraph of the question is contained in the telegram from Sir A. Milner to which the hon. Member refers. It is clearly inexpedient to allow large numbers of persons seeking, employment to return to Johannesburg until military demands upon transport and supply become less urgent,

65
and until the representatives of the great industries, such as managers, engineers, etc., have made the arrangements necessary before the industries of the place can be re-established.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman instruct Sir A. Milner to take care that the places once occupied by whites are not filled by blacks?
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think any such instructions are necessary.

HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL ARRANGEMENTS.
*MR. FABER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that since the commencement of the war in South Africa 127 officers and 4,260 men have died of disease there, and 844 officers and 17,666 men have been invalided home from causes other than wounds, he will state what steps have been taken to provide for the stationary and field hospitals being properly equipped with medical officers and attendants and appliances for dealing with cases of disease, and on whom the duty of providing for the equipment of such hospitals primarily rests, and who are responsible for their organisation; and whether he can state approximately how many officers and men are now ill in hospital in South Africa from causes other than wounds.
The following questions also appeared on the Paper:—
COLONEL PILKINGTON: To ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the reports of the insanitary condition of the military hospitals at the seat of war owing to the want of accommodation, overcrowding, and the lack of proper medical comforts, and to the fact that the hospital nurses on the spot are unable to carry out their duties owing to the want of orderlies to render them efficient aid; and whether it is possible to do more than is being done at the present moment to limit contagion and render the possibility of the recovery of wounded and sick soldiers more probable.
SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask the Under Secre-
66
tary of State for War if he will state how many military surgeons and how many civil surgeons have been employed in the campaign in South Africa, and how many male attendants and how many female nurses have been employed in the several hospitals of the Royal Army Medical Department, and how many doctors, attendants, and nurses in the hospitals on land and water provided by private munificence, and how many beds were available on 1st June for the forces under Field Marshal Lord Roberts in Cape Colony and Natal; and can he give any information to the House as to the supply of medical comforts to South Africa on the outbreak of the war and during its course.
*THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The debate this afternoon will be the proper occasion for a full discussion of the various questions raised, but I may say in general that for each increase of the force in South Africa a proportionate increase of medical staff and medical stores has been made. There are now in South Africa, according to our latest information, 466 Army medical officers and 440 civilian surgeons, 566 female nurses, and 5,668 male nurses and orderlies. These do not include doctors and nurses engaged in South Africa. The supply of beds was, on the 19th instant, 5,000 in Natal and 13,600 in Cape Colony and other parts; total, 18,600 beds in South Africa.
SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Do these figures include the doctors and nurses of purely private hospitals?
*MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, they include everything in the shape of local hospitals, nurses, and doctors.
MR. FABER: And what about the last paragraph of my question?
*MR. WYNDHAM: I think it will be more convenient to deal with that in the course of the debate.

SIR WALTER FOSTER'S SUGGESTION FOR A SANITARY COMMISSION.
SIR HENRY FOWLER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in October last, he received a letter from

67
the hon. Member for Ilkeston pointing out that in all probability great loss of life from fever and other maladies more or less preventible by careful sanitary work was likely to occur in the South African campaign, and suggesting the appointment of a small sanitary commission, or a commissioner and assistants, to proceed to Smith Africa to assist the Army medical officers in preventing the dangers referred to; whether the hon. Member offered to place his services and his experience as a physician and as secretary of the Local Government Board during the last invasion of cholera at the disposal of the War Office in an unpaid capacity; and whether the suggestion and offer were declined by the Secretary of State on the ground that the need of special assistance was not the same in sanitary matters as in surgical operations.
*MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir. The facts are as stated. Army surgeons are not in constant practice as operators; and therefore the Secretary of State was very glad to avail himself of the patriotic offers made by Sir W. MacCormac, Mr. Troves, and other specially skilled surgeons. But Army medical officers have special training in sanitation of camps and the management of diseases incidental to field service, and abundant opportunities of obtaining experience in these matters. It did not, therefore, appear that there was any occasion for the appointment of such a sanitary commission as the hon. Member suggested.

ARMY MEDICAL DEPARTMENT— REORGANISATION COMMITTEE'S REPORT.
*SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the Report of the Departmental Committee, which was sitting in 1898, on the Re-organisation of the Army Medical Department was presented to Parliament; and, if not, whether the portion of it which bears on organisation for war can now be laid before Parliament.
*MR. WYNDHAM: The Committee to which the right hon. Baronet refers only considered the titles to be given to the corps and to the officers, and the command to be exercised by the officers. No question of organisation came before it.

UNWOUNDED SOLDIERS DEAD OR INVALIDED HOME.
MR. BAYLEY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War when the Return asked for on 28th May and granted by the Government, of the number of officers and men who since the commencement of the present war have died or been invalided home from causes other than wounds received in action, will be laid upon the Table of the House.
*MR. WYNDHAM: Full information on these matters has only just reached the War Office. The Return is now being compiled, and it is hoped will shortly be presented.

PROVISION FOR INVALIDED SOLDIERS —APPEALS TO CHARITY IN KERRY.
MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that a public appeal has been made in the press by Colonel Johnston, commanding 101st regimental district, at Tralee, county Kerry, asking for assistance for soldiers now living in different portions of Kerry who were invalided home after being wounded in the South African war; whether this appeal was made owing to the fact that in many cases the invalided soldiers received no pension, and in other cases the pension granted is insufficient to keep the men out of the workhouse; and whether the Government will take such steps as may be necessary to prevent those South African soldiers from becoming a burden on the ratepayers of Kerry.
*MR. WYNDHAM: All cases of discharge on account of disability are submitted to the commissioners of Chelsea Hospital for the award of pensions. Every soldier whose disability is due to service is entitled to a pension varying in the case of privates from 6d. to 2s. 6d. a day, according to the nature of the disability. The Government has no reason to suppose that the ratepayers of Kerry will be burdened in the manner suggested.
MR. FLAVIN: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the question as to the truth of the statement that Colonel Johnston has made a public appeal for assistance of this sort?
*MR. WYNDHAM: We know nothing about it.
MR. FLAVIN: But did he make the appeal?
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman says he knows nothing about it.

RELEASED BRITISH TROOPS.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he can say when will the roll of the non-commissioned officers and men who have been released from imprisonment as prisoners of war in South Africa be published, and why have the names of the men been so long withheld from publication.
*MR. WYNDHAM: The names of the non-commissioned officers and men, prisoners of war, who were released at Pretoria have not yet been forwarded. Lord Roberts has been requested to supply the information.

ROODEVAAL ENGAGEMENT, 7TH JUNE —CAPTURE OF THE DERBYSHIRES.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the War Office authorities have any and, if so, what explanation to offer of the fact that the news of the defeat and capture of the 4th battalion of the Derbyshire Regiment at Roodevaal on the 7th June was known in Derby on the evening of Sunday, 10th June, but was not known in London till the evening of 11th June.
*MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir. Rumours are frequently current in advance of an official telegram, and this seems to have been a case of the kind.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is it not, the fact that the news was known in Derby on Sunday, and at the Stock Exchange on Monday before the War Office published it?
*MR. WYNDHAM: The information reached the War Office late on Sunday, but we had to verify certain matters before we published it.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: But—
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I must remind the hon. Member that he asked for an explanation and the hon. Gentleman replied that he had none. That is an answer to the question.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: And a most unsatisfactory one, Sir.

PAY OF COLONIAL TROOPS.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War how many Colonial troops in South Africa are having as much as 5s. a day in pay and allowances, and why a difference is made in the rate of pay between British and Colonial troops.
*MR. WYNDHAM: The number is about 22,000. The question was fully discussed on the 1st of February in debate.†
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Cannot the hon. Gentleman give me an answer to the question on the Paper?
*MR. WYNDHAM: I have said the question was fully discussed in Committee of Supply, and it is impossible to reduce the discussion to the limits of an answer to a question.

THE 4TH SURREY REGIMENT.
MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he will explain why, after the 4th Surrey Regiment volunteered for the front on 16th February, and was ordered to embark on 23rd February, and after 200 men not yet embodied had joined, officers had provided themselves with field equipment, and the service clothing of the battalion had been issued, an order was received on 22nd February cancelling the embarkation; and why this expense was incurred.
*MR. WYNDHAM: The expense of preparing the battalion for field service was incurred because the battalion was put under orders. These orders were cancelled because two serious cases occurred indicating a want of discipline in the battalion, and the Commander-in-Chief did not consider it advisable to allow the battalion to proceed on service.
† See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxviii., commencing at page 339.

VOLUNTEER CORPS—TRAINING AND OUTFIT ALLOWANCES.
MR. COLSTON: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will grant the allowance in aid of outfit, of an amount not exceeding £100, to those Departmental officers who voluntarily placed their services at their country's disposal during the great pressure of the South African War, but who, being Volunteers, are not entitled to claim the allowance. I beg also to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he can now redeem the undertaking given by him to the effect that the Secretary of State for War was prepared to consider any special cases in which it could be shown that Volunteer corps had been put to expense in connection with the billeting and messing of their service companies during their period of training; and, whether, as the Wiltshire Volunteer Service Company was involved in a special expenditure of £502 owing to no barrack accommodation being provided for them, that sum can now be refunded from public sources.
*MR. WYNDHAM: I hope to be able to answer both these questions shortly.

REORGANISATION OF THE MILITARY FORCES OF THE EMPIRE.
MR. DRAGE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether any attempt has been made to ascertain the views of the Colonial and Indian Governments on the reorganisation of the military force of the Empire; and whether the Government will consider the desirability of adding to the Committee of the Council of Defence representatives of the great self-governing colonies and of India.
*MR. WYNDHAM: This is hardly a question to be answered by the War Office. It is rather one of policy, which should be addressed to the Leader of the House.

NETLEY HOSPITAL—COCOA FOR PATIENTS.
MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether officers of the Royal Army Medical Corps are not allowed to prescribe cocoa for patients at Netley Hospital, and whether they are surcharged
72
if they order it without the sanction of the War Office.
*MR. WYNDHAM: Cocoa is not supplied for ordinary diets, but it can be ordered as an extra by any medical officer who considers it advisable without any surcharge.

ARMY HEAD-DRESS.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the attention of the War Office authorities has been directed to the order issued by the general officer commanding, at Salisbury Plain, in which officers commanding battalions whose men have caps only are recommended to make arrangements for the supply of cap covers or cheap white or khaki caps which should, be paid for out of the institute funds; and whether, having regard to the fact that the regimental institute funds, practically belong to the soldiers and should be expended entirely for their benefit, it will be provided that the ultimate cost of procuring suitable equipments for the troops should not fall upon the institute funds.
*MR. WYNDHAM: Such orders are not approved. The order in question, has been cancelled.

ALDERSHOT MANŒUVRES—HEAT CASUALTIES.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether all the men on parade at Aldershot on the Field Day on 11th June, when twenty eight men, of whom four died, were severely affected, and twenty-nine men were slightly affected, by the heat of the sun, had breakfasted before they came on parade, and were the casualties on this occasion confined to non-commissioned officers and men; can he state if the breakfast consisted of tea and of dry bread, or were there any, and, if so; what additions; and how many ounces of bread were allowed for each man for breakfast on that day; and will he say, out of the 18,002 men on parade at Aldershot on 11th June, how many were left without food from their departure from barracks till their return to barracks or to hospital on that day; and whether the attention of the War Office authorities has been directed to the strictures made by the

73
coroner at the inquest on the body of one of the soldiers who lost his life in those operations with reference to sending out men on a scanty breakfast, which he termed almost brutal, and the rider to the verdict, that the men should have had a substantial breakfast; and have the War Office authorities any, and, if so, what explanation to make for a course of conduct calculated to endanger the health and lives of the troops.
*MR. WYNDHAM: The hon. Member was absent when these matters were fully discussed.† All the men had breakfast before starting. The casualties were not confined to the men, as two officers fell out. The breakfast would include additions, which vary in different regiments. The daily free issue of bread is one pound, and this is seldom consumed, but more can be obtained if required. In the case of two battalions the men were without food from the time they left barracks until they returned. The food was despatched from barracks, but failed to reach the troops.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware it was sworn at the inquest that one man had nothing but dry bread?
*MR. WYNDHAM: There were two battalions that had no food. I can assure the hon. Member the whole matter is being fully gone into.

MILITIA OFFICERS' PENSIONS.
MR. YOUNGER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, having regard to the fact that there are a certain number of officers of Militia of the rank of major and upwards who are now serving during the period of embodiment of their regiments, who are entitled to retired pay, and who are past the age of compulsory service in the Reserve, and that those officers are subjected to a deduction from their pay equal to their pension, whether, as their pension is for past service, and as they are not liable through having passed the limit of age to be called upon to serve, he will take steps to remove what is felt to be a hardship to officers who are now holding responsible positions in
† See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxxiv., pages 143 and 282.
74
regiments of Militia which are at present embodied.
*MR. WYNDHAM: All Militia officers are under a compulsory liability to serve on embodiment. The Secretary of State is not prepared to alter the rule that no officer may draw full pay and retired pay at the same time.
MR. YOUNGER: But is there any reason why these Militia officers should be on a different footing to other Army officers serving with the Militia? Is it not provided under an Army order dated April this year that they shall draw their pensions without any deductions?
*MR. WYNDHAM: I do not think the hon. Member quite appreciates the fact that an officer in the Militia has accepted service with the Militia whenever embodied, and therefore he is obviously on; an entirely different footing.

LONDON TELEGRAPHIST VOLUNTEERS—CAMP LEAVE.
CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, in view of the Government appeal to private employers to give facilities to their workmen for attending Volunteer camps, the Postmaster General will consider the advisability and policy of setting an example in this particular by now giving to the telegraphists of the Central Office, London, who are Volunteers, permission to attend the Aldershot camp for training purposes, which has hitherto been refused.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY,): Every effort will be made to release as many Volunteers as possible for the purpose of attending camp. But the months of July and August are the periods of the greatest pressure in the Central Telegraph Office, which has already lost a large number of men by reason of the war in South Africa; and it is, of course, a matter of the first importance to prevent any possibility of a breakdown in the telegraph service.

NAVY—WATER-TUBE BOILERS— BREAKDOWN OF THE T. B. D. "SKATE."
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty,

75
can he give the House any information as to the breakdown of the torpedo boat destroyer "Skate," which left Plymouth on 7th May for Gibraltar, under convoy of Her Majesty's ship "Minerva"; did the "Skate's" foremost boiler give out soon after the vessels had entered the Bay of Biscay; did her other three boilers break down shortly afterwards; and was she thus so completely crippled that it was found necessary for the "Minerva" to take her in tow; did the towing hawser part a few hours afterwards; was the "Skate" lost sight of owing to the darkness of the night, and the heavy sea; and did she remain, in her helpless state, shipping heavy seas and in danger of foundering, from l0p.m on the 9th May, till 8 a.m. on the 10th May, when she was again discovered and taken in tow by the "Minerva"; and has the "Skate" suffered so much that it has been found, on her arrival at Gibraltar, impossible to send her to sea again until she has been provided with new boilers; and were her boilers water-tube boilers, and, if so, of what type.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. GOSCHEN,): The "Skate" left Ply- mouth with the "Minerva" on May 8th, and was taken in tow by that ship on the 9th, because the engines had to be stopped owing to the rolling of the vessel bringing the circulating inlets out of the water. She was either cast off or the hawser carried away some time during the evening, and the "Minerva" remained by her during the night and took her in tow again the next morning. She was again cast off at 4 p.m., and proceeded to Vigo under her own steam. After leaving Vigo her boilers were damaged, and the "Minerva" towed her to Gibraltar. Three of her boilers will have to be re-tubed. I have not yet got complete information from Gibraltar. She has small tube water-tube boilers of the Blechynden type.
MR. WOLFF: Were these the Belleville boilers?
MR. GOSCHEN: No, they were not Belleville boilers, but small tube water boilers of a totally different kind.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will the right hon. Gentleman publish any further information on the subject?
MR. GOSCHEN: Yes, Sir, when I receive it.

CIUDAD BOLIVAR—MURDER OF MR. JAMES LYELL.
MR. PIKE PEASE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has received the Report in reference to the murder of Mr. James Lyell, at Ciudad Bolivar, and can he state whether the murderer has been executed.
MR. BRODRICK: The investigation into the circumstances connected with the murder of Mr. Lyell is still proceeding, and is being watched by Her Majesty's Consul at Ciudad Bolivar. In a telegram recently received Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Caracas reports that he has strongly urged the Venezuelan Government to accelerate proceedings in the case.
MR. PIKE PEASE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this murder took place as far back as February last? Is it not time for the Government to press for the execution of the murderer?
[No answer was given.]

EGYPT—DURATION OF BRITISH OCCUPATION.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to. ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is intended that the occupation of Egypt shall be permanent, and if it is not so intended, whether Her Majesty's Government can now state at what date the occupation is likely to cease.
MR. BRODRICK: Her Majesty's Government have nothing at present to add to the declarations which have been publicly made by them and by their predecessor in regard to the policy of this country in Egypt.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Is the Khedive visiting this country because he wants us to clear out of his country?

UGANDA—COMPENSATION TO FRENCH CATHOLICS.
MR. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the sum of £10,000, voted in March, 1899, by the

77
House of Commons, after negotiations with the French Government, in compensation of claims on the part of certain Roman Catholics in Uganda in respect of injuries alleged to have been done to their clothing and property by British forces, was paid over to the French Government or to Cardinal Vaughan.
MR. BRODRICK: The sum in question was paid to the injured parties through Cardinal Vaughan.

ASHANTI—SUGGESTED RESTORATION OF KING PREMPEH.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can say what has become of King Prempeh; and whether, in view of the condition of affairs in Ashanti, the Government will consider the advisability of restoring the King that he may use his influence for the pacification of his people.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Prempeh is at present in Sierra Leone. The question of his being restored to Ashanti cannot be entertained.

ASHANTI—NATIVE RISING—INVESTMENT OF COOMASSIE.
SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give the House any information as to the relief of Coomassie.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No news has been received since that which was published in the newspapers yesterday morning.

HARBOUR DOCK AND PIER SCHEMES —EXEMPTION OF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS FROM DOCK RATES.
SIR WILLIAM HOULDSWORTH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, will he explain under what authority the Treasury are now requiring the promoters of private Bills for the construction or extension of harbours, docks, and piers to insert in such Bills clauses extending the provisions of Section 28 of the General Act, 10 and 11 Vic, cap. 27, to other Government Departments than those specially exempted by that section from the payment of dock rates or duties; and to what
78
Government Departments or Government services such power is held to extend.
MR. HANBURY: The Treasury represents to Parliament on behalf of the executive Government the desirability of inserting these clauses, and Parliament has constantly seen fit to insert them. In 1899, for example, they appeared in thirteen Acts and six Provisional Orders under the Board of Trade, and this year six Acts containing them have already received the Royal Assent. They will apply to all Government Departments.

NORTH DEVON TELEPHONIC SYSTEM.
SIR CAMERON GULL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can state when the provisional agreement between the Postmaster General and the National Telephone Company as to the extension of the trunk telephone line to North Devon, which was made last autumn, will be finally sanctioned and the promised extension made.
MR. HANBURY: The work necessary for the connection of Barnstaple and Ilfracombe with the trunk wire system has been authorised by the Treasury, 31st May, and will be completed as rapidly as possible.

LONDON TELEPHONE SERVICE.
MR. PROVAND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he can now say when the Post Office will be ready to supply telephone service in the London district from their exchange, and when the tariff and conditions will be published.
MR. HANBURY: The construction of the underground system of wires for the Post Office telephone exchanges is proceeding as rapidly as possible in various-parts of London, and it is hoped to complete a part of the system about the end of the present year. The rates of subscription and conditions of service will be published as soon as the Postmaster General is able to give a definite date for the opening of the central exchange.

GREAT NORTH OF IRELAND RAILWAY—SUTTON-HOWTH TRAMWAY.
MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of

79
Trade whether he is aware that the Great Northern Railway (Ireland) Act, 1897, empowered the company to lay a tramway to Howth along the public road from Sutton to Censure and along the Bailey Road, but that the company, instead of laying a tramway along the public road, built a tramroad between those points on lands acquired from private owners, and raised the some a foot above the public road, but without fencing it off' for the safety of the public or providing for surface drainage; whether, considering that the Irish Courts have decided that there is an essential difference between a tramroad and a tramway, one being part of the road available for public traffic and the other being a railway, the road authority has power to sanction such deviation from the powers of the Act under Section 20, as the company allege; is any agreement under that section as to construction between the company and the road authority to be subject to the provisions of the Act, and confined to tramways along or across any street or road; do the Board of Trade maintain that such an agreement is within the competence of the parties, and have the Board of Trade been asked to sanction a departure from Section 9 of the Act, which provides that the tramways shall be laid and maintained in such a manner that the surface of the rails shall be on a level with the surface of the carriage way of the road along which same is laid; and whether, as the line is not to be opened for public traffic without a certificate from the Board of Trade, such certificate will be granted until the law is complied with.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,): I am aware that, at the request of the road authority, the railway company proposed to lay the tramway along the side of the road instead of on the road itself. The Board of Trade informed the company that the Department had no power to authorise such a deviation from the authorised line, but that as the alteration was made at the request of the road authority they would not refuse to inspect the line if so made. It is clear that the company should take the earliest convenient opportunity of obtaining statutory authority for the alteration.
MR. FLAVIN: Is there any power to construct a tramway on a public road?
MR. RITCHIE: Certainly, if authority is given.

CORK AND WATERFORD TELEPHONE SERVICE.
MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the so-called trunk telephone service between Cork and Waterford is not a direct wire but passes through Limerick and Dublin with the result that the delays are such as to make the service useless; and seeing that in England towns so small as Hayle (Cornwall) with only 1,672 inhabitants, Newquay with 1,891 inhabitants, and Llandaff with 3,379, have the advantage of a trunk telephone service, and that in Ireland Tralee (the chief town of county Kerry), Killarney (an important tourist centre), and other important towns, such as Newry, are left without it, whether the Postmaster General will reconsider the representations made to him by the Cork Chamber of Shipping and Commerce as to the necessity for trunk telephonic communication between Cork and Fermoy, Youghal, Mallow, Tralee, and other towns.
MR. HANBURY: Telephone trunk-wire communication between Cork and Waterford is by way of Dublin. There is no break at limerick. The average number of messages between Cork and Waterford is less than two a day, but the service is a good one. There is not a direct trunk-wire service at Hayle and Llandaff. The nearest offices on the trunk-wire system are at Penzance and Cardiff respectively, and access to that system is obtained through the local exchange systems of the National Telephone Company from Hayle and Llandaff. The extension to North Cornwall and Newquay was made under a guarantee from the National Telephone Company. An extension of the trunk-wire system is now being made to Newry under a similar guarantee, and the Postmaster General has offered on several occasions to extend the system under local or other guarantees to the other towns mentioned in the question.

LOCAL TAXATION COMMISSION— SITTINGS IN IRELAND.
MR. CAREW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is

81
proposed to have any sittings of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation in Ireland, as was arranged last autumn; and will he state what steps have been taken to make public in Ireland the nature and objects of the inquiry, and whether any memorandum or statement has been issued showing the special heads on which evidence would be required irrespective of such local taxation; and whether, in view of the facts that since the establishment of the Commission a new system of local government has been established in Ireland and the incidence of local taxation has been changed, and that upon the Commission as at present constituted there is no member who resides in Ireland or with practical experience of Irish local affairs and administration, the Government will consider the advisability of either appointing a new body of Commissioners to sit in Ireland or of now adding to the existing Commission persons with practical and intimate knowledge of Irish legislation and Irish local government.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR,): I am informed that the Royal Commission on Local Taxation have felt themselves obliged by various circumstances to abandon their proposed meeting in Dublin. The Irish witnesses whom it was intended to hoar have been examined in London, and their evidence will shortly be published. The scope of the inquiry it set forth in the terms of reference and has been made known to the public through the medium of advertisements extensively published in the Irish press last year. No further steps have since been taken in the matter. With regard to the second paragraph, I think the time has hardly come for an exhaustive inquiry into the working of the new system of local taxation established in Ireland by the Local Government Act. I may remind the hon. Member that one of the members of the Commission is the hon. and learned Member for East Donegal.

LAND PURCHASE IN IRELAND— ORPEN ESTATE—REFUSAL TO SELL TO TENANTS.
MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the estate of Jane Sophia Orpen, in the barony of Glanrought, county Kerry, was adver-
82
tised to be sold in four lots on 20th June, 1900, in the Chancery Division Court, Dublin, and that Mr. William G. Lane, of Cork and Dublin, who had carriage of the sale, attended at Kilgoran and accepted the offer of the tenants who had signed the necessary agreements; whether he is aware that the tenants have been negotiating for some years for the sale of this estate, and that on the day the property was to be sold lots 3 and 4 were sold to a local landlord because his offer was higher than the offer of the tenants, and that on the same day the sale of lots 1 and 2 on the same property was adjourned, although the joint offer of the tenants for lot 1 was £2,185, as against only £1,400 bid by the local landlord, and that for lot 2 the tenants offered £1,495 and the local landlord only £1,200; whether he can state on what grounds lots 3 and 4 were sold to the local landlord; and why were the tenants refused to be made the purchasers of their farms, seeing that their joint offers for lots 1 and 2 were £3,680, as against £2,600 bid by the local landlord.
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The facts are generally as stated in the first and second paragraphs, except that as the acceptance of an offer to purchase rests with the court, the solicitor having carriage of the proceedings could not of his own motion accept any offers made by the tenants. Lots 3 and 4 were sold to the local landlord because, in the opinion of the Judge, his offer was more advantageous to the estate than a sale to the tenants. The sale of the other two lots was adjourned as the court was unable to accept the tenants' offer, that being conditional upon the Land Commissioners sanctioning an advance of the necessary amount of land stock.
MR. FLAVIN: Is it not the fact that the joint offer of the tenants was more than that of the local landlord?
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I can only repeat the answer I have given that in the opinion of the Judge the landlord's offer was the more advantageous to the estate.
CAPTAIN DONELAN: But ought not the advantage to the tenants to be considered as well as the advantage to the estate?
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That does not arise out of the question.
MR. FLAVIN: It was my question.

WARDEN ESTATE—EVICTION OF JOHANNA HUSSEY.
MR. T. J. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a family named Hussey was evicted on the Warden property on 6th June, 1900; and that Johanna Hussey, the wife of the evicted tenant, was also evicted on the same day by the sheriff, bailiffs, and police, notwithstanding the fact that the local dispensary officer stated that this woman was under his medical care, and had given certificates as to her unfitness to be removed or evicted, and also certified that she was a case of quiet mania, and in a debilitated condition; and can he state on what grounds and by whose authority was Johanna Hussey evicted, and whether he proposes to take any steps in the matter.
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The eviction of Hussey and his family on the date mentioned was carried out not by the police but by the sub-sheriff, in pursuance of a decree for possession obtained at petty session in April. Prior to the eviction Hussey had obtained a certificate from a doctor that his wife was not in a fit state for removal. The sub-sheriff, however, was accompanied on the occasion by a doctor who examined the woman and certified that she could with safety be re-moved. Upon the approach of the eviction party it appears that Mrs. Hussey, although fully dressed, was put into bed by one of her daughters, and after the eviction was carried out she ran away from the doctor who had boon speaking to her. There is no doubt, I believe, that she is a woman of weak intellect. There is nothing in the matter calling for action on the part of the Government.
MR. FLAVINput a further question.
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: If the hon. Member wishes further information he must put down his question.

BELFAST LUNATIC ASYLUM—CASE OF ELIZA CLINGIN.
MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the
84
Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been drawn to the particulars of an inquest held in the Belfast Lunatic Asylum on the 15th ultimo, on the remains of an inmate named Eliza Clingin, who was an inmate of the asylum from 1892, and died after long suffering from phthisis; and would he make known to the House the nature of the communication made to the coroner which induced that gentleman to hold an inquest in this case where the cause of death was within the knowledge of the medical and nursing staff of the asylum.
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I have seen a copy of the verdict of the coroner's jury in this case. As regards the second paragraph, the only communication made to the coroner which induced him to hold the inquest was the ordinary notification sent to the coroner in the case of every death in a district asylum in Ireland within forty-eight hours of the death.

LIGHTS IN LIMERICK PORT.
MR. O'KEEFFE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he would direct attention to the request of the Limerick Harbour Commissioners asking the Irish. Lights Commissioners to erect a light on a point on the river Shannon, at Rinmalon, for the advantage of the navigation of the port of Limerick.
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: This matter has already, I understand, been before the Irish Lights Commissioners, who have informed the harbour authorities that they are unable at present to recommend the establishment of a light at the point mentioned.

IRISH SHEBEENS.
MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will grant the Return respecting shebeens in certain towns in Ireland standing on to-day's Paper.
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: No objection will be raised to the issue of the Return provided the hon. Member will expunge from the form of notice the first portion, which asks for the number of suspected, shebeens in the five cities named. The Government could not consent to the publication of information purporting to

85
be based merely on the suspicions entertained by the police. If, therefore, the hon. Member will place an amended form of notice on the Paper, modified as I have suggested, the Return will be granted.

BELFAST LAND COMMISSION APPEALS.
MR. SAMUEL YOUNG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the recent sitting of the Chief Land Commission at Belfast, how many cases of appeals from fair rents fixed by the Sub-Commissioners were disposed of by them, and in how many cases were the judicial rents confirmed and reduced and increased respectively; and whether the Chief Commissioners inspected any or all of the holdings, or merely depended upon the reports of the court valuers to guide them in coming to a conclusion.
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: There were ninety-seven cases listed for hearing before the Chief Land Commission at their recent sitting at Belfast. Of these the rents fixed by the Sub-Commissioners were confirmed in fourteen cases; reduced in four; increased in fifty-three; and dismissed in three. Ten cases were withdrawn; seven settled; judgment was reserved in two cases, and four were adjourned. The Chief Commissioners did not view the holdings. They decided the cases in the ordinary way after hearing the evidence adduced on both sides, and after considering the schedule of the particulars recorded by the Sub-Commission and the reports made by the Court valuers.

IRISH LICENCE TRANSFERS—ROCK-CORRY CASE.
MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland if he is aware that Mr. Leslie, agent for the Dartrey estates, in County Monaghan, recently took over the farm and public-house of a tenant, in the townland of Drumgole, and in his own name obtained a transfer of the licence at the Rockcorry petty sessions; and will he bring the action of the magistrates in granting this transfer to Mr. Leslie, a land agent, and justice of the peace for the Rockcorry district, to the notice of the Lord Chancellor.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): In reply to the first part of the question, I beg to refer the hon. Member to the reply of my right hon. friend to a similar question addressed to him by the hon. Member yesterday. As to the second paragraph, as there is nothing censurable in the conduct of the magistrates mentioned, the answer to this question is in the negative.

UNIFICATION OF THE CRIMINAL LAW OF THE EMPIRE.
MR. DRAGE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether Her Majesty's Government have considered the desirability of unifying the criminal law of the whole Empire on the lines of the Indian Criminal Code and the Draft Code prepared for the United Kingdom by the late Mr. Justice Stephen, and of codifying the law with regard to bills of exchange and the law with regard to bankruptcy; and whether Her Majesty's Government will consider the desirability of appointing a Committee on which the great self-governing colonies shall be represented to prepare draft codes with powers similar to those possessed by the Committee on obsolete Acts of Parliament presided over by the late Lord Herschell.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I am not sufficiently an export on this subject to be able to give my hon. friend any authoritative pronouncement upon it; but it seems to me that the circumstances of the various parts of the Empire are so different that a universal criminal law applicable to all is almost illusory.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BILLS AND STANDING COMMITTEES.
MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he has considered the Parliamentary situation arrived at this year of a number of Bills in the hands of private Members having passed a Second Reading and been dealt with by Standing Committees or referred to Standing Committees, at an expenditure of the time and trouble of Members interested, with little chance of being further considered in the House and passed into law; and whether he will make either proposals to alter procedure on such Bills in future sessions, or appoint a Select Committee

87
forthwith to inquire and report what amendments of procedure are desirable to facilitate such legislation.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope that the labours of the Standing Committees upon these Bills have not been thrown away, any more than the labours of the Select Committees on such Bills are thrown away. Such discussions usually end in the Bills being brought forward in an amended form on a future occasion. But I am not in a position to pledge myself to appoint a Committee for the purpose of facilitating the progress of private Members' legislation as distinguished from Government legislation. The House of Commons can only sit for a certain number of months in the year, and I think that the bulk of the legislation should be in the hands of the Government rather than in the hands of private Members.

COUNTY AND BOROUGH FRANCHISE ASSIMILATION (LONDON) BILL.
Reported from the Standing Committee on Law, etc., with Amendments.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 244.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 244.]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 272.]

EXECUTORS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Reported from the Standing Committee on Law, etc., with Amendments.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 245.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 245.]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 273.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Mr. HALSEY reported from the Committee of Selection, That they had discharged the following Members from the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures:—Mr. Victor Cavendish,
88
Captain Bethell, Colonel Milward, Mr. Abel Smith, Mr. A. K. Loyd, Mr. Monckton, Sir Charles Welby, Mr. Grant Lawson, General Russell, Mr. Hedder-wick, Sir Herbert Maxwell, and Mr. Round; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Cohen, Sir Reginald Hanson, Mr. Wolff, Mr. T. W. Russell, Mr. Kemp, Sir Charles Dalrymple, Mr. Ritchie, Sir Edward Hill, Mr. Tennant, Sir Elliott Lees, and Mr. Brodie Hoare.
Mr. HALSEY further reported from the Committee, That they had added to the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures, the following fifteen Members in respect of the Companies Bill:—Mr. Bainbridge, Mr. Banbury, Mr. Bond, Mr. Bryce, Mr. Crombie, Mr. Alexander Cross, Mr. Gedge, Mr. Holland, Mr. Marks, Mr. Martin, Mr. Molloy, Mr. Compton Rickett, Mr. Solicitor General, Mr. Lawson Walton, and Mr. Warr.
Mr. HALSEY further reported from the Committee, That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Law and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure:—Mr. Brigg (added in respect of the Sunday Closing (Wales) Act (1881) Amendment Bill); and had appointed in substitution: Sir Angus Holden.
Mr. HALSEY further reported from the Committee, That they had added to the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure the following fifteen Members in respect of the Elementary Education Bill:—Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Broadhurst, Mr. Evelyn Cecil, Mr. Channing, Mr. Drage, Mr. Flower, Mr. Goddard, Sir John Gorst, Mr. Gray, Mr. Alfred Hutton, Mr. Herbert Lewis, Mr. Middlemore, Mr. James Stuart, Mr. Talbot, and Mr. Yoxall.
Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (JOINT COMMITTEES).
Mr. HALSEY reported from the Committee of Selection, That they had discharged the following Member from the Joint Committee of Lords and Commons on Municipal Trading:—Mr. John Wilson (Govan); and had appointed in substitution: Sir William Dunn.
Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to the County Councils (Elections) Act (1891) Amendment Bill, without amendment.

SUPPLY [16TH ALLOTTED DAY].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER. (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

ARMY (SUPPLEMENTARY) ESTIMATE, 1900–1901.
£5, Supplementary, Medical Establishment, Pay, etc.
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. WYNDHAM,): I make no complaint, but I own that I am somewhat taken by surprise at finding that the hon. Member for Westminster has not opened this debate. [Opposition cries of "Why?"] I infer that he, having put forward certain statements, desires to hear a reply from the Government without adding anything to them. I have road those statements with the attention which is due to the interest—the absorbing and painful interest—of the subject which the hon. Member has brought to the notice of the public, and also, I say freely, with the attention due to the earnestness with which the hon. Member has been actuated. But I do not propose to follow—and I think it would be almost out of order to do so—his statements point by point in the order in which they have been raised, not in this House but in an organ of the public press. I think my duty to-day, if I construe aright the wishes of the Committee, is to answer, if I can, the question which I believe to be uppermost in the minds of the Committee and of all our countrymen throughout the length and breadth of the land. Unless I misinterpret the wishes of everyone here and in the country, the questions which they wish answered are these. In the first place, are these statements true? In the second place, if they are wholly or even partially true, could the evil which they point to have been avoided either by a keener foresight or by a more lavish provision and expenditure on the part of the Home Government, or by greater zeal and
90
intelligence on the part of our officers;, and more especially on the part of the Royal Army Medical Corps, in South Africa? The third question which presses for a reply is this—are those evils, now remedied or are they in the course of being remedied? I put these three questions forward, and as the hon. Member did not rise I rose myself, because I thought it right to discuss these questions before any other matters which are-more or less germane to the debate are dragged into it. It would be quite easy and even proper to discuss this evening whether the establishment of the Royal Army Medical Corps is adequate or not. Many other questions will occur to hon. Members. But I feel that if these questions were raised before the others were answered I should be led away against my will from the topics which are of vital and immediate moment. They belong to the larger and wider considerations. Whether this Government and its predecessors have properly gauged exactly the military needs of this Empire is a well-worn topic. We have covered that ground before and shall do again. But this afternoon we have to consider whether certain circumstances did or did not happen at a certain spot on a certain day; whether they could be prevented; and whether such events are less likely to happen again by reason of the steps which have since been taken. I answer the first question by saying frankly that to a certain extent—to a lamentable extent—it is true. It is true that our wounded and sick at Bloemfontein have in this campaign, as I believe in every other campaign, been exposed to terrible hardships, the full extent of which has not, perhaps, been always gauged by those who have not seen war. I have no quarrel with the hon. Member, but he must allow me to point out to this Committee the nature of the methods which he has adopted. He has painted a picture of one place at one time, and he has painted the circumstances which occurred there, without hinting at many other facts and at many other things which ought, I think, to have been presented at the same time, in order that a just estimate and judgment might be formed on the matters. That is a legitimate method of bringing a serious evil forward—to paint a picture of it, to make it vivid, and to do it vigorously, so that it strikes the hearts and the feelings of the people. I do not

91
complain of it, but I believe that it is a method more usual in the domain of art than in the domain of sober politics. It would have been open to the hon. Member at the same time to have gone into other details which it will be my duty to put before the Committee this evening. But taking this picture as being to a certain extent—to a great extent—true, I maintain that you cannot get at the full truth unless it is supplemented by other facts and considerations. Now I am called upon to defend, as I have said, the foresight of the Government and the zeal and energy of our officers in South Africa; and in doing that I may seem—for we are all conscious of our own weakness—to make out too good a case and to prove that nobody has been in error Let me begin by disclaiming any such intention. Humanity is liable to error. I have no doubt that it has not been possible for men in this war to do what men have never been able to do in any war; and I am sure that this Government have not been all-wise and specially assisted to avoid all error. But, having said that, I shall have to argue that no stone was left unturned and that no man has spared himself in trying to mitigate, as they have been mitigated, to an extent never attained before in any campaign, what are, after all, the inevitable hardships of war. We are convinced that we have much to learn by experience. It has been the hope and the wish of the Government, openly stated in this House at the beginning of the session—and I beg leave to say that it is the hope and the wish of the Royal Army Medical Corps—to learn by the experience of this war, and also, no doubt, by the inquiry which will be instituted. But as to foresight, is it true that this Government went to war in South Africa without taking account of the possibility of an outbreak of enteric fever on a large scale? I venture to give the facts, and to tell the Committee that long before the war broke out, during last summer, sickness was anticipated in South Africa, and, of course, particularly in the form of dysentery and enteric. The importance of exercising every precaution to prevent it was specially emphasised by the Director-General of the Army Medical Corps in London to all the medical officers who might possibly have to proceed to South Africa. A pamphlet on the sanitary lessons of the recent war between
92
America and Spain, by Surgeon-General Sternberg, was, with the author's permission, reprinted and issued to every medical officer sent to South Africa. In anticipation of the outbreak of hostilities, recommendations were made that each unit of 100 men should be supplied with a sterilising filter; and it was laid down that quicklime should be stored in quantities of one ton to every 1,000 men wherever standing camps were formed, and that it should be constantly issued. Medical officers were urged before the outbreak of the war to ask for anything they might require in addition to the materials at their disposal. There is no case of stinting, of deliberate or careless stinting no case. The medical officers in South Africa have been begged to ask for all they need and the surgeon-generals at home for anything they may require. The Director-General of Ordnance has given all that has been asked for through the quartermasters and the principal ordnance officer in South Africa. Every demand that has been put in has been complied with, and the Treasury has never suggested that we should be otherwise than lavish within the most extreme bounds of generosity in all stores needed for the welfare of our sick and wounded in South Africa. It might interest the Committee to hear what are the appliances and the personnel in South Africa now, and what they were in January. I take those two dates for this reason. I think an idea has got abroad that, after that week in December which brought us the news of the three disasters, when we suddenly began to increase very largely the forces in South Africa, no corresponding increase was at once made in the provision of doctors, nurses, and hospital appliances. This is not so; and I can illustrate the great difference between the resources available then and now if I take the date of 15th January and the most recent date for which I have the figures—namely, 15th June. On 15th January there wore in South Africa 351 Army medical doctors; on 15th June, 446. In January there were seventy-nine civil medical doctors; in June, 348; and thirty-two are now proceeding there. Of consultants, highly-paid specialists, there were three in January; in June, seven. The doctors employed in civilian hospitals in January were four; in June, fifty-two. Or adding them together, on 15th January there

93
were 437 doctors employed by the War Office, and in June, 853. That was the number on 15th June, but I have the later figures up to yesterday, when, I think, the total was 906. I leave out of account the local civil practitioners in South Africa, because I have not had the figures; but there are many eminent doctors there well qualified, and I know that they have placed their services at the disposal of the Government. The figures which I will now give as to the Army nurses will, I know, excite surprise. It is true that our staff of Army nurses on the establishment is always a small one. In South Africa there were forty-three in January and fifty-three in June; but the system designedly contemplated that there should be employed in time of war qualified nurses, who are taken into Army employment; and thus there were in January twelve and in June 335; so that the total of nurses in January was fifty-five; on 15th June, 482. But the last date which I have gives 566, and with those who are now on passage 639. I will now give the number of beds in South Africa. There are 5,000 in Natal and 13,600 in Cape Colony, or 18,600 in all. Here again I am able to draw a comparison. On 15th January there were five general hospitals, four stationary hospitals, twenty-six field hospitals, and one special hospital organised by civilians. On 15th June there were twelve general hospitals; two are embarking—one of them goes to-morrow—five stationary, thirty-one field, and ten special hospitals organised by civilians, but with Army doctors at the head of them and under the control of the War Office; so that on 15th January there were thirty-six and in June sixty hospitals. On 15th January there were in these hospitals 5,960 beds; on 15th June 18,814 beds. The number of sick and wounded on 19th January was 3,731, and on 18th May, the last date for which I have the figures, there were 11,903. I know that down to the most recent period there is an excess of beds in South Africa, because we received a telegram on 19th June to say that the Ordnance Department in South Africa had beds in excess of the demand. The difficulty has not arisen from any stinting of supplies, but from the inseparable difficulties in taking those supplies to the base of operations. I do not wish to put the case too highly, or to use any expression which may give a more favour-
94
able picture of affairs than is absolutely true, and in the figures for beds I have included the field hospitals because I am not able to distinguish. In the field hospitals there are 100 beds which some people say are not beds. With every brigade there is a field hospital. This gives a 10 per cent. bed accommodation, and we ought, perhaps, to deduct a slight fraction and say that our provision has been not a 10 per cent. but an 8 per cent. of beds. What is the scale on which provision was made for this campaign? The scale was a 10 per cent. bed accommodation for the whole force—the highest scale ever contemplated. It is a scale fixed for campaigns in the most insalubrious climates, for campaigns prosecuted in Ashanti, in jungle or fever-riddled regions, but never applied in such a country as South Africa, which is, barring the terrible epidemics which have suddenly taken place, a healthy country. I ought, perhaps, to tell the Committee that that scale of 10 per cent. of beds has been applied seriatim to every increase made in our forces in South Africa. Each division ordered forth has been accompanied by its proportionate quota of medical appliances and medical staff. So, again, I remind the Committee that I do not say no mistakes have been made, or that five or six days delay here or there has not occurred owing to information that some Australian or Canadian corps was coming in. I have no doubt that there have been such lapses, and that five or six days have been lost in giving orders to keep pace with the increases of forces from all quarters of the world. The number of men who have gone from this country, from India, Australia, and Canada, within a few days, have made that proportionate increase in the personnel and in the stores necessary. I do not know whether the Committee wish to know what the organisation of the medical service is. I hear complaints that there is too much red tape. I am quite prepared to defend that organisation. With every general there is a principal medical officer. He is in the secrets of the general; he is in his confidence. He is told what number of troops are to be marched, what distance, in what time; and he requisitions through the chief staff officer for the amount of stores necessary for such an operation. That system runs from the top to the bottom of the organisation of a campaign. It may seem

95
too rigid to those who stop into a particular hospital and wonder why the doctor cannot rush off in any direction and seek by his own energy to get supplies. You would have a breakdown of the most irreparable character unless you co-ordinated the demand of your medical services with the other demands which are necessary for the existence of the Army. For the doctor, the engineer, the commander of the military unit, it is essential that they, having been told what is required of the force for which they are responsible, should through one channel make these demands, and that that channel should be in the closest contact with the general officer responsible for the whole operations. Otherwise you would have the various component parts of the Army naturally out of their zeal rushing against each other; and you might have medical stores and no food, or food and no medical stores, according to the opportunities which might fortuitously fall to one or other officer. Having dealt with organisation, perhaps I ought to refer to field hospitals and beds. There are in the front line of the army bearer companies with six ambulance wagons. Then comes the field hospital. Though the bearer company takes the man out of action, he may have to lie on the field until seven o'clock in the evening, since it may be impossible to approach him. The field hospital on a larger scale cannot give to the wounded man all that is given to him in hospital at home, or beds as in a general hospital. The wounded are collected from the field, and it is a necessary part of army organisation on service that field hospitals should be temporary in their character, since they have to move rapidly with the army and clear the wounded back to the stationary hospitals which are established near the base. That may be done by wagons or trains. In this war it has been done largely by hospital trains. There is terrible hardship, in the first place because the wounded cannot be at once removed out of the firing line and taken to the hospital; and in the second place they have to be conveyed over a rough country in an ambulance wagon and put into a train, and then convoyed by a train on a single line blocked sometimes with stores going the other way, taking twenty-six hours to cover a short distance; all this means terrible hardship to the wounded. I know there has been
96
a good deal of criticism levelled against the ambulance wagon; but it is a wagon which is devised after four years of experiment by men who know what are the conditions of service in the field, notably by Sir Redvers Buller. The wagon has been tried over rough country. It must be a stout wagon, or else it will break down, and a breakdown means some deplorable catastrophe. Your wagon must carry some stores necessary for first aid to the wounded. If those stores were not there, what legitimate attacks might be levelled against a wagon which could not carry those stores which were necessary for first aid. Then it is said, "If one wagon why not four wagons? Expense is nothing to us." If you had four wagons, and a rapid advance was ordered, three would be left behind. When horses begin to die you can only take one wagon, and the others would be left. These things must be matter of compromise, and the compromises of war carry with them many lamentable hardships to those engaged in it. To make my point clear that there has been no stint of supplies from home, I have two telegrams here despatched very near the dates so prominently brought forward by the hon. Member for Westminster. One is a telegram despatched by Lord Roberts, dated Bloemfontein, 24th March, and it runs as follows—
"Unless the forces now in South Africa are considerably increased, the eleven general hospitals should be sufficient if the 500 men asked for are being sent."
These 500 men were sent long ago, and although the forces in South Africa have not been considerably increased, two more general hospitals have been sent out. Then there is a telegram relating to stores received on 31st May from the General Officer commanding lines of communication. I quote it only because of the date, and I have selected only those telegrams which bear upon the hon. Member's questions. This telegram reads—
"Please stop sending for the present surgical material mentioned in Army Order No. 112,119; enormous quantities in base medical stores."
[An HON. MEMBER: That is at the base.] That is my point, and I will try to bring home to hon. Members what the difficulties are. My point is to show that there has not been any lack of foresight or prevision. The keenest foresight and lavish-

97
ness of expenditure are the two points I am endeavouring to deal with. I do respectfully submit to the Committee that such telegrams as I have read point to the conclusion that, whilst we have neither refused a demand nor reduced a demand, we have, on the contrary, made spontaneous offers of supplies, till at Cape Town stores have been piled up to an almost embarrassing degree. I come now to Bloemfontein and Kroonstad, which the hon. Member for Westminster has so prominently brought under notice. First I will quote two other telegrams, one of which has been sent and one received since those telegrams which have been printed and circulated among hon. Members. On 27th June my noble friend Lord Lansdowne telegraphed to Lord Roberts—
"The Times contains letter from Mr. Burdett-Coutts reflecting in strongest terms on hospital administration. He takes as an illustration a field hospital within a mile of Bloemfontein, which, he says, neither has nurses nor beds nor mattresses, although it was practically doing the work of a stationary hospital. He describes the overcrowding and suffering as deplorable. Your telegram explains the difficulties experienced at Bloemfontein, but I should like to know whether this hospital, which can probably be identified, is really typical of the rest."
Lord Roberts, in his reply on the 28th June, says—
"I cannot say without careful inquiry what hospital at Bloemfontein is referred to. In many cases patients were not tit to be moved after admission. It was however, impossible to provide beds and mattresses for 5,000 patients all at once. I can safely say that any deficiencies of the kind were accidental and temporary, and certainly not typical of our field hospitals as a whole."
Then I go to the contemporary records, written at the time, of what there was at Bloemfontein at the date mentioned. On 27th April there were at Bloemfontein six fully-equipped general hospitals, with 2,000 beds in all and with considerable capacity for extension. There were altogether 2,291 patients in the military hospitals on that date at Bloemfontein, 873 being cases of enteric. There were six field hospitals, of which all but one had to be prepared for being moved at any time. One was regarded to be more or less stationary. On 27th April there were six medical officers and three nursing sisters on duty there, in addition to the Royal Army Medical Corps orderlies. There were 251 patients, of whom 96
98
were enteric cases. In the remaining five field hospitals there were 236 cases of enteric. The return from No. 1 field hospital indicates that it was overcrowded, but this may have occurred during a period of temporary pressure. The difficulties of moving up supplies extended even to stretchers, and it is true that in some cases patients may have had to lie on the ground, as it was impossible in every case to get a sufficient number of stretchers. Although the number of doctors present is not stated, I myself believe, and indeed am informed by the director-general, that the number of medical officers in attendance must have been twenty or thirty, which was one to every ten or fifteen enteric patients. With reference to the allegation that patients wandered about half naked in the camp during the period of delirium, I find in the diaries which wore sent home a note that a patient suffering from an old gunshot wound escaped in the early hours, that an exhaustive search was made for the patient, but that no trace of him could be found, and that inquiries at the various hospitals failed to discover him. It may be that the impression created on the minds of the searchers was what the hon. Member for Westminster heard of, and led to the rumour that patients went about the camp in their delirium. On 14th May the principal medical officer reported in his diary that Lord Roberts had expressed the opinion that the arrangements at Bloemfontein were most satisfactory, and that is a later date than that to which the hon. Member for Westminster has called attention. Then we had the telegrams from Lord Roberts circulated yesterday, and I also invite the attention of the Committee to the lecture by the Member for Central Sheffield at the Royal United Service Institution, in which my hon. and gallant friend made some most useful and pertinent observations. [Laughter.] This is made the subject of laughter by hon. Gentlemen opposite, but surely such laughter will be misunderstood by the men out there who have to deal with those difficulties, and who have striven to labour and smooth over these difficulties. I am going to show what those difficulties were, and surely that is not a legitimate matter for laughter, derision, or contempt.
MR. BRYN ROBERTS: We did not laugh at that;

99
we laughed at the authority you quoted. [Cries of "Vincent."]
MR. WYNDHAM: I have admitted that the sick and wounded were exposed to great hardships at Bloemfontein, and I say that those charged with their care had to exercise and did exercise, and show the greatest devotion, labouring for their charges day and night. It will be a matter for universal consolation and satisfaction that their labours were, to a wonderful extent, successful; because it is not the case that the rate of mortality at Bloemfontein was abnormally high. That is wonderful testimony to the efforts which these people made under great difficulties. The percentage of mortality in enteric cases during this war, and more especially at Bloemfontein, has been 21 per cent. of the admissions to hospital. It is fair to compare that with the percentage in other campaigns. In the Nile campaign of 1898 the percentage of mortality was 28 per cent.; in the Dongola campaign of 1896, 50 per cent.; in the Matabele war of 1896–97, 32 per cent.; in the Chitral campaign of 1895, 28 per cent.; and in the Soudan campaign of 1884–85, 39 per cent. Therefore, although I own and admit and regret that the conditions at Bloemfontein were what they were, still our Army doctors brought down the percentage of mortality far below what it has been in recent campaigns. I will even dare to compare it with the percentages in time of peace when every appliance is at hand. I will take the case of soldiers in our own hospitals at home. During ten years the percentage of cases of mortality from enteric in these hospitals was 20·4, and in the year 1897 it was 23·9, or 2 per cent. higher than the percentage of mortality at Bloemfontein under these conditions. In India, taking soldiers admitted to hospital for enteric in a time of profound peace, the percentage of deaths for ten years was 26·4, and for the year 1897, 27·5. I will not pursue similar comparisons for wounds, because I may tell the Committee that the percentage of deaths from wounds and from disease generally in the present war have been lower than has been the case in other campaigns. I think the Committee have listened to these statistics with the interest and satisfaction which I admit they aroused in me when I read them, for I had feared that many lives which could
100
have been saved had been lost, and I am now almost led to believe that this is not the case. I do not quarrel with the method which has been pursued of painting a picture of this one spot at its worst, but there ought to have been a companion picture to make it fair and give the whole truth—of where the bridges had been broken down at Norvals Pont and Bethulie, of the trains one behind the; other, of the stores piled up, of the deviations laid down and the food and ammunition for the Army being painfully-taken over pontoons and reloaded into such rolling stock as had been left on the other side of the river by the Boers when they retired. That was the problem that had to be faced. Lord Roberts landed at Cape Town on the 10th January. By the 11th February he had collected 44,000 men near the Modder River and started to, relieve Kimberley. He relieved it on the 16th, and then he concentrated his force; again at Paardeberg, and on the 13th of March he entered Bloemfontein, after marching 120 miles away from the railway. Lord Roberts, owing to the limited amount of transport, had to restrict his, baggage to the lowest scale, and. he arrived with his horses wholly starved, and his men half starved. What was the problem before him? He had to supply his army with its daily bread and with the munitions of war. He had to collect more troops and to accumulate stores for a further advance. Now will it be said that therefore his march was a mistake? No one will say that. It was not a showy march to capture the capital of the enemy's country. That huge curve which Lord Roberts described was really a march of relief of the beleaguered garrisons of Ladysmith, Kimberley, and Mafeking, and that is the excuse and the ample justification for that daring move for which it is hard to find a parallel in military history. Bloemfontein is a town of 5,000 inhabitants, and all the stores and cattle in it had been removed, and therefore for the very existence of his army Lord Roberts had to depend upon, such food and so many cartridges as could be brought up by the line behind him. He had to draw up stores from De Aar, 250 miles distant, and from places on the coast 750, 450, and 350 miles away. For the last 85 miles from Springfontein there was only a single line. Lord Roberts had not restored his railway communications

101
until 19th March. I do not know when the bridges were restored, but on 16th March Colonel Girouard estimated that it would take at least sixteen days to restore them. What was the problem of feeding the army? Lord Roberts had 45,000 men when he arrived at Bloemfontein, and he increased that number to 75,000 by 30th April. It takes ten tons for every 1,000 men every day during a campaign. That gives about 221b. a day to each man, including food, ammunition, clothes, forage, medical stores, and engineer stores, but not including the carriage of the men who come up or their horses. Take an average of the 45,000 men at Bloemfontein on 13th March and the 75,000 men there when Lord Roberts moved, and you will find that he had to bring up to keep his army alive 550 tons a day. But then he had to collect his supplies for a further advance, because if he had not advanced Mafeking would have fallen, and the whole of that glorious move would have ended in a mere useless waste of men's lives. To prepare for a further advance he had to collect twenty-five days provisions for the whole 75,000 men to take on with them. This represented a further 18,750 tons that had to be brought up, or 470 tons a day for the forty days he was at Bloemfontein, so that this single line, the bridges of which were down, up to the last day of March was carrying 1,020 tons a day in order that Lord Roberta's army should not starve or be defeated owing to want of ammunition. I have left out of account the 6,000 horses as remounts and the mules and the tents that had to be brought up. I have a letter supplied to me by my friend the hon. Member for Wimbledon, who is a governor of Guy's Hospital. It was sent to him by Dr. Fripp, who is not in our employ, and it gives such a graphic description of the difficulties of getting up stores that I will trouble the Committee with passages from it. It is dated from Bloemfontein, 4th June. Dr. Fripp says that in Bloemfontein there were at that time over 5,000 sick, most of whom were suffering from enteric fever; while in Kroonstad the three hotels, the town hall, and the church had been converted into hospitals, even the billiard tables being requisitioned to accommodate eases of enteric fever. He adds that as the railway had been opened the Surgeon General was engaged in rapidly pushing up adequate hospital accommodation, and
102
that as Lord Roberts was now at Johannesburg, where there were public buildings suitable for the purpose, hospitals would be established there.
"We have now heard," the letter states, "of the bridge over the Vaal being blown up"—
and hon. Members will see how this bears on the point—
"and the possibility of establishing adequate hospital accommodation across the Vaal depends entirely on the question how early the railway can be established. At each river the bridges have been blown up, deviations have to be made, the engines are worn out—they cannot pull their loads across these steep gradients without a subdivision of the train. Each train delayed in this way affects the whole section of the line. The track is a single one, and therefore trains going both ways are delayed. The train we have travelled up from Bloemfontein to Kroonstad, although first on the line, took twenty-six hours to do the 120 miles. There is also a scarcity of fuel and water, which renders it necessary for the engine-driver sometimes to abandon his train and run the engine on to fill its tanks and then back to pick up the train."
If hon. Members will realise these facts, if they will realise what it means to take 1,020 tons a day in order to keep the army alive by such a machine of locomotion, I think they will understand that it was possible, that it was inevitable, that the necessary stores should not be in Bloemfontein for days and even weeks after they were required. The picture drawn by the hon. Member for Westminster rests upon this fallacy—it assumes that Bloemfontein was a base hospital in perfect security. It was as I have described; the means of access to it were as I have described; and during the whole of that time when Lord Roberts was accomplishing this superhuman task. Far from being free from attack, his right flank and his line of communication were being threatened and actions were being fought every day. What I have said is an inference from the conditions of warfare in South Africa, an inference from the facts before us—a legitimate inference—which I think should be accepted by all. But I do not rest on inference alone. The inference I have drawn is confirmed by contemporary evidence. If the Committee will bear with me a moment longer I should like to read some extracts from the diary of the principal medical officer at the base at

103
Cape Town, showing these daily difficulties.
"5th February.—Our railways are being blocked, and I cannot get up beds and bedding as quickly as I desire.
"22nd February.—I have received a telegram from Lord Roberts that more medical officers are urgently required.
"15th March.—Received wire from the Commander-in-Chief at Bloemfontein to be ready to send on thirty nurses as soon as the line is open.
"21st March.—No. 8 general hospital has arrived. As the main line is blocked it must be days before it can be pushed through.
"5th April.—Nos. 8, 9, and 10 general hospitals have arrived. All are under orders for Bloemfontein. No. 8 is now at East London, and as part only of the equipment can be forwarded, I cannot say when 9 and 10 will get through. Hospitals are urgently required in the Free State. I was fortunate to get the advance depot stores away.
"10th April.—Two hospital trains arrived yesterday from Bloemfontein. I hope to get them away this evening, as they are urgently required. I am sending one hundred beds. There are three general hospitals trying to get to Bloemfontein. The traffic is so great that I am unable to get them through."
Does not that account for the terrible, the deplorable state of affairs that the hon. Member for Westminster found at Bloemfontein? I have tried to give the Committee the facts—the full facts. I am sure the Committee in taking them into account, will weigh the considerations that have been urged by Lord Roberts—a general who is making history by these difficult marches, and while doing that is winning an enduring place in the affections of the men who serve under him for his incessant solicitude for their welfare. But is there not also the testimony of the wounded who have come home? Is there not the almost unbroken silence of the press? [HON. MEMBERS on the Irish benches: No, no!] I am not talking of the leading article; I am talking of the press gentlemen who are out in South Africa, and who have eyes to see; and are we to believe that if they saw these things they would not have written home about them? [HON. MEMBERS on the Irish benches: They have done so. What about the Censor?] Letters are not censored. [HON. MEMBERS on the Irish benches: They are.] I beg that I may not be interrupted. What I say is that what was open to the hon. Member for Westminster was well within the competence of others to see at Bloemfontein. No
104
one will suggest that these gentlemen were parties to a conspiracy—some conspiracy of mistaken good nature or loyalty to those with whom they were associated in danger and in hard days. If they saw those scenes, they believed they were inevitable in war, and therefore they did not feel justified in harrowing the feelings of people at home by descriptions of them. They had seen war before, and having had the experience of war they grasped the conditions of war and all that it means. We are a rich people, and being rich we sometimes think that money can do everything. Money has been spent freely, money voted by the House with the full sanction of the people; but even the money voted so unstintedly by the House, even the intelligence and zeal of the medical officers in South Africa, even the devotion they have displayed, though they have mitigated, could not abolish the horrors of war. What is it that we honour and respect in the soldier? It is not wholly or mainly because he gives his life in battle for the cause of his country; but because he bears with uncomplaining heroism the hardships that are inherent in his lot in war.
*MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: I feel that I must in one respect ask the indulgence of the Committee. I was perfectly well aware that I returned single-handed to face a tremendous combination of influences and impressions. I am aware that I have taken upon myself a great and grave responsibility. But it is not on that account that I ask the indulgence of the Committee. I am not afraid of the responsibility. What I ask is that, in stating a case so important from a national and every other point of view, any personal shortcomings of mine should not be allowed to interfere with the Committee in judging the question upon its merits. I am bound to make one or two preliminary remarks. In the first place, with regard to Lord Roberts, I desire to take this the only opportunity I have had after having seen Lord Roberts's work to pay my tribute to the great services rendered to his country by that distinguished soldier, and to say I believe that no kinder or more humane heart breathes than his, who braced himself to a great public duty under very painful circumstances. But I must refer to Lord Roberts in regard

105
to another matter. I observe that in his published correspondence Lord Roberts makes a personal reference to myself. I must therefore ask to be allowed to make a personal explanation in regard to that. Lord Roberts states that if I had called upon him at Kroonstad he would have explained certain matters to me. Immediately after my arrival at Cape Town I wrote to Lord Roberts a somewhat long letter fully explaining the objects of my visit to South Africa and asking permission to join the troops at the front. I received no reply to that letter; but I am bound to say that at the time Lord Roberts received it he was fully occupied with other and more important matters. The day after my arrival at Bloemfontein I called upon Lord Roberts, but was unable to see him. I did see a member of his staff, and that gentleman argued very strongly against my being with the troops at all, stating, amongst other things, that if Lord Roberts desired to make a report to the public upon this matter he would make it, founded upon reports sent to him from his principal medical officers. I could not avoid replying that that theory would do away with all correspondents at the front, adding that this was a matter in which the public were deeply interested and with regard to which they might possibly be glad to have some independent and full information. However, I quite accepted the position, and was not altogether sorry, because it left me free to make my inquiries in a perfectly independent manner. With regard to Lord Roberts I wish to say one thing more. However generously he may take upon himself the responsibility for all these things, I do not believe that anyone will allow it to rest upon his shoulders. When we consider that the Commander-in-Chief of an army of 200,000 men, operating in different columns in divers parts of the country, has to hold in his head and his hands all the complicated plans and threads of these operations, it is absolutely impossible to expect him to supervise, or even to inform himself as to details of a medical system. There is another remark I ask leave to make, because I see that one of my public critics—one of those two gentlemen I have felt compelled to criticise very strongly—began an answer to my statements by saying that he thought the public ought to know that
106
the doctors and nurses had not acted with brutality. Has there ever been a suggestion of that kind in any letter or published utterance of mine? On the contrary, I have given every possible credit to the loyalty and devotion with which those who have had the care of the patients have acted, and I take this opportunity of expressing my deep regret that many—far too many of them—have lost their lives in the performance of their noble task. Unfortunately, in the course of my informing the public upon this subject, the last chapter, so to speak, was not completed. The article upon which this debate is founded broke oft' at a field hospital at Bloemfontein, and it has not been possible for me to put forward the rest of my account of Bloemfontein, which was to have started with a description of the town hospitals. There were eight hospitals in that town, and they accommodated at first about 700 patients. Some of these hospitals were then in a fairly good condition; there were three which had nurses resident in them at the time the troops arrived, who confined their duties to these hospitals. I heard a great many complaints of the imperfections of the other town hospitals, and a great many accounts of the sufferings of the patients in the early days. I never had the slightest intention of giving any publicity to those accounts, simply because knew that the equipment of those hospitals was the outcome of a forced march, and because, until the railway was opened I did not think it fair to criticise them. The hon. Member who has just sat down made a great point of the forced march and the difficulty of carrying equipments for hospitals, but I might state here that, after the railway was opened, there was one of the hospitals containing typhoid patients which had no disinfectants of any kind, and another in which the corpse of one of the patients who had died during the night had been stuffed into the only lavatory there was in the hospital. It was found by the patients who went to use the lavatory in the morning. That is a question of management. But as to these hospitals, they were, on the whole, in a fair condition when I arrived at Bloemfontein. Most of the sick or wounded officers went into them; but some officers went into the

107
private hospitals, which were moved up to Bloemfontein after the first month. A few officers went into the general hospitals. The private hospitals, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, all did admirable work, but I may say they were considerably hampered by the absence or deficiency of nurses; a deficiency solely due to the objection of the Department at home to allow them to take out sufficient nurses in the first instance. They had all been anxious to have a proper quota of nurses, but their request had been refused by the Army Medical Department here. Now, may I venture to say a word with regard to myself? I went out to South Africa because I believed that this was a question which greatly interested hundreds of thousands of people, and I was determined that if the treatment of the sick and wounded was satisfactory the public should know it, and that if it was not satisfactory they should also know it. I want to ask two questions in my own defence. In the first place, am I a sentimental witness? My experience of war was gained in the Russo Turkish war. That was a barbarous war—a war in which there was practically no medical service on the Turkish side. I only recall this to show that I am the last person to be exigeant with regard to the treatment of the sick and wounded in war. Then, am I a prejudiced or an unfair witness? I appeal to the series of articles I have published and which described the base hospitals at Cape Town. Those hospitals were in an admirable condition when I arrived at Cape Town, and I appeal to everyone whether I have not given every possible credit to, and the most favourable picture I could possibly portray of, those hospitals. There is an article of mine published this morning which gives a long account of one of them. The detail into which I have entered proves, I think, that I have been careful in my examination of the hospitals, and the favourable view I have expressed proves the fairness with which I have acted. Now I come back to Bloemfontein. There is one word in my published letter which I regret, and only one; and that is where I speak of the field hospital I have described as an "illustration," without having guarded that phrase by saying it was the worst field hospital there. It was undoubtedly much the worst, but the other field hospitals had no attempt at beds, not sufficient stretchers, insufficient staffs,
108
and were altogether, if they were to be occupied for any length of time, unfit, to my mind, for that purpose. Now I want to explain to the Committee a point which I think has been missed in treating of these field hospitals. The Under Secretary gave a description of the use to which a field hospital is put when it accompanies troops, and how impossible it is to equip it with the equipment of a stationary hospital. I quite admit that that is the case when the hospital accompanies troops, but the Committee must remember that this hospital was not accompanying the troops. It was stationary outside Bloemfontein, within less than a mile of the town, and it has frequently happened in this campaign that where a field hospital was to be used as a stationary hospital it was treated and equipped as such. The chief authority on this subject, Colonel Stephenson, states most emphatically that "where a field hospital is going to be occupied for any considerable time, every effort should be made to raise the patients from the ground." With regard to this particular hospital, there is no need to labour the point, because on the occasion of my first visit to the hospital the officer in command of it told me it was going to be a stationary hospital. With regard to that hospital, and as regards the question of overcrowding, I think my description has been read by most members of the Committee, of the state of things which I witnessed there. Well, I declare that every word of that description is absolutely true, and a picture of what I saw with my own eyes. But I cannot examine the reasonableness of the impression produced upon my eyes except by an appeal to figures. As I stated, there were ten men crowded into a bell tent. The measurement of a bell tent is known; I cannot give it to you exactly. But I see it is stated in a letter in to-day's Times that bell tents hold sixteen people. All I can say is that they do not hold sixteen patients. Possibly sixteen people might be crowded into them, but how I cannot imagine. Ten patients, at any rate, are so crowded that when you want to speak to a sick person—a man whose voice is so weak that it cannot reach you standing—and you kneel down and put your face close to his, you have to kneel on one knee and put the other foot behind, because there is not room to put both knees side by side. I

109
am told by one of my critics that it is not true that patients lay upon the hard ground. All I have to say is this—that there wore 316 patients in the field hospital, and I saw the greater number of them lying on the ground on a single blanket each and a thin waterproof sheet. I doubt if all the patients had waterproof sheets. I adduce in support of this statement the fact that that field hospital had half the equipment of an ordinary field hospital. It had been divided into two on the march. An ordinary field hospital has 100 stretchers, and, therefore, this should have had fifty; but eight of these had disappeared, and there remained forty-two stretchers in the hospital. There were 316 patients, and therefore, as I stated, there were 274 patients who had to lie on the ground. I have further to state that these figures and all the figures which appeared in my article on this subject were given to me by the medical officer commanding and in charge of the hospital. I observe that in the cabled messages, of which we have heard quotations just now, Lord Roberts states as the reason for not vacating these hospitals that the patients were not fit to be moved. I have given an instance where, unfortunately, at the close of the career of the hospital, twenty patients who ought never to have been moved were moved—three or four of them in a most critical stage of a dangerous disease. Anyone who knows about typhoid knows the local conditions of it. They were put into ox wagons There were no ambulances. This was two months after our entrance into Bloemfontein. The men were put into these wagons and jolted over the veldt, over the roughest possible ground, and one man was in that stage where his case was hopeless. They were taken to another and more permanent hospital. I have stated in the press that four of these men died in a few days. There is another remark I might make under the head of the field hospitals, and that is with regard to the insufficiency of the personnel. Such was the insufficiency of orderlies that patients could not be prevented when in a delirious state from getting up and wandering into the cold air at night. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for War has referred to a case, and for some reason or other—I did not quite catch the argument—inferred that it was a solitary case. Why, it happened
110
not only in this hospital but in many other hospitals night after night, solely on account of the insufficiency of the personnel and the insufficiency of men to take care of the patients. I could give the hon. Gentleman other instances, but I will not detain the House. I can only take the hon. Gentleman's arguments and reply to them by facts, which I must state in the interest of bringing out the truth in this matter. I greatly regret if I have erred in decorum, or in the judgment of the House, in not rising first to speak. I considered the subject, and it appeared to me that I had laid a charge, and I thought that I might reasonably expect to hear what explanation the Government had to give. I desired to give them an opportunity of making a statement of their case. Of course, it is perfectly competent for the hon. Gentleman to reply to me, as we are in Committee. The first thing that struck me when I saw the crowded state of these field hospitals surrounding Bloemfontein was why more houses and more buildings were not taken to supply hospital accommodation. As I have shown, there were seven or eight buildings taken, which contained an aggregate of 700 patients at a time when there were 2,200 patients in and around Bloemfontein. There were three considerable hotels in the place, there was the town hall, there were large stores, all of which might have been turned into hospitals. In addition to these there were a considerable number of most comfortable private houses which were not occupied by their owners. Their owners had left the town. The houses had grounds around them, in which tents for the attendants might have been placed. Why were they not taken for hospitals? Houses wore taken, and legitimately taken—I am not making any complaint—for staff officers and military authorities. [Opposition cheers and Ministerial cries of "Oh, oh!"] I do not make that remark—[Opposition cheers and renewed cries of "Oh!" and an hon. Member: "Shame!"] Well then, I repeat—and I say it without any arrière pensée—that such houses were taken as residences for military officers, and I could not see any reason why many more of them should not have been taken for the men who were allowed to remain ill in the tents. I am not saying that the staff and the military officers and authorities should have given up houses that they were in;

111
I am only arguing that there were other houses there that could be taken for hospitals. The real reason was that there was no one and nothing to put into them in the way of medical personnel or medical equipment. With regard to personnel, I do not claim that the personnel suitable to these hospitals should have come with Lord Roberts on the forced march to Bloemfontein. But a comparatively few days after, the road to Bloemfontein—for the deviation at Norval's Pont was open—was clear, and troops were constantly coming up in numbers, even supplies were coming up. It would have been perfectly possible to have sent up doctors and orderlies. I also say it would have been possible to have sent up nurses, because the road was safe and Bloemfontein was safe at that time. With regard to nursing; I considered myself, like a great many others, that the evils which occured at Bloemfontein were owing to the absence of a proper female nursing staff. They might have gone there if they were in the country in sufficient numbers. They might have been there by 1st April, and they might have been there in greater numbers by 15th April, and hundreds of them might have been there at the end of April, the date at which I saw what I have described. There was no possible reason patent to the eye there why they should not. The nurses of the three extemporised hospitals were there. The women of the town population were there, going about their normal occupations. But the women nurses of England were not there to attend to those soldiers, and if they had been I believe a great many lives might have been saved. I now come to the question of the equipment of these hospitals, which involves the question of transport. The hon. Gentleman has given a very graphic and, in some respects, a powerful account of the difficulties of transport to Bloemfontein. I had myself made some very careful calculations on this subject, but I will not trouble the Committee with them, because I think the hon. Gentleman has cased my way. The Under Secretary said that 1,000 tons of material came up to Bloemfontein every day for forty days. I ask, supposing one train a day—I believe there were twelve luggage trains per day—had contained some hospital equipment, what an enormous boon it would have been to those poor people who wore there?
112
As far as I can make out there was no provision for hospital equipment coming, up to Bloemfontein at that time. I have stated very clearly what my own position is, and what I feel, with regard to the relation between military exigencies and humanity—that, where military exigencies are entirely incompatible with the proper treatment of the sick and wounded, military exigencies must come first, but that where considerations of humanity can be carried out, by a reasonable inroad upon military exigencies—that is to say,, by something that will not endanger your military success—humanity ought to be considered. I want the Committee to consider for a moment what the position was in Bloemfontein. The greatest pressure of sickness came, I think, in about the second week off May; I was with the troops on the march at the time. For six weeks previous to that time the railway had been running freely, and all these luggage trains and troops had been moving up. Many of us, and, I fancy, many other people in the world, were very much astonished at the long delay at Bloemfontein. I do not say it was unnecessary; it is not for me to express an opinion upon that. All I say is that there was no apparent necessity, and I cannot conceive anybody showing a positive reason, why the general advance from Bloemfontein Severn weeks after the troops arrived there should have taken place on the 1st rather than on the 2nd or 3rd of May. My point is that one day's trains on that railroad would have saved the whole position as regards the sick and wounded, and unless it can be shown that there was an imperative necessity for the general advance taking place on that particular day, I think the facts show that the necessities of the sick and wounded were postponed for considerations which were not in any way vital or important from a strategic point of view. I have spoken of what seems to me to have been a very unnecessary delay in sending up the equipment. I am bound to weary the Committee somewhat, because I am dealing with the facts of the case, which are rather full. No. 9 general hospital arrived in Bloemfontein on the 8th April, and the tents were erected. They stood there perfectly empty until the 22nd April, because there was no personnel and no equipment of any

113
kind to put into them. The heaviest parts of the hospital had been brought up; the lightest part was kept back or not brought up for a whole fortnight, although every day the working of the railway was becoming easier. I cannot conceive any reason, except disorganisation, which separated that hospital, which might have contained 520patients, from its equipment, which was necessary before the patients could go into it. I should be the last to minimise the difficulties of transport to Bloemfontein, and it has been suggested that there were broken bridges and all that sort of thing; but the time with which I have dealt covers a period from the 1st April to the end of May, during the whole of which the railway was open, at first by a deviation, and afterwards over the bridge. From the great number of trains which came up every day to Bloemfontein, and the character of the material which they carried, I myself was more and more astonished that the equipment of these hospitals was not brought up. Now I come to another question. I have spoken of the two general hospitals, one of which came up on the 22nd April, and the other somewhat later. Those general hospitals were capable of holding, in the first instance, 520 patients. I think the limit of 520 which has been applied by the Army Medical Department to a general hospital is a very wise one; I do not think it is advisable to crowd more than that number together in one locality and with one sot of tents. But these two general hospitals were stretched to the extent, in one case of 1,500, and in the other, 1,700 patients. No. 8 with 1,500 patients was placed in a good position about a mile from the town, and I cannot speak of it from personal observation, because before I left Bloemfontein it was hardly ready, and I had not time to see it on my way down from the front as I passed through Bloemfontein. But No. 9 general hospital, by containing 1,700 patients, to my mind was a tented city of pestilence. There was no attempt at classification. You had men carried or staggering in, one under a disease called "N.Y.D." and another under disease called "S C.F." "N.Y.D." means "not yet diagnosed"; and "S.C.F." means "simple continuous fever." These patients were placed one on either side of a typhoid patient. I ask what hope or chance had these two men of escaping the deadly disease of the man
114
between them? In many of the hospitals there was this absence of classification. I do not say that in all eases it was possible, but at least in a hospital where the patients could be placed in separate tents, it was possible, and this want of classification was one of the greatest evidences of the want of management that I saw under the Army medical, system there. This hospital had no kitchen; the food had to be cooked outside in pits. It was what is called a non-dieted hospital, which means that it had no special arrangements for making those delicate diets which are necessary to fever patients. At the end of two months after we got to Bloemfontein it had only twenty nurses for 1,700 patients. Of course, it is open to anyone to object to female nurses in military hospitals altogether—that is a perfectly legitimate position to take up; but if you have female nurses at all I am justified in complaining of the number of nurses, there were in this and many other hospitals. It is a number founded on the old Army medical theory that a nurse is not to nurse, but is simply to superintend the men in nursing. I do not know exactly the number of orderlies there were in the hospital, but the great proportion of them were entirely untrained private soldiers taken from infantry regiments. I want the Committee to consider for a moment what this means. I do not know that I can put it better than by suggesting that if any hon. Member here had a typhoid patient in his house it would be an absurd thing for him to go into the street and call in a navvy and say to him, "Nurse me that typhoid patient." I do not say that a private soldier who is used as a hospital orderly does not do his best. Of course he does his best. But he has absolutely no knowledge and absolutely no training, and no one will suggest that he has the natural tenderness of touch which would make him any more suited to be a nurse than any other man from the working classes. And a great many of these orderlies—those untrained private soldiers—were convalescents. I protest against the use of convalescent soldiers as orderlies in a fever hospital. What does it mean? It means that a man who has only just got up from a serious illness, who is still ill and weak and unable to concentrate his attention, who wants rest, fresh air, and quiet, is sent back into these fever-

115
stricken tents to breathe the same bad air and to see these horrible sights, when he is too weak to perform the proper duties of a nurse, and when his faculties of watchfulness and attention are so enfeebled that he goes about his work drowsily, and is really incapable of discharging the duty. All over the hospitals at the front convalescent private soldiers were employed as nursing order-lies, and it seems to me it was a most inhuman practice. If there had been a sufficient number of properly-trained attendants, it 'would have been absolutely unnecessary. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for War said something about my not bringing forward any new matter. I have a great deal more new matter which I think the Committee ought to hear, but I wish to submit myself entirely to the judgment of the Committee. I will be as brief as possible. ["Go on."] I started with the troops from Bloemfontein, but unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, I did not succeed in seeing any real action. I wanted to see the treatment of the wounded on the field, in order to complete my inspection. I did my best, but with a front extending so many miles, and the enemy not holding any position very strongly, I found it very difficult to find any real action going on. But as far as I could see the ambulances and doctors with the troops while on the march were fairly sufficient. I do not say they were absolutely sufficient, but they were fairly so. However, I do not feel really qualified to express an opinion about that. But I feel bound to state that on one occasion the following incident came to my notice. I heard some firing a few miles off on the left, and some other firing on the right. I went in the latter direction; but on the left there had been a very serious mishap to our troops—the disaster to the mixed squadron composed of Inniskillings and Scots Greys, who were cut up by an abuse of the white flag at a Kaffir kraal. They were only four miles from their brigade. It was known, of course, by their brigade that they were to occupy this position. The action took place at nine o'clock in the morning, and the Boers retired shortly afterwards. But no one came near these wounded soldiers until half-past four in the afternoon The firing could be heard, and I could not understand why, if the brigade was properly supplied with ambulances and doctors, these wounded soldiers
116
should not have been attended to. As a matter of fact, about half-past four the bearer company of the New South Wales medical contingent came up. I may tell the Committee this contingent is one of the finest specimens of medical service seen in the war. It consists of a bearer company and field hospital, perfectly disciplined and wonderfully efficient. Great use has been made of it wherever it has been, and its units have been broken up and taken in different directions. It is entirely composed of civilians, and the most eminent doctors in Australia are serving freely upon it. The particular officer in command of this bearer company which came to the rescue of these men was a certain Major Eames, who was always, if his own brigade was not fighting, cruising about with his bearer company to assist anybody in distress, and, fortunately, he found these men. He took them to a tin house on the railway, and formed a temporary hospital there. He supplied all the necessaries he could, and then left the men in charge of a medical officer and rejoined his own brigade. I came across these wounded later on. Many of the men were in a very dangerous condition; four of them died that night. Two days afterwards the doctor who was left in charge of these men received an order to evacuate this hospital and send the wounded away, and ox-wagons were sent for the purpose. He was a civilian doctor, and he protested, but his orders were very express. He did, however, insist on keeping three officers there. It seemed to me to be a strange thing that the men who were dangerously wounded—for he did not disguise the fact that the lives of these men were endangered by their being moved—should be taken away from that hospital while officers should be left in it. Of course, I can understand circumstances under which it would be necessary to evacuate a hospital of that sort, but if the doctor was compelled to send the men away while he was allowed to keep the officers, there seems to me to have been some unfair distinction. I now come to Kroonstad. We arrived at Kroonstad on a Saturday. On the Thursday after, an endeavour was made to equip two buildings—a church and a hotel—as hospitals but there was absolutely nothing to; put into them. There were 300 patients,

117
but there were only two doctors; there were no nurses and no trained orderlies. There were four untrained orderlies in the church with 115 patients, and there were four more in the hotel with about 160 patients. I remind the Committee that I went up with the troops; dozens of other correspondents went up with the troops; innumerable attendants and nondescript people of different positions in addition to the Regular army went up with the troops; why, then, could not doctors and orderlies have gone up with the troops? If, as it has been maintained by the Under Secretary of State for War, there had been a sufficient personnel in South Africa, there was no possible reason why that personnel, putting aside the nurses if you like, should not have been at Kroonstad on the day we arrived there, ready to take their place in these hospitals. Then we come to the question of equipment—that is to say, beds, and so on. I will not detain the Committee by stating certain facts concerning the beds. There are very light collapsible beds, which can be used in emergencies, hundreds of which can be packed into one wagon. I would suggest that in this matter there has been a great want of prevision and a great amount of obstinacy on the part of the Army Medical Department. They use a tent which is called a marquee, but it was perfectly well known to them from the first that there is another hospital tent, called the "Tortoise" tent, which weighs half as much as a marquee, and yet holds two more patients. The Department knew that transport was going to be the great difficulty—that is the argument of the Under Secretary of State; they also knew that the tents formed more than half the weight of the hospital; and yet they did not take the trouble to provide themselves with the class of tent which would lessen the weight by one-half. I want to make my point quite clear about these hospitals at Kroonstad. We were followed by the army supplies, the transport service, and so on. There was a long train of bullock-wagons, each wagon capable of carrying between 6,000 and 7,000 pounds nett.
SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Not with a convoy.
*MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: My information comes from the head of the Army Service Corps, but it doesn't make much difference to the argument.
SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Never mind.
*MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: I cannot say how many bullock-wagons there were, but I made a calculation that if the army started with rations and forage for five days supply—and I believe that was considered to be the minimum with which they ought to start—there would be something like 360 bullock-wagons in the Army train. Will anybody tell me that a train which contained 360 bullock-wagons could not have contained four or six more for hospital equipment? The proposition is absurd. There is no fixed limit at 360. If the Department had had the prevision to prepare these hospitals for Kroonstad it would have been perfectly easy to obtain the equipment and personnel. The great vice, the great fault and error at the front, has been the absence of a proper system of stationary hospitals—that is to say, hospitals which may possibly want tents, but which can generally be put into buildings on the line of march. An army advancing under ordinary circumstances does not leave its communications in danger; therefore the line between the army and its base is a continuous line of stations which are fairly safe, strategically speaking, and in these stations what are called stationary hospitals naturally find their place. On the question of preparation, I want to ask why, in all that idle time after the black week in the middle of December, if this equipment was there, was it not pushed up that 500 or 600 miles to Do Aar, the rail-head? If it had been there when the communication was established with Bloemfontein the greater part of the distance would have been traversed, and it would have been perfectly possible and easy to have got that equipment further on. But during that period, as far as I know, nothing was done in the way of moving up any equipment to the front. It is not as if there was any uncertainty about our progress. The way was marked out clearly before us; we knew we were going to pursue it to the end; and certainly the equipment might have been got up to the rail-head, as it then was, in order that when the road was open, the road being practically a railroad, these stationary hospitals could have been established. I saw all through the ultimate result of this neglect of prevision. But I have not done with

119
Kroonstad. There I saw the patients brought in from the field hospitals. They were carried by untrained hands. They were put down on the floor with no one to attend to them, although many of them were in dangerous stages of illness. The doctors themselves complained bitterly of the want of assistance. In consequence of the absence of stationary hospitals there, or of any proper hospital accommodation, convoys of sick and wounded moved off in ox-wagons—not ambulances, but ox-wagons, the bottoms of which are shaped like a V, so that the men cannot lie flat. I saw convoys of 150 sick men in various stages of illness, and many wounded men, put into these ox-wagons and sent a journey three days and nights over the veldt, with its burning heat at midday and its freezing cold at night, without any extra clothing, without any pretence of medical comforts, without any medical man, without any trained orderlies to accompany them. I saw one of these convoys stop at a station on the railway, and the man in charge of the convoy came to a doctor who was there and said, "I have got a man here who is dying; I have got no medicine, and I do not know what to do with him." The doctor, who knew something of the regulations, and that even under the Army Medical Department it was not only illegal, but a crime to send a convoy of sick and wounded away without a doctor, asked the man, "Are you in charge of these patients?" The man said, "No, I am not in charge of the patients; I am in charge of the list." That was the only attendant sent with this convoy for three days and nights over the veldt, and there was another convoy of 150 sick and wounded who were treated in exactly the same way. ["Shame!"] I do not want to pile on those accounts, but at the same place there was a man came into the house whose history I will tell the Committee. He had had enteric fever; he had been on milk diet for three weeks; he was sent immediately from that to rejoin his regiment. He was sent with a detail, of course by road, and he stopped at this particular place I am describing. As soon as he got on his horse the first day he tumbled off; he tumbled off his horse five times; the next day he kept tumbling off, but the men helped him on again, and he
120
tumbled into this tin house a dead man. He had been sent on this journey to rejoin his regiment after he had been on a milk diet for three weeks, without the slightest rest or period of convalescence. These are incidents which I could go on multiplying, but it is not by my own wish I have already taken up so much time. I will come, back to Bloemfontein once more for a moment. This was on the 23rd May. The troops, you will understand, were at Kroonstad. Bloemfontein was perfectly well equipped by that time, except that it was the scene of the pressure of enteric which I have described. On the 23rd May I was informed there were eight wounded men lying on the platform at Bloemfontein station. I went down and saw those men lying on the platform. They had arrived at Bloemfontein after a fifteen hours journey in open trucks, at six o'clock in the morning; they were out on the platform, and there they lay until half-past three in the afternoon with absolutely nobody to attend to them. ["Oh, oh!"] Bloemfontein was as safe and comfortable then as Bloomsbury. The Railway Staff Officer telegraphed at eleven o'clock to the Principal Medical Officer in the town saying these men were there; but no one, doctor or orderly, came near them the whole of that time. Early in the morning there happened to be a hospital train in the goods station close by; some of the sisters heard of these wounded men and went to them, and gave them two tins of condensed milk and a tin of beef-tea, and these were shared by the eight sick men and several others. The station was in full swing; porters, passengers, and so on were walking about, but these men were left unnoticed. Four of them were dying. I knelt down and put my face close to theirs, but could hardly hear their whispers; I tried to get names and regimental numbers. I say that to allow those men to lay there from six o'clock in the morning until half-past three in the afternoon was a disgrace. At last, the ambulance of the Irish Hospital—which is a magnificent hospital, and has the great advantage of having its own transport—came down to the station, and took these men away. I believe that two of the men died after-wards. I do not know that I want to argue the case further with the Under Secre-

121
tary of State for War. He has given a contrast between the personnel in South Africa on the 15th January and that on the 15th June. By the 15th June the tragedy was over. It is no use to quote the number of people there on the 15th June. What I want to know, and what the Committee and the country want to know, is when these people went out. It throws no light on the occurrence to toll us that there were so many people there on the 15th June. My whole point is that we have not been prepared, that there has been no prevision. I think that point ought to have been answered by stating whether, on the 1st March—to take a very easy date—there was a personnel in South Africa sufficient for the requirements of the situation. If the hon. Gentleman can tell me that, I, as a loyal member of his party, should be only too glad to hear it.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): He has told you.
MR. WYNDHAMwas understood to say he had not the figures for any particular date, but that he had already given one figure with regard to the 16th April, and that medical equipment and personnel had proceeded on the same scale throughout—namely, 10 per cent. of beds to the numbers despatched to South Africa.
*MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: I am glad to have made this point clear. I shall be all the happier if we can localise the responsibility for these deficiencies in South Africa. My own personal opinion is that the fault lay not here, but in South Africa. But I think I was within my right in calling attention to the fact that to contrast the number there on the 15th January with the number there on the 15th June does not really answer the question whether they were there in time. The epidemic and the great pressure was in the month of May. I have come back to Bloemfontein. I will not pause on the long journey between there and Cape Town. With regard to Cape Town, as I found it on my second visit in the first week in June, I have not a very favourable report to make. The two general hospitals at Wynberg had been admirable, and, I think, remained so. The normal number of patients in each
122
was 520, but they had been extended so that at one time one accommodated 1,400 and the other 1,200 patients. The staff' and nurses of No. 2 hospital at Wynberg have now been ordered to Bloemfontein, with the result that the twenty-five nurses in No. 1 hospital have now to attend to the 2,000 patients at present in both hospitals. There again, it seems to mo, with hundreds and almost thousands of nurses in this country ready and willing and anxious to go out to South Africa, a position of that sort might have been relieved by a little care and attention on the part of the authorities. A Convalescent Home had been established at Maitland Camp, about two miles from Cape Town. I have urged throughout the establishment of Convalescent Homes in order to relieve the hospitals of their patients. I visited that at Maitland Camp, then only just established, and these are my notes. "Saw convalescents in new huts. There are huts erected for 150 men—ten huts—but they are bare and miserable. There are no beds or conveniences, and the men lie in blankets on the floor. How far these men are convalescent I cannot say; I found several of them in bed at three o'clock in the afternoon. The ordinary idea of an Army convalescent is that he is a man fit for duty. I found one of these a man in the Australian Horse, with a very high temperature and quick pulse. He had had enteric and bronchitis, and spoke with difficulty. He had been at Wynberg for a few days, and was then sent on to Maitland Camp. He was formerly at No. 9 at Bloemfontein"—which happens to be the general hospital I described. Another man was suffering from dysentery. He was on a milk diet, and had had no milk forfour days. All this was happening within two miles of Cape Town, where every convenience might have been provided. Now, who were these people in charge of? They were in charge of a sergeant—not a trained sergeant of the Army Medical Corps, but an untrained man, himself recovering from enteric. I had a long talk with him. He told me no doctor attended them unless he (the sergeant) went for him. Therefore it was left for this untrained man, knowing nothing at all about medicine, to say whether the man on the floor required a doctor. After a conversation with the man on the floor I sent a doctor to

123
him, but the sergeant did not know that he wanted one. I afterwards heard that he was dangerously ill. In the same camp there is an institution called the Yeomanry Hospital. I want to distinguish this entirely from the magnificent hospital at Deelfontein, which is one of the best manage I and ordered hospitals it is possible to see. The one in Maitland Camp is called the Yeomanry Hospital because it is filled with Yeomanry patients; it holds fifty patients. It consists of one Cape hut with 6 inches of draught under its roof, and six bell tents, one tortoise tent, one doctor, and no trained nurses of any kind, orderlies or otherwise.
SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Has the Yeomanry hospital at Maitland any connection with that at Deelfontein?
*MR. BURDETT COITTTS: It has nothing to do with the Yeomanry hospital at Deelfontein, which, as I have said, is excellent. There is one thing I must call attention to here. There was a hospital at Cape Town, on my first visit, which was a disgrace to any army or any community, called the Woodstock. The building in which it was housed was an old building, condemned over and over again, yet it was taken to be used as a hospital for the troops who arrived from England in the transports sick. Everybody who came off a transport ill was put into this hospital. It was a horrible place, and full of vermin. I will read you a passage from a letter written by a surgeon-general, which appeared in The Times this morning—
"As regards the 'Woodstock' Hospital he speaks the truth. The building is a discredit to any Government. When I reported on it in 1894, I stated that it was situated on the sea shore, that close in front one of the main sewers of Cape Town discharged its contents, which were driven back on the beach when the wind set that way, and sent a stench through the wards so bad that it was frequently necessary to close the windows.
"Immediately behind ran the railway. On the right, within a couple of hundred yards, is the military cemetery; on the left some open ground, the resort of the bad characters of Cape Town.
"As regards vermin, I say there were none present during my incumbency, though the Cape Town barracks swarmed with bugs."
Now in spite of its situation this hospital has been taken as a centre to create and establish around it a large tented hospital.
124
Anything more injudicious than to choose such a position, when you have miles and miles of beautiful suburbs around Cape Town, I cannot conceive I have only one more remark to make. The Under Secretary for War referred to the fact that no other accounts had come home of all these imperfections. I do not think that is absolutely true; but I want to point out to the Committee—and this is a very important point—that we have had a great many favourable accounts of, a great many letters have appeared in the papers from patients in, hospitals who have been well treated. But I want to point out that those letters coming from other places dated at other times with regard to favourable treatment can do anything to shake the specific statements which I have made. With regards to the correspondents, when the Under Secretary of State referred to the fact that there were no accounts from the war correspondents, someone interpolated the words "Press Censor." The right hon. Gentleman replied that letters were not censored. All I have to say is that if a correspondent wrote and published a letter showing the sort of thing I have shown, and its purport was telegraphed back there within perhaps two weeks and a-half, I should not envy the position of that man as a war correspondent, the performance of whose duty largely depends upon the authorities whose conduct he might have impugned. There is one other point with regard to evidence. I do not deny it, and I think it is a very good trait in the British soldier—that he is very sensitive with regard to sickness. He does not like to make complaint with regard to his treatment in hospital. In the first place, he is even ashamed of being sick. Then he does not want to be thought namby-pamby, and docs not want to be talked about for having made complaints as to his treatment in hospital. It is a sort of esprit de corps amongst them. Moreover in the old days there was in the ranks an absolute terror of the authorities in the hospital. I do not know if any such feeling exists now in the Army, but I believe the tradition of it still prevails. Sir, you will got plenty of evidence when men know that it is not unmanly, that it is not cowardly, and that it is not unpatriotic to come forward and tell the truth in this matter; and when they are assured that it is their bounden duty

125
to their comrades, to their country and themselves, in order that these things may be remedied and may not recur. I have not troubled the Committee with any of the innumerable letters I have received, but I cannot refrain from reading one short letter I received this morning, dealing with this point—
"Dear Sir,—I arrived in England the 10th of this month, being invalided home from Africa, having had enteric. I feel very pleased, and mast thank you very much for the plucky manner by which you have exposed the state of things which existed at Bloemfontein. I am one of those that muse consider myself lucky in having lived to get back to dear old England, and can give my evidence as a proof of what you have written, for I laid on the ground for three weeks without a change. If you consider my evidence of any use, I should be pleased to give it you at any time; at the present I trust you will keep my name anonymous, as my term of service has not expired and am on sick furlough."
I call attention to the last words. I hope at any rate that this House of Commons, which is higher than any Department or authority in this country, will be willing to see that any such man who comes forward is protected, and that his future is not prejudiced by reason of the story he has to tell. I must apologise most humbly for having detained the Committee all this time. I have not said half of what I wanted to say, but I presume that I have said enough to show that there has been disorganisation, and a want of prevision, and a want of proper management somewhere. I am not myself inclined to think that the blame rests upon the individual personnel of the Army Medical Corps; I feel pretty certain that it does not. I am afraid it rests upon a system which is entirely inelastic, and from deficiencies in that system which result in unnecessary want of provision. I do not wish, and I do not intend, to lay blame upon individuals, or to lay it all upon the Army medical system. I feel myself that the policy which has governed the question of transport has not shown sufficient consideration for the needs of the sick. I cannot but say that; otherwise the whole responsibility would rest upon the Army Medical Corps. To go back once more to the question of evidence, I say with pain that my best evidence lies in South Africa, in the men who are buried there, brave men, many of whom, I believe, if a different system had prevailed, would have returned to their homes and their friends. It has
126
been a notable war. In a few days I hope it will have been a successful war. I do not know whether it has boon a glorious war. [Cries of "No, no!"] Yes! It has been made glorious by the bravery of these men on whose behalf I speak here—the men and their regimental officers. But for my part, having seen what I have seen, its darker side will ever be present to my mind. I shall think always of those silent, though not, I hope, forgotten, witnesses, men to whom we can raise but one real monument—the determination that such errors as I have described shall never occur again.
SIR WALTER FOSTER: The two interesting speeches to which we have listened to-night have been made in a somewhat different order to that usually adopted in debate. I am sorry that that order was observed. I am, sorry for the logical sequence that the hon. Member below the Gangway spoke after the hon. Gentleman the Undersecretary for War. It appeared to me that the hon. Gentleman practically admitted the chief of the contentions that were raised by the hon. Member for Westminster, and, admitting the conditions, he rather pleaded that the difficulty of transport and the enormous distance that had to be covered were an explanation and an excuse for these evils, and in apologising for them intimated that they were unavoidable incidents of a terrible and prolonged war. I cannot admit that the evils described by the hon. Member for Westminster were inevitable. They were, I think, all foreseen, and might have been prevented or provided for, and I make these remarks because I think there would be similar incidents in every campaign if steps were not taken to prevent them. Hon. Members are aware that we lost a large number of officers and men in the Egyptian campaign through enteric fever, but few are aware that the medical officers in that campaign who sent in certificates as to enteric fever were snubbed. This most terrible pest was absolutely kept from the public records, the system of the War Office being to discourage a medical officer who returned a case of enteric fever instead of returning it as continued fever or fever. Knowing that, I was anxious that the Government should take steps to prevent similar action and similar loss of life in the war. I do not think it is the fault

127
of the Army Medical Corps that these things occur. Every officer of the Army Medical Corps has forces to contend with that are unknown here, and he would be stronger if he had some independent assistance to look into these matters from the outside. The War Office would have done the best thing for the army in Africa and saved hundreds of lives if they had sent to South Africa some in dependent authority in the shape of a small sanitary commission to intervene between the military commanders and the medical officers on matters of sanitation. The military commanders are of course anxious to do everything they can for the soldiers, and I do not think the losses we have had in South Africa from typhoid fever—the most terrible scourge that armies have to contend with—are due to Lord Roberts. These terrible losses in South Africa must have been foreseen, and anyone who knows anything of the history of such outbreaks might have foretold it. We had an epidemic of it in Lady-smith before it was relieved, and we all remember the letter of Mr. Treves, in which he said he found 800 cases amongst the invested army. We had the greatest stress of the epidemic at Bloemfontein, and everyone who knew the conditions that arose before Bloemfontein knew that within three or four weeks of the surrender at Paardeberg there would be an outbreak of fever at Bloemfontein, for the reason that the soldiers there were obliged to drink the water of the Modder River, poisoned by all the refuse from Cronje's laager. Within three or four weeks there was certain to be an outbreak. The result was that the death-rate from sickness, which in February and the beginning of March had varied between 120 and 90 a week, went up to 180 three weeks after the Paardeberg incident—exactly the time typhoid takes to develop. That figure has nothing to do with wounds. It has simply to do with disease, and it represents a condition of things which any medical man could have foretold.
MR. WYNDHAM: It was foretold.
SIR WALTER FOSTER: If it was foretold, then more preparation ought to have been made. And we would not have had cases of sick men being without doctors, of one doctor having to attend 300 men, of fifteen men being in a single bell tent suffering from a disease which
128
makes their condition so horrible. Anyone knows that with fifteen men placed in a small tent in such conditions, the ground must have been saturated with discharges to such a degree as to make it a perfect pest-house. If that condition of things was foretold, as we are assured it was, then it ought to have been provided for. The same thing occurred after the unfortunate incident at the Bloemfontein Waterworks. The loss of good water entailed the use of bad water, and within six or seven weeks we had the terrible death-rate of 370, as compared with 90 in the early stages of the campaign. And only when the troops were moved out of Bloemfontein and went northwards to Kroonstad, to find the medical arrangements no better there, but the sanitary conditions less poisonous, did we find the general mortality becoming less. In this disease the conditions always become better when you change camp. In the old days the Romans prevented the spread of fever by changing camp frequently. One of the great causes of the mortality was the detention of the men at Bloemfontein drinking the contaminated surface water. I have said that if we had some means of bringing pressure to bear on the authorities such as I have described, the foresight which did exist amongst the medical officers might have received more attention and they might have had more done in the way of giving relief to the sick and suffering who were placed under the conditions so graphically described by the hon. Member for Westminster. All that the hon. Member had said has been practically admitted by the Under Secretary for War, and it has been confirmed from other sources. Not long since, Mr. Bowlby, of St. Bartholomew's Hospital, who was in charge of the Portland hospital, in South Africa, wrote home that, in spite of utilising many public buildings, the field hospitals rapidly became overcrowded, so that they had to accommodate three or four times the number for which they were equipped, and it became impossible to treat or nurse the patients satisfactorily. Of all maladies, the one that requires not only space and pure air, but careful and constant nursing, is enteric or typhoid fever, and I think it is the highest compliment, not to the arrangements, but to the salubrity of the South African climate that the mortality has not been greater. If we had had the patients in

129
England under the same conditions of overcrowding in a pestilential atmosphere the mortality would have been much greater. Then we have had further confirmation of the statements of the hon. Member for Westminster from Surgeon-General Hamilton in The Times of to-day. Surgeon-General Hamilton was at one time principal medical officer in Cape Colony, and he stated that the criticisms of the hon. Member carried on the face of them evidence of their truth. So that we are bound to accept these statements as giving a fairly accurrate account of the horrible conditions which had existed among our soldiers in South Africa. Seeing that these things were foretellable, and that they were foreseen to some extent, I do not think we have had any adequate explanation of why they were not provided against. If trains could run up in the manner they did with general supplies, surely some could have been taken to provide medical necessaries for these unfortunate soldiers. I do not think that the record which the hon. Gentleman gives us as to the cause of that state of things is satisfactory. The hon. Gentleman has said he is satisfied that in. no previous campaign had the sufferings been more mitigated. I do not think we can admit that with reference to the sufferings of those whose condition has been described by the hon. Member for Westminster; but the mitigation of suffering is a totally different thing from the death-rate. He tried to make out that the death-rate being low, there was mitigation of suffering, but we have incontrovertible evidence that the suffering was such as has been described. But if we go into the question of death-rate we find that even that is not altogether satisfactory. According to Lord Roberts, the death-rate in this campaign from enteric or typhoid is 21 per cent. In the Nile campaign, where there was the same painful lack of foresight, the same lack of nurses and of provision for hospitals, it was 28 per cent.; but there we had the disease occurring under climatic conditions very much less favourable than those which exist in South Africa. In Natal itself, when we had an epidemic of this disease a few years ago, the death-rate was only 16 per cent., which is considerably less than in the present campaign. Speaking generally, the death-rate from this disease throughout this country is only from 12 to 16 per
130
cent., or possibly 17 per cent. in the case of the worst epidemics. But the comparison of all these death-rates is full of fallacy, because no two typhoid epidemics have the same death-rate. It varies from year to year, and from season to season. And therefore, though it is higher than it ought to be, it is difficult to make a comparison with what it should have been under proper conditions. I believe myself that if these unfortunate people in South Africa had been nursed and cared for properly, the death-rate might have been reduced from 21 to 12 per cent. I stake my professional reputation on the statement that under these favourable conditions the death-rate might have been lessened by nearly one-half. We have also had evidence, which has not been contradicted, as to the inadequacy of the provision of hospital accommodation. The hon. Gentleman says that the War Office provided beds for from 8 to 10 per cent. of the total force of the Army in South Africa. On this question there is some difference of opinion amongst sanitary authorities. In this case the difficulty was that the 8 or 10 per cent. of beds was not on the spot when they were wanted. If they had been the overcrowding and mortality from disease would not have reached the pitch it did at Blosmfontein. Professor Parkes, the greatest authority, said that more than 10 per cent. was wanted for the sick and wounded in a time of war, and Professor De Chaumont placed it at 25 per cent. I am sure myself that the proportion of 10 per cent. of beds is not an adequate provision for the amount of sickness likely to-be engendered in the conditions which exist in South Africa. There is another point I would like to mention. The mortality from this disease in South Africa has been less than in many previous campaigns, but it has been greater than it was in previous epidemics in Natal, and I think it is greater than that which occurred during the Spanish-American War, in which every man among the American troops practically went into hospital twice-during the campaign. The admissions to hospital were over 2,000 per 1,000. In one of the most disastrous campaigns in recent history, that of the French against the Hovas in Madagascar, the mortality from typho-malaria was less than amongst our troops in South Africa. I want to point-out that this condition of things is preventible. The late Dr. Parkes, the

131
highest authority we had in this country, more than once said that this disease could be prevented. I cannot do better than read his words—
"Enteric, or typhoid, fever ought certainly to be prevented in a camp, and recent experience in Afghanistan, South Africa, and Egypt shows what ravages enteric fever can make, and how rapidly it becomes generated and spreads in camp, especially when the men are mostly young."
Then he says—
"This is certainly due to improper hygienic measures."
That is written in the leading textbook by the highest authority in this country, and I say one of the first duties of every administrative body connected with the health of the Army is to foresee and to prevent an outbreak of that disease. I believe that if the Government had shown more foresight in this matter the lives of hundreds of those gallant fellows who went out to fight our battles might have been saved. My opinion is that the evil has arisen from the cheese-paring policy of the War Office in regard to the Army Medical Department in years gone by. They have been cutting it down and interfering with it in many ways, making the service unpopular and reducing it below its proper strength. One of the late directors general of the Army Medical Department, Sir Thomas Crawford, laid it down that 890 medical officers was perilously low for a peace establishment. We have heard to-day from the hon. the Under Secretary for War that when we are approaching the conclusion of the war we have not 890 medical men in the service, and yet we have a larger army in the field under the colours of the Queen than ever within the memory of any man in this House. I say that that is a cheeseparing policy, and that it was bound to bring with it the disasters which had resulted in the terrible ravages of disease exposed by the hon. Member for Westminster, and which have even been admitted by the Government. I hope the policy of the Government will be changed, and that they will provide against these things in the future. The hon. Member has said nothing about the suggestion made by Lord Roberts, that some Commission should be appointed now that the injury has been done. Even now such a
132
Commission might do good. I hope to hear before the debate concludes that there will be an inquiry.
MR. WYNDHAM: I said so yesterday.
SIR WALTER FOSTER: We have not heard it to-day.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Once is enough.
SIR WALTER FOSTER: I hope we will hear more details on this point before the close of the debate.
SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I ask the permission of the Committee to say a few words on this very important matter. I only do so because, when in South Africa for three months this year, I did my best to make myself acquainted with all the arrangements for the sick and wounded. I admit I was not so long there as the hon. Member for Westminster, and that I went no further north than Paardeberg; and therefore I cannot enter into his criticisms in regard to the hospitals at Bloemfontoin or Kroonstaad. I am quite sure that Lord Roberts will weigh all the hon. Member's statements with the utmost care, and do everything he possibly can to ascertain the exact truth. I am sorry to say that the hon. Gentleman seems to have seen everything in South Africa through the darkest-possible spectacles. [HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!] We have heard nothing but the most harrowing details it was possible for him to give to the Committee.
*MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: May I call the attention of the Committee to the fact that I published a series of articles, six of which have been devoted to presenting to the public the most favourable possible picture of the work done by the Royal Army Medical Corps?
SIR HOWARD VINCENT: It is greatly to be regretted that the hon. Member did not sign his name to these articles in the same way that he has done to the very violent article which appeared in The Times of the day before yesterday. It is only now we are able to know who is the author of the

133
previous letters. All that we have to deal with to-day has nothing to do with anonymous letters, but only with a signed letter, and the speech which the hon. Gentleman has made to the Committee this afternoon. I have no desire to do any injustice to my hon. friend. I am sure he is actuated by the very best of motives, but I am not exaggerating when I say that he has presented to us a very dark picture of what he has seen.
*MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: At Bloemfontein.
SIR HOWARD VINCENT: The hon. Member gave us harrowing details about other hospitals at Capo Town, at Maitland, and of the Yeomanry hospital, which I know quite as well as he does. I am not going, however, to enter into any personal controversy with him. All I desire to do, if the Committee are kind enough to allow me, is to give the result of my observations at the hospitals I visited. I may be wrong, or the hon. Gentleman may be wrong. The Committee have hoard the hon. Gentleman. I will give the other side of the picture, I hope with moderation, and without any exaggeration or other desire than to load the Committee to a right conclusion on the point. I was interested in this matter on several personal grounds. I quite recognise that in every campaign of late, and every civilian in the country will admit it, much has been done to mitigate the horrors of war. Within a few hours of my arrival in Cape Town I called on Surgeon-General Wilson. I found in him a man of great energy and activity, of warm sympathy, and without the slightest prejudice or desire to be bound by red tape, or by any system which could possibly improve the condition of affairs. Although I had no introduction to or previous acquaintance with him, he said to me—
"Go everywhere and make inquiry. You can go into the hospitals at any time, and every information that can possibly be afforded is at your service, and if yon desire to see me again you can do so."
He gave written authority to visit the large base hospitals and a considerable number of stationary and field hospitals. I visited the hospitals at Cape Town, Pietermaritzburg, Ladysmith, Kimberley,
134
and elsewhere. This was in February, and it would be very surprising if from that time they had gone so much to the bad as the hon. Member for Westminster would lead us to imagine. I do not think that anything could possibly be better than the provision for the sick and wounded during the month of February, when I was visiting the different hospitals. On 27th June the hon. Member said there were in South Africa two plagues, the plague of blindness and the plague of whitewash. I do not think I am quite blind, and there is no reason whatever why I should lend a hand at whitewashing. I do not think I have ever shown in speech or otherwise any desire to stifle inquiry. On the contrary, I have determined to do everything that possibly can be done to enforce the lessons of the war. No one would say that the Army Medical Department is absolutely perfect. There is some truth in the statement of the hon. Member for Ilkeston that there has been too much cheeseparing in the past. But that is not a matter for which the present Government is responsible, any more than their predecessors. In a way they have not attracted the very best students from the medical schools into the Army; but no one could possibly exaggerate the heroism the Royal Army Medical Corps have shown under fire, their devotion to their duty, and their desire to do the best they possibly could under the circumstances. A great deal has been done lately to improve the position of the officers of the Royal Army Medical Corps. They have been given increased pay and allowances and the titular rank which they have been wanting for a very long time. It was pleasant to hear from the officers of the Royal Army Medical Corps in all parts of South Africa that they were perfectly satisfied with their condition, and the consideration given to them, not only by their equals in the combatant branch of the service, but by the general officers and others in authority. There are many things that may be done to improve the knowledge and ability of the Royal Army Medical Department. They ought not only to be encouraged, but they should be obliged to attend for a certain number of months some modern metropolitan hospital in order that they should keep up to date. I have been informed by a registrar of an hospital, an officer who sucked the poison from the

135
throat of an enteric patient, that there is no such thing as military surgery. It is an emergency surgery, and the Army Medical Department should keep itself up to date. In this war the Government invited and accepted the services of Sir William MacCormac, Sir William Stokes, Mr. Treves, Mr. Cheyne, and other distinguished surgeons who were sent out to assist the military surgeons. Then 400 civilian surgeons were attached to the Royal Army Medical Corps. These had rendered the greatest possible service in performing many wonderful operations and superintending others which were thought almost impossible a short time ago, and they had given the greatest comfort and assistance to men who were suffering. I believe that those gentlemen are better aware of the state of affairs in South Africa as regards medical matters than any man without any personal experience of them. I saw the hospitals myself and the way in which the medical corps did their work, and when I heard from Sir William MacCormac that things were working perfectly, I believed him, though I had not seen everything, and if anybody is wrong in this matter it is not myself, but rather the hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster. With regard to Lord Roberts, whose name the hon. Gentleman mentioned, everyone who is acquainted with him knows perfectly well that there is nothing so dear to his heart as the care of the sick and the wounded. He never arrives at a base without inspecting the hospital, and he does not go with a large staff with great form and ceremony; he goes without any ceremony and converses with individual patients, sitting on their beds and doing his best not only to encourage the sick and wounded, but also to repair or remedy any defect which he sees in the organisation. In a few days Mr. Cheatle will arrive from Lord Roberts's headquarters; he had charge of the hospital in which were the worst cases. In those cases Lord Roberts took the greatest interest, and from Mr. Cheatle I heard that the first question Lord Roberts put to him at Paardeberg was, "What do you think of the condition of the transport of the wounded from Paardeberg to Modder River?" Everything that Lord Roberts could do to mitigate pain and suffering throughout this campaign he has done. I greatly regret that my hon. friend the Member
136
for Westminster did not take the obvious and proper coarse when he found this condition of things existing at Bloemfontein and Kroonstad, and seek an interview with Lord Roberts and tell him of the state of things that existed. He did not tell us that he waited on Lord Roberts.
*MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: I did. I called on Lord Roberts the day after I arrived at Bloemfontein, and I made two-other attempts to see him.
SIR HOWARD VINCENT: You never said so.
*MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: And at Kroonstad I wrote to his military secretary, Major Cowan, a letter, bringing forward the defects which I had seen, and suggesting remedies. When I got back to Bloemfontein. I wrote to the same gentleman another very strong and long letter.
SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I am in the recollection of the Committee, who will recollect that the hon. Member never said anything of the kind; therefore I have done a considerable service to the hon. Gentleman in giving him the opportunity of saying so. But I cannot conceive that Lord Roberts, who is accessible to everybody and anybody, would not see him. I am sure that any representations from the hon. Gentleman would be received with prompt consideration, and I cannot understand how it was that the: hon. Gentleman failed to see Lord Roberts and put these matters right. Did he see Surgeon-General Wilson and tell him the result of his personal observation?
*MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: Over and over again.
SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Then perhaps this accounts for the fact that at the very time the hon. Gentleman wrote this letter in Cape Town Surgeon-General Wilson was in. Bloemfontein seeing to these things. I have had extreme difficulty in arriving at the truth in this matter. Although I am personally acquainted with hundreds of men in South Africa, I have not seen a letter of complaint as to treatment in hospital. One thing is pretty well known, and that is that if I had received any complaints I

137
should have sifted the matter to the bottom; but I have not received a complaint of any sort or kind, though I receive letters from the front by every mail. The Lord Mayor of London has received no complaints; but the difficulty of arriving at the facts of this matter is illustrated by this one fact. I heard of two men who had been invalided home, and I telegraphed to them to see me here to-day. One man said that he only saw the doctor once for five minutes during the seven weeks he was in the hospital, whilst the other, a man who came home in the same ship, and who was in the same hospital at the same time, said the doctor attended regularly in the morning and in the evening. That shows the Committee the extreme difficulty of arriving at the truth. It does not do to take hearsay evidence in this matter. Why, I heard of one complaint of an enteric patient that all the food he got was a little milk and soda. I have had enteric myself, and everybody knows that that is the only diet you can have. The complaint went on to say that the patient would have starved unless he had been fed by those who were well. Everybody knows that the result of giving solid food to a typhoid patient would be almost certain to be fatal. With regard to the attendance, this man said there were no nurses. It was true there were no female nurses, but there were male attendants, and he thought the majority of the men preferred them to female nurses. That is only individual opinion, of course, and I only quote it as such. I then asked him if he had any complaint to make, and he said, of course, it was not comfortable, they were on the ground; but that he recognised the difficulty of the authorities, and did not complain. That is the evidence of individuals who have no interest in disguising the truth. There are hon. Members in this House who have had relatives at the front; some, to their great sorrow, have lost them. Is it likely that the relatives of hon. Members would not have written to them as to the condition of affairs if it is so black as is represented? Amongst them is the son of a Cabinet Minister. Is it not certain that he would write and complain? There have been passing through the hospitals 1,500 or 1,600 officers, and is it likely, if this condition of things existed, that they would not have written to Lord Lansdowne asking for an immediate inquiry? I do not wish to cast discredit on the
138
observations of the hon. Member for Westminster. He has been actuated by the best of motives, but he has trusted too much to hearsay evidence.
*MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: No.
SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Then he has trusted too much to appearances, and has not perhaps made sufficient inquiry into the origin of things. At the same time, I am sure his only desire was to bring about the best conditions possible in the treatment and care of the sick and wounded. I am certain that every officer of the Army Medical Corps would spare no effort to bring those conditions about. If such a state of things as the hon. Member has depicted existed it would be the duty of the Government, and I am sure the Commander-in-Chief would not shirk that duty, to find out who was responsible. The Government have been charged with want of foresight; it has been said that they ought to have foreseen the epidemic at Bloemfontein; but I have been told by one who lived in Bloemfontein that a more salubrious town there could not be, and I do not think anyone could have foreseen such a thing. No one could have conceived such a state of affairs as I saw at Paardeberg, with the river filled with putrefying corpses. Everything in this war has turned out differently to what was expected, and if there has been any lack of foresight which stands conspicuously before the country, it is that of the Leader of the Opposition and those who support him. He has published statements to the country, and the country will be able to judge whether everything has been done which it was possible for the Government and private munificence to accomplish. I hope my hon. friend, instead of writing sensational letters and making sensational speeches, will devote his abilities and leisure to improving the condition of affairs and doing all he can to provide for the better care of the sick and wounded.
*SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that if the conduct of the hon. Member for Westminster was open to any charge, it was not the charge which had been made by the hon. Member who last addressed the Committee. He believed that the

139
result of the inquiry would be to show that the circumstances which the hon. Member for Westminster had pointed out as existing on one portion of the line of advance existed on at least two other lines of advance. The last speaker had made an unfair attack on the hon. Member for not having signed the letters in The Times except the last letter but one. He knew nothing of the circumstances in which those letters were produced, but he pointed out that the earlier letters were mainly in defence of what the hon. Member had seen. It was therefore rather honourable on the part of the hon. Member that when he had to make definite charges and attacks he should have promptly added his name to the letter. The hon. Member for Sheffield attacked the hon. Member for Westminster for having brought a charge against the management of the hospitals at the Cape. Of all the heavy charges brought by the hon. Member against the Army medical system, he thought that the charges with regard to the Cape were the heaviest of all, because none of the excuses necessarily made as to the limitations imposed by Lord Kitchener on transport prevailed here. When Lord Rosebery took the chair at the dinner in April he said that "our medical and hospital service has been perfect," and he proceeded to give the whole credit for that perfection to the Government which had organised the system. But those hon. Members who for years past had called attention to the deficiency of the system had shown that a breakdown would occur. At the time Lord Rosebery thought our system perfect the epidemic of enteric had not reached the high level now known. But we did know of what occurred at Intombi camp and Stormberg, and when the inquiry was held it would be found that the same facts which had been alleged with regard to Cape Town and Bloemfontein had also to be alleged with regard to General Gatacre's line of advance, and he thought the inquiry would also reveal that the breakdown had been general. Now, of course, war was always horrible, but the unnecessary horrors of war which were easily preventible naturally and properly shocked the public even more. In his opinion the hon. Member for Westminster had proved beyond doubt that in the rapid advance Lord Kitchener cut down unduly the
140
transport for the sick, and as regards Cape Town the absolutely preventible suffering, which had been described would also shock the conscience of the country. He did not charge the War Office with a policy of direct concealment, but he must say they seemed not to want to know too much. Personally he had asked questions of the Under Secretary of State for War with regard to circumstances which were well known to himself on information which he had from sources beyond all question as to the very horrible state of things prevailing at the Intombi hospital. The answers to these questions showed disinclination to press for reports or to obtain information. He had asked specifically about Intombi Camp. It was claimed in The Times that day, in a letter from one high in the secrets of the medical service, that that camp was placed under the charge of the best man they had got, and that that man, having done so well there, was then sent on to Bloemfontein and was responsible, as he understood, for some of the hospitals described by the hon. Member. The organisation of the medical department of the War Office had been year by year before the House, and the complaints made had turned mainly on the shortness of supply of trained orderlies, which had been the definite cause of the breakdown in this war. They had never been told in Parliament of the nature of the working, arrangement established between the Government and the Red Cross Society. He understood from what he had heard that there was a working arrangement in imitation of the Prussian system. They were told that these breakdowns had occurred in all previous wars. He would point to the circumstances of the last war in which the Prussian army engaged. In 1870, after fighting two days, separated only by one day (16th—18th August), the losses were gigantic. The Prussian losses were greater than the French. There were actually 40,000 men, partly French, brought in by the Prussian ambulances in fifty or sixty hours, and under the joint system in operation for the treatment of the wounded there was not the slightest hitch. The system worked like clock-work and nothing went wrong. That was a case of perfect organisation in a successful war. Afterwards in the beaten French army, with a confluent smallpox epidemic to deal with, there was equally no break-

141
down until the snow began. In the case which had been referred to by the hon. Member for Westminster, and also by the hon. Member for the Ilkeston Division, the circumstances ought to have been absolutely foreseen. It was not like the outbreak of smallpox in France. It was a case where enteric fever was to be presumed to exist on a large scale, as was shown in the Report of the Army Medical Department for 1898, and the figures there given of mortality at Ladysmith before the war and with a small garrison, and the statement specifically made that enteric fever in South Africa was assuming grave proportions, especially in Natal. It was associated with polluted soil and the pollution of the Klip River. The utter breakdown at the Intombi Camp was, in his view, an even greater scandal than the facts revealed by the hon. Member for Westminster. The Under Secretary said that Sir George White was not responsible for that camp, but it was a camp for which the British military authorities were responsible, and they held at least one court-martial in regard to the proceedings which took place there. In the hospital at Intombi robbery took place on an enormous scale. Stimulants were stolen and consumed, and the tinned milk on which the lives of the typhoid patients depended was also stolen and sold. He ventured to say that deaths which occurred among the typhoid patients in the Intombi hospital in the latter portion of the siege were directly due to the robbery of the stores at the commencement of the siege. One court-martial was held, and one man was reduced in rank and sentenced to imprisonment. Although an opponent of capital punishment, he should have been glad if the man had been shot, because the shooting of a man or two for such offences was likely to do good to the British Army in time of war. It was likely to show people as nothing else would the great dishonour of offences of that kind, and that they were not to be allowed to go on in future campaigns. They could not insist too strongly on good management in these matters on which the lives of our soldiers depend as much as on military skill pure and simple.
COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid that as one interested in the welfare of soldiers, he had a feeling
142
of sympathy with anyone who showed up a system under which soldiers suffered. He had at the same time a great disinclination to go against anyone representing properly-constituted authority. He approached this question, therefore, with no intention whatever of finding severe fault with the hon. Member for Westminster, who had apparently been actuated by good intentions. He thought the hon. Member for Westminster had in some measure damaged his own case. Instead of confining himself simply to pointing out the state of things that existed during the short period that he was at Bloemfontein, the hon. Member seemed to find it necessary to attack the whole conduct of affairs by those in supreme command in South Africa, and some of them were driven to choose between his opinion and that of Lord Roberts and those who acted under him.. The hon. Member had, he thought, mistakenly chosen to suggest that a great portion of the administration of affairs there was wrong, and that things were done that ought not to have been done. Although he sympathised with the hon. Member in his desire to see everything done for the sick and wounded, he must say that he would prefer the dispositions of Lord Roberts to those of the hon. Gentleman. He did not understand exactly what was the position occupied by the hon. Member. It would add very much to the difficulties which surrounded the Commander-in-Chief if he was supposed to be at the beck and call of every itinerant sightseer who went to the front.
*MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: My position was that of special correspondent of The Times, not entitled to use the military wire.
COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYstill failed to see how the commanding officer was not to have his action considerably hampered if he was supposed to be always at the beck and call of even a correspondent of The Times, or of any other amateur, whether male or female. The Government had not disputed the fact that at Bloemfontein for a certain time there was a sad and grievous breakdown of the hospital arrangements, but they had explained that it was unavoidable, in consequence of there being but one line of communications. Unless they were in a position to say that Lord Roberts should have post-

143
poned the bringing up of men, guns, and supplies until the hospital stores were brought up, they were not justified in challenging the defence which the Government had made. The outburst of fever at Bloemfontein could not have been prevented by the hon. Member for Ilkeston, or any other member of his profession, unless, indeed, they had been able to prevent the Boers from throwing their dead into the Modder and to undertake the sanitary arrangements around Paardeberg. That and that only would have prevented the outbreak of enteric fever at Bloemfontein. That should be borne in mind in dealing fairly and properly with this question. Let them by all manner of means take steps that errors and mistakes do not occur again, but do not let them be misled into the idea of thinking that in any campaign it would be possible under all circumstances to prevent entirely such a condition of things as took place at Bloemfontein. Unless they provided more than one line of communication, and made the base much nearer where they wished to use the supply, they must and always would be face to face with possibilities of some such unfortunate occurrences as those at Bloomfontein. His hon. friend the Member for Central Sheffield laid considerable stress on the divergence of testimony on these points. He thought the Committee would be pretty well satisfied that with the best endeavours in the world they would not be able to arrive at a definite conclusion. The wife of a well known and esteemed Member of the House had boon very much before public notice lately on account of the part she had taken in the working and organisation of one of the hospitals sent out to South Africa. That lady had been speaking at a gathering in her own county, and her remarks formed a curious commentary on the speech of the hon. Member for Westminster. [Cries of "Name!"] He referred to Mrs. Bagot. She said—
"At the time of the epidemic at Bloemfontein she could not estimate fewer in the hospitals than 5,500 patients, and it was almost impossible to cope with such overwhelming numbers. There was one general hospital for 500 beds which had 1,700 patients crowded into it; another 1,600. The Portland Hospital had to stretch out its numbers from 100 to 150, and all other voluntary hospitals in the same proportion. One field hospital, intended for 100 men, to her certain knowledge at one time had over 400 patients, lying mostly on the ground. But what could they do in
144
a place where the only communication was a small railway line, by which everything required at the front, including food, horses, and men, etc., had to be brought? It was amazing that Lord Roberts was able to provide food for his men and horses during the whole of that anxious period. Despite the sufferings of the wounded and the sick, she never heard so much as a murmur or a complaint. As to the Government hospitals, they had done magnificent work. The staffs were simply untiring and devoted, and the patients were in every case as well looked after as was possible."
He thought he was justified in reading that expression of opinion from a fairly competent authority. [An HON. MEMBER: It is corroboration.] He joined issue with the hon. Gentleman opposite. He considered contradiction what the hon. Member considered corroboration. It had been shown that as far as human foresight could go every possible effort was made to deal with these matters. It was clear that the relatives and friends of those engaged in the campaign had no right to accuse the Government of any lukewarm-ness.
*DR. FARQUHARSON: I am very glad that we have had this debate, but I am bound to say that it has been to me a very sad and painful one, because I had looked upon the Army Medical Department work as the one bright spot in the many dark clouds which have passed over our military operations in South Africa, and it is a great and grievous disappointment to me to find that there has been this breakdown, assuming, of course, that the statements of the hon. Member for Westminster will bear the test of the examination to which they will be submitted. I am very glad that the First Lord of the Treasury was able to accept the idea of sending out to the seat of military operations a band of skilled physicians and sanitarians who will be able to give that substantial aid to the doctors out there which I think they require in order to hold their own and to meet the military necessities of the moment. My hon. friend has confessed that there have been grave drawbacks and difficulties at the front, and we hope, therefore, that this inquiry will be made a full, complete, and searching one, and that they will be able to put the saddle on the right horse. The hon. Member for Westminster has brought a series of indictments against the Army

145
Medical Department in South Africa. In a speech of two hours duration it is quite impossible to grasp the situation, and those of us who have not been to South Africa are not able to give an opinion as to how these things are working. I am bound to say, in justice to the Army Medical Department, that in spite of all these difficulties and complications, it is only right that we should judge them by results. The Under Secretary of State for War has stated to the Committee the very remarkable results in the case of typhoid fever. He has shown that the death-rate amongst enteric patients was only between 20 and 21 per cent., and I may say that that would be considered a fairly good ratio of success even in a London hospital, provided with all the attributes of modern civilisation; but out in South Africa, with bad sanitary conditions, no beds, and very little comfort, with everything going wrong, and with all the conditions of treatment considered by medical science to be necessary, we have better results than have ever before been attained in any large campaign, and the rate of mortality compares favourably with our military hospitals at home. I think the success which has been attained in this respect is truly remarkable and very creditable to those concerned. We have to remember the serious injury which expansive bullets had inflicted, for the use of these bullets by the Boers has been proved beyond doubt. I think that the ratio of success of from 90 to 95 per cent. in the treatment of the wounded is a testimony to the devotion and skill of the Army Medical Department. Much of this success has been due to the skilful way in which the first dressings were carried out on the field of battle. Of course the further treatment and dressings had to be carried out not only by the medical staff but by the skilled surgeons whom my hon. friend and his colleagues have sent out to the seat of war. I take exception to some of the statements contained in my hon. friend's letter. The hon. Member for Westminster has sneered at the opinions expressed by Sir William MacCormac and Mr. Treves at the dinner given in their honour when they came back to this country, after an arduous campaign. We are bound, I suppose, to admit that certain difficulties have occurred in the management of affairs out in South Africa, and what we
146
have to consider is who is to blame and how much of what has happened was avoidable. I am very glad that my hon. friend has paid a tribute to the devotion of the Army Medical Department. These men had to go out on the field of battle night after night, and I hope this House will recognise in every possible way that whoever is to blame, at all events the doctors on the spot, who were short-handed and working under very difficult conditions, are not in any way responsible for the condition of things which we all so much deplore. We have to find out exactly how the matter stands. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean seems to think that the Medical Department ought to have foreseen the awful conditions under which the troops have been obliged to serve, and the dangers of typhoid fever. If the water was contaminated with putrid masses of festering humanity typhoid, under those circumstances, would be un-preventible. I cannot free the Government from blame for not having foreseen the overwhelming possibility of a thing of this kind taking place, and for not remembering that a pestilence of this kind often dogged the footsteps of an army in the field. This outbreak of typhoid fever, although inevitable under the circumstances, might have been met a little more actively, and there might have been a little more completeness and elasticity in the arrangements made. I believe that the Government have sent out ample stores, but there has been a want of organisation in the distribution on the spot. It seems to mo to be something like what occurs during an Indian famine—there may be plenty of corn in one place, but because there is none at all in a certain spot the people starve. No doubt part of these disasters may be due to a very old cause, and that is that commanding officers have not always taken the principal medical officer into their confidence as much as they might have done. Upon this point I might go into an historical retrospect, and I could show how the medical arrangements in one war completely broke down because the principal medical officer was not taken into the confidence of the commanding officer. I may be wrong in this instance, but such things have happened in the past, and it is just possible that a similar reason may apply in the present

147
case. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean, and other hon. Members in this House, have repeatedly brought up the question of the undermanning of the Army Medical Staff. They have repeatedly complained that the Army Medical Department has been too hard worked, and that they do not get that opportunity of studying which is necessary in order to keep them acquainted with the modern conditions of medicine and surgery. The refusal to thank the Army Medical Department for what they did during the Soudan War stung them very deeply, for not a single word of appreciation was expressed for the work which they had performed. Lord Roberts sympathises deeply with the sick and the suffering, and he has expressed his enthusiastic desire to do the best he can for the soldiers suffering from disease in the field. My opinion is that, whereas the military authorities at the War Office underrated the fighting capacity of the Boers, they also underrated the fighting capacity of enteric fever. Enormous possibilities might arise during a war in a country like South Africa, although there are a good many extenuating circumstances connected with the question under discussion. I should like to think that all they do is for the best, and I quite believe that all the preparations made here by the director-general were good, but muddling took place in consequence of want of organisation out at the front. How far this was due to the military exigencies under which the chief of staff took the transport which ought to have gone to the doctors we do not know, but the enormous extent of the country and the rapidity of Lord Roberts's movements are, I think, extenuating circumstances which may induce us to take a different view from that taken by my hon. friend the Member for Westminster. The mobility of the enemy in South Africa and the extent of the country has not been perhaps so fully appreciated as they ought to have been by those who made the arrangements for the campaign. But however that may be, and whatever may be said about the arrangements, I want to say the doctors out there have done good work and have done the very best they could under very difficult conditions; and not only this, but they have attained a measure of success, both on the medical and the surgical side, which is absolutely unprecedented in the history
148
of warfare, either ancient or modern. Whatever the faults may be, or on whoever you may place the responsibility, the doctors have done their work admirably, and in the treatment both of the wounded and of enteric patients they have achieved a result which is absolutely unknown in any campaign of former times. I am glad that we are going to have a full inquiry, and I think the hon. Member has done a, public service in bringing this matter forward, although I do not admit many of his statements. The hon. Member says he has seen these things, and all we have to do now is to find out who is to blame, and then we can put the saddle on the right horse.
MR. BARTLEY: I agree with my hon. friend who has just spoken, that this debate must be, to a great extent, a very sad one to many of us, for we, nearly all of us, have close friends or relatives engaged in this war. A debate which in any way suggests that something has been left undone which might have alleviated the sufferings of those of our friends and near relatives must be a painful matter to consider at the present moment. I only wish to say one or two words, because I happened to be in South Africa when the war commenced, and I saw a good deal of what was going on during the early stages of the war in the Transvaal, the Orange Free State, Cape Colony, and Natal. I think it is idle to say that many mistakes were not made, for many things were left undone which might have been done. But we must remember that a very large war was sprung upon us, so to speak, and I think that it is a pity that we should exaggerate and emphasise those mistakes which have been so forcibly painted by the hon. Member for Westminster. War is a dreadful calamity, and perhaps it is an advantage that it is so, because it prevents nations from freely indulging in it. But after all, it is hardly fair to pick out isolated cases and paint them in vivid colours in the imagination of the public of this country, who are now grieving over the losses they have sustained, without also putting before them the other matters which the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for War has mentioned. After the rapid march from Paardeberg there is no doubt

149
things were in a very serious condition, and enteric fever developed largely, as might have been expected. But anyone who, like myself, has travelled from Cape Town to Bloemfontein along the narrow line of railway, and who considers the enormous effort that it must have been to convey what was absolutely necessary to keep the Army alive, can hardly wonder that during the first few weeks some branches were not served with provisions and other necessaries as well as we should have wished them to be. I travelled over that line myself before the war broke out. It is a very small and narrow line, and there is not only the difficulty of getting things up the line, but there is also the difficulty of getting the empty trucks back again to bring up another load. I agree most heartily that there should be a most careful investigation, not so much with the idea of proving anybody wrong, but of seeing if we can by any possible means, as was suggested by Lord Roberts, do something which may prevent any such sufferings or calamities occurring again. That seems to me to be the great object of this inquiry. When I was out in South Africa I saw one or two incidents, which I could paint and exaggerate, and possibly make as much of as I am sorry to say I think the hon. Member for Westminster has done. But I do think that, in discussing a question such as this, we must bear in mind the whole of the circumstances; and knowing the distance and the difficulties of transport, it does seem to me that we should dwell more upon the brilliant successes of some phases of hospital life at the front than on the mistakes which were made. It is satisfactory to think that in spite of the difficulties of long marches—and I dare say it is quite true that many of the men had no beds, and that appliances were not forthcoming—by the heroism of our Army Medical Department such very remarkable results have been achieved as those which have been alluded to. The hon. Member for Westminster referred to the absence of female nurses. That is a question which I think should be freely discussed and gone into with great care. I think in the early stages of the war enough was not thought of supplying female nurses. The orderly system is, after all, a rough-and-ready system, only justifiable when nothing further can be undertaken. I am glad that the Government are going to send out a Commission,
150
particularly after what has been stated in the public press, because the public ought not to be left as things are with these statements before them. We must remember that if they have not themselves suffered, there is hardly a family which has not lost a member or a friend in this war, and if there has been any culpable negligence which has caused this great loss I think the nation should know of it. I have seen the country and know the distances and the difficulties, and I know Lord Roberts to be one of the most humane generals of the time, and we ought to hesitate in believing that there has been any neglect. The hon. Gentleman referred to a corpse being found in a hospital lavatory. Mentioning such a thing as that gives a certain jar to our feelings; but when one comes to consider it, it is a thing that might happen in the emergency of the moment and not be so bad as it seems to us, and I think to publish a statement of that kind to shock and upset the public in the way it has clone was wrong. By all means inquire into everything that has been done, and let us know the worst, though I should have preferred to have waited until the war is over. What we want is that this investigation shall not be governed by vindictiveness in any way, or by party feeling, but solely with the idea to throw a brighter light upon this matter and to learn, if there have been blunders, from our experience in the past.
SIR CHARLES CAMERON: Many hon. Gentlemen have found fault with the hon. Member for Westminster for exaggerating and drawing on his imagination and drawing lurid pictures of matters which it would have been better to have concealed. I do not agree with that at all. I think that he is entitled to the greatest credit for putting before the public that which he no doubt saw. I am as content to take his statement as to what he saw as I should be to take the statement of the hon. Member for Central Sheffield as to what he saw. One fact which shows the importance of the subject to which attention has been drawn is the question which was put upon the Paper this morning by the hon. Member for York, which showed that 5,000 officers and men died of disease, and that 18,000 were invalided: thus you have 23,000 officers and men put out of

151
action by disease, and if that is not a fact justifying our attention I do not know what is. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster deserves the greatest credit not only for publicly describing what he saw, but for the facts which he has brought forward here. I believe he described as accurately what he saw as the hon. Member for Central Sheffield did what he saw; but they described different systems under different circumstances. The right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for War in this debate said that in January there were 351 members of the Army medical service, assisted by 77 civilian doctors, sent from this country, and he told us that in June there were 456 Army doctors, and that 348 civilians had been sent out, and that other civilian doctors resident in South Africa were added in the later stages of the campaign. Now I do not wish to compare the abilities of Army and civilian doctors, but there is a lot of red tape in the Army. The hon. Gentleman told us that it would never do for a doctor to requisition this or that, he must go through the regular routine; the consequence is that when the Army doctor wants anything he knows where to get it; they can ruffle it with their military brethren and get what they want; but the unfortunate civilian who goes out cannot bring pressure to bear and is put aside. That would no doubt account for many of the difficulties existing to which the hon. Member referred. The Army Medical Department is totally inadequate to cope with our Army when in a state of war. It has been experienced by the Government again and again, and the utmost pressure has been brought to bear on the Government without adequate result. The hon. Member for Westminster in a number of statements, neither sensational nor exaggerated, seemed to me to point out a very grave defect in our system. He told us that in a certain hospital instead of twenty doctors there were only three; instead of, say, a score of trained orderlies there were only two or three, and that the others were untrained men, and he made reference to convalescent orderlies, that is to say men who had just recovered from illness, who were performing a duty for which they were physically unfit, and for which they had had no training, and which, owing to their not being in a good state of health, must have been neglected or improperly performed. Who would
152
imagine that the Army Medical Corps would have the nursing done by such men if they could get better? It shows that the trained orderlies are far fewer than they should be; that every fit man had to be sent to the front, and that the only men they could fall back upon were the convalescents. That could be remedied by a little more expense. There was a remark made that that was due to the deficiency of transport; I make every allowance for that and for the exigencies of war, but I cannot help thinking that it would have been very easy to have spared one cattle-truck to bring in wounded men; but that does not excuse the case of convoys sent down without any medical officer in charge, or even a trained orderly. It does not excuse the management at the Cape. That appears to be the most significant of the charges of the hon. Gentleman, and it seems to indicate that this fault lies nearer home than South Africa. He told us of two base hospitals at the Cape, each of which had a capacity for 520 patients, and that they were overcrowded to such an extent that there were 2,400 patients in them. But that is not all, he told us that the whole of the personnel of one hospital had been sent to the front, and that the care of the whole of these 2,400 patients devolved on the hospital staff which was left—a hospital staff which was calculated to cope with 520. This is a case of overcrowding and improper treatment of the sick which might have been excusable if it had been impossible to send up nurses and hospitals, but in this case nothing could have been easier than to have sent out equipment and personnel to Cape Town at all events, and to prevent any such undesirable state of things at the hospitals at the base. There has been some discussion as to the merits of female nurses at the hospitals as against the orderly system, and I do not wish to enter into that, but when you have not got trained orderlies female nurses would be infinitely better than untrained soldiers and untrained convalescent soldiers. Typhoid is a disease in which mortality varies enormously; in some cases it is extremely high and in other cases it is exceedingly low. There was an epidemic at King's Lynn some time ago where it was so low that in one hospital amongst sixty patients there was not a single death. That was not attributable to extraordinary medical skill, but to the

153
nature of the epidemic. It is impossible to compare one epidemic with another.
MR. WYNDHAM: It was compared by the ten years average.
SIR CHARLES CAMERON: Yes, but if you compared the King's Lynn epidemic by that average it would have shown a very good average. There is no disease in which diet is so important, and though it may be said that in the case of a soldier stricken down he cannot receive the same care and attention as he would receive at home, still, if there were loss deaths than the ten years average shows, that was not due to better care, but to the mildness of the attack. The right hon. Gentleman must admit that patients treated as these men wore must show a larger mortality than would have been the case had they been treated under more favourable circumstances. All that I wish to point out is that nothing that has been said about transport and military exigencies can explain away the condition described as existing at the base hospitals at the Cape. As to attributing these disclosures to any ill-feeling or lack of patriotism on the part of the hon. Member for Westminster, anyone has only to read his letter containing the description of the base hospitals, before he went up country, to find that it was of the most brilliant and glowing description. When hon. Gentlemen look at his letters they will agree that he described what he saw without fear or favour. I trust, without waiting for a formal inquiry, the War Office will ascertain whether this overcrowding exists at the Cape, and will at once take steps to remedy it.
MR. WYNDHAM: We have been in continual correspondence with South Africa for the last three months. These matters are governed by certain principles. Those principles are, however, expansible, and do expand, and we do send out more doctors as required. All we have been asked for we have sent.
SIR CHARLES CAMERON: That is just the kind of official defence with which I am but too well acquainted.
MR. WYNDHAM: Is it an official defence to ask Lord Roberts what he wants, and then to send on what he asks for?
SIR CHARLES CAMERON: Lord Roberts is not at the Cape; he has quite enough to do without attending to the medical details. Here is a case where the whole staff of a hospital has been sent to the front, and the care of two hospitals, overcrowded to an extent which must have taxed the energies of the staff to the utmost, has been devolved on the staff of one. Is it too much to ask not that Lord Roberts should be bothered with the matter, but that the right hon. Gentleman should do what was done in the case of India—telegraph to the person in charge, and see what he wanted.
MR. WYNDHAM: All that has been done. We are in correspondence with the senior medical officer at Cape Town, and also with General Forestier-Walker, and we have done all that is to be done.
SIR CHARLES CAMERON: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman intended to deceive, but I do not think he can have been in correspondence with the person actually in charge. However, in the interests of humanity, a statement of the kind that has been made ought to be inquired into, and if the hon. Gentleman does not inquire into this matter the country will not consider red tape a sufficient excuse for his not doing so.
*GENERAL RUSSELLsaid the question which was now being discussed had been before the country for the past two days, and had caused a shock almost unexampled in this generation. He personally had seen a great many officers and men who had returned invalided to this country, and he possessed a great many friends now in South Africa with whom he was in correspondence, and few had greater opportunities of becoming acquainted with what went on behind the scenes than himself. He might say there was a general consensus of opinion that the hospital arrangements at the commencement of the war had been excellent. Then there had occurred an outbreak of typhoid fever under circum-

155
stances of exceptional difficulty. He spoke with great sympathy upon the matter, having had some experience of typhoid in a campaign, and no one could read the letter from the hon. Member which appeared in The Times, or listen to the statement he had made that evening, without a feeling of the greatest horror. The Committee ought to approach this subject, not in a party, but in a national spirit, and hence he was very glad that the motion which had given rise to the debate had been moved by a Member on the Government side of the House. At the time of the Atbara campaign he drew attention to what he considered were the most defective arrangements for succouring the wounded, but he was met with a denial of his statement, a denial based, no doubt, on insufficient information, because he met men who had been through that campaign, and he found his statements had been perfectly accurate, although they were officially denied. At the time of the Khartoum expedition a great change was made, a large number of additional doctors were sent out, all the appliances which science could devise were despatched, and hence at the attack of Khartoum everything was done to mitigate the suffering of the sick and wounded. He did not think a strong case had been made out on this occasion against the War Office. The hon. Gentleman had stated that more stores were sent out than were required, and he did not think that the War Office, or the hon. Gentleman who sat before him were the persons with whom fault should be found. He thought, however, there ought to be some explanation of how such a lamentable state of things came about, and at the same time he desired to point out to the Committee that the conditions of South Africa were such as to make an outbreak of typhoid fever almost a certainty. All the water for the troops had to be drawn from streams wherein people washed, and into which cattle wandered. At Paardeberg the river was filled with dead men and horses. He remembered perfectly well after the Zulu war, under the most favourable sanitary conditions, the bodies of troops moving about being very small, there were still a number of cases of typhoid caused entirely by bullocks suffering from the rinderpest going into the water to die, and men drinking the water. The water of the
156
streams was so bad that when he was in charge of the military base hospital at Ladysmith he had scouting parties up the stream to see if any bullocks had died there, and, if so, to drag them out. Strict orders were also given that all water should be boiled, but upon a campaign of such rapid marches as that in South Africa at the present time, to boil all the water drunk was an impossibility; the men would have to drink what they could get, and typhoid was bound to appear. He failed to understand why, when there were a number of buildings in Bloemfontein unoccupied by the inhabitants, they were not used for the benefit of the wounded. Lord Roberts had been very justly called a humane general, but he (General Russell) ventured to say that had Germany or France been in that town there would be scarcely a house that would not have been cleared out, not only for the fever patients but also for the wounded. Under all the circumstances he could not believe that the facts as stated by the hon. Member for Westminster had been put before Lord Roberts. In his opinion, the Committee ought to know whether this matter was ever brought before the Commander-in Chief, or whether it only went before his Chief of the Staff, because everybody was fully aware that Lord Roberts had more to think about than hospital matters, his first care being to defeat his enemy. Many other duties must of necessity have been delegated to responsible staff officers. What ought to be done was to discover whether the representations were made by the principal medical officers, and if they went to Lord Roberts, or whether they only went before the Chief of the Staff and were disregarded by him. That was a matter which should be made perfectly plain. The question was a serious one; and another point which should be cleared up was how these hospitals at Capetown were allowed to fall into the condition described by the hon. Member for Westminster. He was sure that no one would be more anxious to prevent a recurrence of these evils than Lord Lansdowne, the Secretary of State for War. He thought that the hon. Member for Glasgow was right when he said that the Royal Army Medical Department was totally incapable of grappling with a great emergency like this, and we should have a reform and a reorganisa-

157
tion of that Department and all connected with it. He knew that the Government had had difficulties in regard to the Department, and that it was extremely hard to get good men. He thought a grievous mistake had been made in abolishing the regimental system, with the result that doctors in charge of regiments were changed almost from day to day. Hence necessarily medical officers could know nothing of the men whom they had to attend; and he earnestly hoped that the whole system would be so modified that a medical man would be attached to every regiment and battery. He could only repeat that hon. Members on his side of the House would welcome the proposed inquiry with the greatest pleasure, and he earnestly trusted that it would produce good results, so that our soldiers who went to fight our battles might have the best care and attention it was possible to give them.
MR. C. H. WILSONsaid he had listened with the greatest interest to the courageous statement made by the hon. Member for Westminster. He had had correspondence from South Africa, and especially one letter which seemed to bear on this subject from an entirely independent and unbiassed source. He had shown the letter to the hon. Member for Westminster, as it fully supported the statements that gentleman had made, statements in which he believed he had the entire sympathy of the country, and certainly the support of hon. Members on the Liberal side of the House; but so far as he could judge, he was afraid that Conservative Members had endeavoured to minimise and lessen the intense importance of those revelations. The country knew of the frightful loss of life which had taken place, and this was a matter which ought to be brought before the House. The letter to which he referred was from his son, who six months ago went out as a member of the City of London Imperial Volunteer Corps. The date of the letter, which was to the writer's sister, was 24th April, and in it were these words—
"All the English papers say that the hospitals are so wonderful, but as a matter of fact they are scandalously managed. Our own men will not go to hospital now, as they get less food and attention than with the regiment."
158
He simply wished to read that statement to the Committee, as it bore its own weight of evidence. The speeches from the Government side of the House had been somewhat sentimental and not matter of fact; but here was a simple statement bearing on this great question, and it was only fair to the hon. Member for Westminster, who had had the courage to bring up this subject, that he should, as far as he was able, give him his support in demanding an inquiry in regard to this crying evil. They all knew of the deficiencies of this campaign; they knew of the deficiencies in guns, and now they knew of the deficiencies in medical stores. Those who were familiar with the history of the Crimean War knew that history always repeated itself, and still at the War Office there was the same want of prevision which had resulted in this enormous loss of life among the best men of the country. Who were responsible for this? In his opinion, it was the War Office.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid the interesting point at which they had now arrived in this discussion prompted him to ask how those gentlemen opposite were going to vote. Were they going to vote for this grant of £5 to the Government, or were they not? That would be the test of their sincerity. Every kind of attack had been made against the Government. He was not given to the defence of the Government; but on this occasion it seemed to him that the Government had made a most complete answer to these attacks. The Government had been accused of every kind of official neglect: that there were not enough nurses or doctors or medical stores, and perhaps the hon. Member who had just spoken would say, not enough ships. Did hon. Members remember that war was a very terrible business, that it entailed necessarily an enormous amount of suffering, more especially when the lines of communication, as in this case, were extremely long, and that all supplies and men had to be carried over a single line of railway? It should be remembered that the distance from Cape Town to Pretoria was 1,000 miles—as far as from here to Gibraltar. He was astonished to hear the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, whose knowledge of

159
these things was very complete and very accurate, and who gave his knowledge to the House in a continuous stream of a most interesting character—[HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!]—interesting to him, at any rate, if not to the hon. Baronet's friends—he was surprised to hear the hon. Baronet adduce the German campaign against France as having some kind of parallelism with this South African war. He talked of the number of wounded after the battle of Gravelotte, and Mars-la-Tours, and said that the Germans were perfectly capable of dealing with them. But the Germans were in the middle of a network of railways thoroughly equipped with rolling stock. The difference was enormous. Let the Committee remember that the whole of this question was a question of transport. If it had not been for the length of the lines of transport these difficulties would never have arisen. It was true that something had been said about the hospital at Cape Town, whore the difficulties were not the same as up country; but he thought that that was the weakest part of the case made out by the hon. Member for Westminster. He found some defects in the hospital at Cape Town, but these defects were in consequence of the removal of some of the staff in order to cure the defects further up the line. The hon. Member said that there were not enough orderlies, but that was because they had been removed from Cape Town to Bloemfontein, and they were being replaced from day to day by constant arrivals from England. With regard to the camp at Maitland, he really thought the hon. Member had made out no case at all. It was a camp of convalescents, and in the instance the hon. Member gave the sergeant in charge apparently did not recognise that a man with a high pulse and a high temperature had fever, and did not get the man removed. He did not think that it followed that because a man had a high temperature it was at all necessary to remove him. He would rather take the opinion of the hon. Member for Ilkeston than that of the hon. Member for Westminster; in fact he should as soon have that of the sergeant.
*MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: What I did was to secure the attendance of a doctor to see this man. The arrangements of the convalescent huts provided
160
for the patients being left in the hands of an untrained sergeant.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Quite so; but if he were in a convalescent camp, and the hon. Member came to him and said, "Your temperature is high, and I will send for a doctor," he might reply, "That might be another danger to what I am already in." This debate had been long but useful. His belief was that in no previous campaign of which there was any record had there been so little unnecessary loss of life, either from wounds or sickness, as in this. That was his deliberate belief, and he was an entirely independent person, and had endeavoured to inform himself of all the facts of the case. Of course he understood that other people might arrive at a contrary impression. What he wished to point out was. that the hon. Member for Westminster went out to South Africa not as a commissioner, or even as a Member of this House, because he was acting against the rules of the House when he went out there without permission. He went out, he was sure, for the very best of motives and intentions, and he was certain that the hon. Member's efforts and all that he said to-night would result in good. But the chief result would be the bringing homo the conviction that in this war, at any rate, the War Office had done about as well as they could, and the medical staff as well as could be expected. The hon. Member having gone to the seat of war not in a scientific or official capacity, but as a war correspondent, it was his duty to find out remarkable cases and bring them before the public in his paper. He said to himself, "If I can find any evil case in connection with the Medical Department it will be my duty to paint it in the strongest colours and bring it before the British public." [HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!] He thought if hon. Members consulted the editor of a newspaper they would find that that was the view the editor would take. Well, the hon. Member had told them that in his opinion the fault was not so much here as in South Africa. If that were so, what was the case against the Government? But if it was in South Africa, with whom was the fault? Was it with Lord Roberts? Scarcely, he thought. Was it with the Royal Army Medical Department? There again, if the Government sent out a sufficient number of orderlies, nurses, and

161
doctors, surely they should not be held responsible for failure. Therefore he thought that the argument against the Government had most completely failed. It must be remembered that a general in the field had first of all to look to the safety of his army, including the sick and wounded; for unless he provided a sufficient supply of food and ammunition the whole army, including the sick and wounded, would otherwise be exposed to destruction. Undoubtedly, however sad and melancholy it might be to make the revelation, the claims of the wounded and the sick must come next to that vital necessity. The hon. Member said that there might be a reasonable inroad on military exigencies. Who was to be the judge of that reasonable inroad? Who but the general in the field? He alone could tell the necessities of the Army. Nobody else could say what road he had to take, what dangers he would have to encounter, what the enemy he would have to meet; and no person who went out from this country without a knowledge of all strategic necessities could tell what was a reasonable inroad on military exigencies. If they did not leave that to the general, they might just as well take the whole army from him. The hon. Member for Westminster complained insistently of the delay at Bloemfontein. Who was to be the judge of that? The hon. Member himself? Nobody but the Commander-in-Chief. [HON. MEMBERS: No, no!] Yes, that was part of the case. There was too much delay; military exigencies were too much considered. The point of the case was that there was not a sufficient number of orderlies. That was a question of transport. There was an inadequate supply of medical comforts and appliances. That also was a question of transport. It might perfectly well be that in a long train of wagons room might have been found for another wagon with these medical comforts and appliances. But who was to decide that? Surely the general in the field. They were not going to judge here in Whitehall or Pall Mall as to whether another wagon could be added to a long train. It would be absolutely impossible. That was a matter that must be left absolutely to the discretion of the general, and that general was the man to whom they must look with the utmost confidence. Now, in regard to Lord Roberts, it was not without pain that that distinguished
162
soldier would hear of the debate that night. [HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!] Yes, because he would feel that it was he who had been attacked. [HON. MEMBERS: No, no!] Lord Roberts would be as well aware as he was that the discretion of taking or leaving more ammunition, or more doctors, more food for the Army, or more orderlies rested with him, and with him alone, and he would feel that in the arrangements as between military necessities and medical necessities he was alone responsible. If there was one general in the British Army who was more keenly anxious that the sick and the wounded should be cared for it was, without doubt, that distinguished soldier; and he thought it would not be without pain that he would read some of the speeches made that night. [Ironical cries of "Hear, hear."] Another order of suggestion had been made by the hon. Member for Ilkeston. On the one hand the Royal Army Medical Department was denounced as incapable. He did not think they were incapable; neither was that the charge made by the hon. Member for Westminster, who said that there were not enough members of that corps to fill the proper places for them. That was not a charge of incapacity. The hon. Member for Ilkeston had offered to go out as a commissioner at the beginning of the war—a most patriotic offer—but he did not know whether, if he had gone out, he would have met the circumstances of the case. Did the hon. Member suppose that if he had gone out to South Africa at the beginning of October the difficulties of transport would have been less, that Lord Roberts would have taken a different view of the relative necessities of the military and medical exigencies? The hon. Member suggested that there had been too much cheeseparing in regard to the Royal Army Medical Department, but it seemed to him that if there was one Department more than another which had been absolutely spoiled it was the Royal Army Medical Department. They had received increased pay, increased allowances, and glorified titles. The view which the hon. Member for Ilkeston took of a camp was that it should consist of a medical officer with a few gentlemen to provide interesting cases. [HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!] He was putting it in a strong way in order to let hon. Gentlemen opposite understand what he meant.

163
His belief was, first of all that there never was a campaign, considering all the conditions, considering the length and imperfect nature of the lines of communication, and considering the rapid advance and the changes of plans, in which the wounded and sick were so well looked after. Moreover, he would add that, considering the enormous interests at stake, considering the activity, the numbers, and bravery of the enemy, although one could not but be sorry for those who had lost their lives, the wonder was not that the number of those who had lost their lives by bullet and disease had been so large, but that it had been so small—a smaller number, in fact, than we had lost in a single battle in campaigns of far less importance. This debate had shown to him, as an outside and impartial observer, that Her Majesty's Government had been scarcely impugned; certainly no case had been made out against them. The case suggested against the authorities at the Cape was of the slightest, and the other and larger case suggested against Lord Roberts, that he had attached too much importance to the military exigencies compared with the medical, had broken down. Her Majesty's Government were to be congratulated upon having given the hon. Member the opportunity of bringing this question forward.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Hon. Members on this side of the House have been accused of treating this question with levity. This is a matter in which there has been considerable human suffering, and in which there has been the loss of very valuable lives, and when so skilled a debater as the hon. Member for King's Lynn is reduced to such an expedient in order to defend this case, then I think we may come to a fair conclusion as to what the character of that case must be. The hon. Member for King's Lynn has said, and said truly, that Lord Roberts has been attacked; but I should like to ask by whom Lord Roberts has been attacked? The charges brought by the hon. Member for Westminster have not even been challenged. The speech of the Under Secretary for War was simply by way of confession and avoidance. No one who knows anything about the circumstances has got up
164
and challenged the accuracy of a single statement made by the hon. Member for Westminster. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Sheffield, who delivered a very remarkable speech a few minutes ago, and whose experience and military position give his opinions considerable weight in everything he says in matters of this character, practically added the weight of his experience to the indictment which was drawn up by the hon. Member for Westminster. What is the defence of the Under Secretary of State for War? It amounts to this—that everything that was asked for by Lord Roberts was given him. What does that mean? It means that the responsibility does not rest with the Government. The facts are admitted. The Government admit this terrible array of facts, and, therefore, the inference we are called upon to draw is that the Government have cast the responsibility for what has happened upon Lord Roberts and Lord Kitchener. The hon. Member for King's Lynn is perfectly right, for there has been an attack upon Lord Roberts—and a very mean attack—but the attack has not come from Members on this side of the House, but from those who ought to defend Lord Roberts. These facts have been corroborated by perfectly independent testimony. I see in papers which have hitherto supported the policy of the war throughout—in fact, who have done their very best to promote this war—letters from war correspondents not merely corroborating the case of the hon. Member for Westminster, but making even more serious charges. Take what has appeared to-day in what I will call a very well-known jingo paper from one of its correspondents at the front—and it is rather significant that this correspondent never made these charges until he came home. When he was at the front and had to get his messages passed by the censor he confined himself to attacks upon the Boers, but when he comes home what does he say? He says that all the time he was at Bloemfontein he was haunted by the horror of the neglect and cruelty to the sick. He writes a good deal more of the same category. The correspondent I allude to is Mr. Julian Ralph, and yet we are told that the responsibility does not rest upon Her Majesty's Government, who have sent an abundance and even a, superfluity of stores to Cape Colony. What

165
does this correspondent say with regard to Natal? He says that he heard there of a case where a private citizen supplied bandages to one of the hospitals in Gape Town.
MR. WYNDHAM: How can the hon. Member reconcile that statement with the fact stated in the telegram I have read to the Committee asking us to stop sending surgical material?
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I can only reconcile it by saying that it is a Daily Mail statement. Besides, I do not think that that is a sufficient answer, because the whole case of the hon. Member for Westminster is that even if those appliances were at Cape Town they did not get to the sick and the wounded, either through the red tape or insufficient staff. The hon. Member has not challenged the accuracy of the statements. I do not suggest that what the Under Secretary for War has stated is not a fact; but if is true it rather strengthens the case of the hon. Member for Westminster that, although there was such a quantity of bandages there, they were not supplied to the sick and wounded in the hospitals. There is another case which comes from Birmingham, and I need hardly state that, therefore, on the face of it, it bears the stamp of truth. It is the case of a Birmingham soldier who was invalided home, and he says that he frequently saw naked men in a delirious state wandering about on cold nights, and that he himself had to wait seven or eight hours before he could get a drink of water, and that although he was in the hospital twenty-one days he never saw a nurse. I do not quote from papers which are in the habit of adversely criticising Her Majesty's Government, because statements of that kind must be open to suspicion. Here is a statement made in another paper which supports the war. It asserts that an officer under Lord Methuen had stated that our soldiers were absolutely tortured to death by unnecessary jolting. These are rather significant statements following the attacks which have been made upon the Boers, and the inhumanity and the barbarity of the Boer ambulances, which have proved to be so superior to our own that many of our wounded have preferred to be captured by the Boers rather than
166
endure the terrible vista of suffering which they saw before them in the British ambulance. That statement was made on the authority of the Daily Express. After all, these statements are not challenged by Lord Roberts. I have road his letters very carefully, and the facts are practically admitted by the Under Secretary for War, and by Lord Roberts us well. There is the case of the Welsh hospital. When it reached Capetown it could not get to the front for days for lack of transport. The most crying necessity existed for it at the front, but they could not get it there. At last this hospital was sent off in charge of someone at Cape Town, who did not know how to put up the hospital, and the major in charge had to do the work himself, because the men supplied at Cape Town did not know how to fix up the tents. The result there has been deplorable. Professor Jones, who volunteered to go to the front, who is one of the finest men Wales has produced, is dead, and one or two other members of his staff died, very largely through the defective arrangements. These are the complaints which have come home from that quarter. These are the kind of complaints that have come from all directions, and I think they deserve something more than the consideration which they have received to-night from several hon. Members on the other side. I venture to say that the one great lesson of the whole of this business is that it has brought home to the people of this country the inevitable horrors of war. There is nothing which struck me more in the eloquent speech of the Under Secretary for War than what he said in his opening statement to the effect that all this human suffering was inevitable. If it was inevitable, I wonder whether the Colonial Secretary knew it during his negotiations with the Transvaal? I cannot believe that any man with all this vista of suffering in front of him would have proceeded with the recklessness which the right hon. Gentleman has shown. All this suffering has taken place for the one-tenth which was "not worth fighting for." There is a statement in the papers to-day by Dr. Treves, which shows that the whole business has been one series of horrible miscalculations. He says that at the battle of Colenso instead of sixty or seventy wounded they actually had 800. This is an illustration of the

167
miscalculation which has dogged the footsteps of this war from the very outset. How is it that there is an insufficiency of medical appliances? We now have plenty of bandages, doctors, and nurses, although we did not have them at the critical moment. And why? Because the Government sent out an army of 50,000 men to accomplish a task which they now admit 220,000 is not more than sufficient for. Knowing the facts, knowing the number of guns and the number of the enemy, still they make this horrible miscalculation at the beginning. If 50,000 or 60,000 men were sufficient, of course the medical appliances would be in proportion to the number of men. But when it was discovered that the force originally sent out was utterly inadequate the whole of their arrangements absolutely broke down, transport and all. [Cries of "No, no!"] It is said the facts prove that it is all a question of transport. But, after all, transport is a question of arrangement weeks and months beforehand. Similar statements to this made in the course of this debate have been received with laughter, but let me point out that in an answer given by the Under Secretary of State for War, he stated this was a matter of weeks. Lord Roberts complained of the insufficiency of locomotives and rolling-stock. Of course you cannot got locomotives and rolling-stock in three weeks.
MR. WYNDHAM: It is a matter of nine months.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: My case is that if there was an insufficiency of transport it is not a question of weeks but of months, and according to the Under Secretary it is a question of nine months.
MR. WYNDHAM: They had to be constructed on the broad gauge.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I know that rolling stock of any other gauge would be perfectly useless. The whole business is one of miscalculation. The diplomacy was miscalculated, the arrangements for the war were miscalculated, and you miscalculated the resisting powers of the Boers or whether they would resist at all. There has been a complete want of knowledge of local circumstances. There is one thing
168
which strikes me as very remarkable in the speech of the hon. Member for Westminster. He asked, when it was a question of saving so many human lives, what difference would a day make in the date of the advance? That question was received with hilarious and contemptuous laughter by the Leader of the House and the Under Secretary for War and by another great military authority. I must say that I fail to see why they laughed at such a question. There was evidently a great hurry to get to Pretoria. It was to be captured by a certain date, on which the war was to be declared at an end. Of course, I will not say that it had anything to do with the General Election. I should not have made that suggestion except for the fact that no one doubts in this House that the lives of the troops have been sacrificed in Natal and in other places to political exigencies. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] I repeat that the lives of our troops have been sacrificed to political exigencies. [An HON. MEMBER: Horrible!] But anyone who reads the despatches must come to that conclusion. There were sacrifices of this description at the Modder River in the great hurry that was shown to relieve Kimberley. It was recklessness with regard to human suffering and the loss of human life which led to the war, and that is at the bottom of all this series of disasters which have so impressed the country, and for exposing, which the country owes a deep debt of gratitude to the hon. Member for Westminster.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not, I think, in the habit of using strong language in this House, but I deliberately say that in all my experience of our1 debates in this House I have never heard a more discreditable speech—
SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I rise to order. I wish to know whether it is Parliamentary for the right hon. Gentleman to say that an hon. Member has made a discreditable speech.
*THE CHAIRMAN: I do not see anything un-parliamentary in the expression, which I have heard frequently used on both sides of the House.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not object at all, Mr. Lowther.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the interruption of the hon. Baronet was wholly unnecessary. I repeat that in all my political experience I have never heard a more discreditable speech than the one which has fallen from the hon. Member for Carnarvon. He was not content with deliberately suggesting that the Secretary for the Colonies had, for his own purposes and with an utter disregard for the sufferings of other people, rushed the country into this war; but he went on to say that the lives of our soldiers in Natal, in the Orange Free State, and in the Transvaal had been deliberately sacrificed for political objects—
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Hear, hear!
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Meaning by that, obviously, that the generals in the field—spurred on, we must assume, by directions from home—had engaged in military operations not otherwise justifiable, not in themselves humane, but prompted solely by political exigencies—
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Hear, hear!
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not sully my lips by saying that that is wholly untrue. I do not stoop to defend either my colleagues or myself from insinuations of that kind; but I say for a Member of this House to accuse our generals of being the tools of party, of being men prepared to see their soldiers unnecessarily butchered before their eyes, or subjected to untold tortures to please a body of politicians at home—for that is what the hon. Member said—I say that to adequately characterise such a statement as that the word "discreditable" is utterly inadequate; and if I could use a stronger expression which would be consistent with our Parliamentary manners I should undoubtedly make use of it.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I never made any charge—[Cries of "Oh!"] Will you kindly wait until I finish what I am about to say? I never made any charge against our generals. The charge I brought was against politicians, and I adhere to it. But the allegation of my having made a charge against the generals in the field is absolutely untrue. Whatever orders the generals in the field got they were perfectly justified in carrying out. It is a lie.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will not express my opinion at greater length in regard to the speech of the hon. Member, and I turn to other Members who carried on this controversy with little actual fairness to the Government, but certainly with no desire, I believe, to misrepresent the Government or the actions of our officers in the field. I regret the nature of some of the attacks which fell from my hon. friend the Member for Westminster—attacks not dwelt upon at any length,, but which, I think, were insinuations or suggestions that might with advantage have been left alone. There were two which specially remain in my mind. One was against the newspaper correspondents in the field, because he distinctly implied that these gentlemen, on whom we so largely rely for our information, doctored that information for the purposes of their own newspaper, or in order to maintain favour with the authorities at the front.
*MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: As far as I can remember, I most distinctly deny that I ever charged the correspondents with doctoring their information for any purpose.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My hon. friend did say that we could not absolutely trust the statements of the correspondents in the field, because they had a strong motive for making their reports agreeable.
*MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: I made a very long speech, but I believe that I am in the recollection of the Committee when I repeat that what I said was that a correspondent could not cable owing to the censor, and that if he wrote home he was open to the danger of whatever he wrote being cabled back within two and a half weeks, and that then I did not envy the position in which he was placed.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It may be my own denseness, but I certainly interpret the statement which my hon. friend has just repeated as carrying with it the suggestion that a correspondent would not write letters of that kind because he should have a very unenviable lot if he did write them. That is all I suggest. [An HON. MEMBER: You said "doctored."]
MR. BRYN ROBERTS: There is a difference between silence and misrepresentation.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have many other important matters to deal with. There is only one other observation of my hon. friend of an incidental character to which I will call attention, and that is his suggestion that the tradition which he represents as having been in force some time ago among soldiers to be afraid of the hospital authorities was one which still had some force. I am sorry my hon. friend made that suggestion. I believe it to be wholly unfounded. All the information which has reached me, from whatever source, shows that the soldiers, whether there has been a sufficient amount of medical attention or not, at all events have appreciated, from the beginning to the end of those unhappy military operations, the unvarying kindness of the doctors and other attendants, and I am sorry that my hon. friend should have made a suggestion which must cause the greatest pain to those who have devoted themselves to the sick and wounded. I now pass to the main sub-stance of the attacks which have been made to-night. Those attacks may be divided into the attacks on Her Majesty's Government and the attacks on Lord Roberts. The attacks on Her Majesty's Government are evidently what really animates hon. Gentlemen opposite. They want to extract from this episode, and from my hon. friend's letter, material for a party fight. I make no such suggestion against the only hon. Gentleman who has spoken from the Front Bench opposite; but those who have heard the speech we have just listened to, and other speeches which have preceded it, will not for a moment suggest that my statement is overcoloured. Unfortunately, it is impossible in this debate, with the best will in the world, to strike an effective blow at Her Majesty's Government without striking that blow through Lord Roberts, and that is the real perplexity in which debaters of the class of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon have found themselves from beginning to end in this matter. My hon. friend whose letter to The Times started this debate has himself reiterated over and over again that, so far as his observation and his knowledge of the facts are concerned, he does not believe that any defi-
172
ciency is to be traced to an insufficient supply of medical stores at headquarters. With the supply of an adequate number of men and an adequate amount of medical stores in South Africa it is evident that the direct responsibility of Her Majesty's Government ends, and must end, and afterwards that it rests with the military authorities on the spot to use those stores and those men to the best advantage. And if the amount of medical stores and the men be sufficient, the only question we have got to ask is whether those men and those stores have, after they arrived in South Africa, been used to the best purpose by the authorities on the spot. I do not believe that it has been seriously asserted by anybody that an insufficient amount of medical stores has been sent. Directly we come face to face and close with the facts, it all turns on the question of transport, and that was admitted by—in fact, it was part of the argument of—my hon. friend the Member for Westminster. It is, and must be, admitted by anyone who has heard the facts that we are really ultimately driven to consider whether or not the military authorities—Lord Roberts and his subordinates—were well advised in using the limited means of transport in the way that, as a matter of fact, they actually did. That really is the question, and therefore you are, and must be, attacking the military authorities on the spot and not the Government at home when you deal with the deficiencies, or the alleged deficiencies, which have occurred at Bloemfontein and elsewhere. And that is why I say that, with obviously most earnest desire to wound her Majesty's Government, it is the general in the field who really has been struck at. Let me now, parenthetically, allude to the one constructive suggestion I have heard in the course of this debate. Most of it, as I have said, has been criticism, some of it party criticism, but there was a suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Ilkeston Division which I think is the only contribution of a constructive character to the problem with which we have to deal. The hon. Gentleman suggests that there ought to have been a kind of roving committee of independent medical men who should, in his own phrase, stand between the military medical authorities and the generals in the field. I do not think I misrepresent his views. Was ever such

173
a proposal made for rendering impotent an army in the field? As I understand the hon. Gentleman, Lord Roberts is to say to this roving consultative medical committee, "I mean to make a rapid march through the country, covering such and such a distance, and I shall be able to take with me only such and such an amount of medical stores." And thereupon the medical committee will say, "If you do that a great many of the soldiers will remain without adequate medical comforts and with an insufficient number of medical attendants, and, in the name of humanity, we must ask you to march a little slower." I really cannot imagine anything which would at once more effectually dislocate both our military arrangements and our medical arrangements, and, whatever shortcomings there may be in the present system, the hon. Gentleman will allow me to say, with all respect, that that system is much better than the one he recommended. Before leaving the hon. Gentleman, may I make one other observation on a matter on which he speaks with far greater authority to the Committee than I can pretend to. He has discussed, with all the knowledge of a great doctor, the amount of mortality which ought to attend this outbreak of typhoid—a mortality, let me remind the Committee, of 21 per cent. of the cases, and admittedly lower than the mortality in such cases in any war in which we have ever been engaged, and lower, I believe, than in any war in which any other Power has ever been engaged. [An HON. MEMBER: No!] Yes, I believe so; and comparing favourably not only with the mortality among soldiers in time of war, but with that among soldiers at home in time of peace, with the use of every possible medical appliance. Then the hon. Gentleman comes and stakes his medical reputation on the statement that if there had been proper medical attention and appliances the mortality might have been reduced from 21 to 12 per cent. I am glad to think the hon. Gentleman's medical reputation is far too solidly based to be upset even by such a wild hypothesis, otherwise I should really be tempted to say he was indulging in the most extravagant imaginary statistics. Remember, the soldier in the field is at the time of life when a man is most susceptible to typhoid. The ordinary statistics in populations in
174
civil life give 15, 16, or 17 per cent., including infants, who do not usually succumb to the disease, and, of course, the percentage presents a much more favourable result than when it is applied to men in the prime of life at the most susceptible age. If we at home with our hospitals and appliances cannot reduce the mortality among soldiers below 21 per cent., is it not straining our faith in the hon. Gentleman's ability to ask us to believe that the percentage could be reduced to 12 among soldiers on service? I cannot really believe that the hon. Gentleman will, on reflection, adhere to his conjecture. I have said this is really an attack upon Lord Roberts and his staff, and that statement met with expressions of disfavour from the other side. But the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean said deliberately, if I do not misinterpret him, that the military authorities should have managed their transport so as to bring up more medical supplies.
*SIR CHARLES DILKE: I do not deny that. I stated that I agreed with what had been said on that point by the hon. Member for Westminster, that under the circumstances of the case what had been done by the Germans at the moment of greatest pressure before Metz was equally open to Lord Roberts.
MR. BALFOUR: The right hon. Baronet not only says it on his own great authority, but also on that of the hon. Member for Westminster. That, then, is an attack on Lord Roberts and his staff, and nothing else. The whole question is one of transport, avowedly one of transport. If there could have been tents, doctors, nurses, medical supplies brought up to Bloemfontein with the desired speed, these things would not have occurred, and they occurred because the transport was not supplied. The hon. Member for Ilkeston says an outbreak of typhoid should have been foreseen and provided for. Well, it was foreseen, but how could it be provided for? How could we provide for an outbreak of typhoid when we could scarcely get to Bloemfontein the necessary supplies for the Army? I should almost be ashamed to labour the point after the brilliant speech of the Under Secretary for War, but it has been systematically disregarded all through. Has the Committee the least notion of how narrow

175
was the margin of supplies on which Lord Roberts made his phenomenal and historical march? Recollect, the success of the war, the rapid and effectual success of the war, turned upon the extreme rapidity of Lord Roberts's movements. So rapid was his advance that on one occasion we know as a fact from Lord Roberts that for a few hours he was in serious anxiety about the supplies of food and ammunition requisite for the existence of his army. The actual occasion was, I think, upon his getting into Johannesburg; but all through his march he was working on the very narrowest margin; men were sleeping in the open air night after night because tents had not come up, and the supply of provisions was the smallest compatible with safety. It was therefore impossible, fighting and marching at the rate he did, that he could have all the comforts and conveniences of a London hospital, or even the comforts of a hospital at the base; and, therefore, preparation at Bloemfontein was impossible. It could not be done. You may say what you like about the outbreak of fever, no amount of prevision would have prevented what happened in consequence of the difficulties of transport, and the difficulties of transport alone. I want to know whether the House thinks that anything is seriously gained by criticising in this way the decisions of generals in the field? My hon. friend the Member for Westminster brought forward many cases which came under his own personal observation of hardships, deplorable and lamentable, to the wounded at Bloemfontein and afterwards at Kroonstad. On the details of these statements I should not cast the least doubt, but I think we should hear what the doctors have to say on the other side. My hon. friend had a harrowing story of eight wounded men left on the platform nine hours at Bloemfontein. It is a horrible thing to contemplate. It makes one's blood run cold. But before we condemn the doctors—and I suppose they were the responsible persons for that at Bloemfontein—I think we ought to hear their case, and the more so as it is manifestly difficult to get at the truth in these matters. My hon. friend said the hospital at Cape Town was built opposite the mouth of an open sewer. I am told that that is a statement in which my hon. friend is mistaken. At all events it has been contradicted on high authority.
176
It is evident with regard to this particular case of the eight men left on the platform at Bloemfontein that we must have, and ought to have, the justification, if justification there be, of the local authorities; we ought to hear what the other side has to say before we pass an indiscriminate opinion. It is quite clear that the House is not capable with the information now before it of dealing with the details of the situation. I pass to the broad issue I wish to lay before the House, which is whether we should condemn the general in the field. [Cries of "No, no!"] What is the use of saying "No, no" when the hon. Baronet admits that I have not misrepresented him? When it is admitted, it may please hon. Gentlemen to allow me to make my statement without these interruptions. The broad issue is whether we should condemn the general in the field—[Cries of "No, no!"]—for making his military arrangements so that necessarily for a short period there was an insufficient supply of medical comforts, whether we are to insist that he shall limit the sphere of his operations, check the rapidity of his movements, dull the strength of his blow in order that there shall be not a moment's delay in tending the wounded. Sir, that is not war or humanity, nor the way to be successful in military operations, nor the way to save human life. If there is one truth more surely learnt than another in military history it is to bring war to a rapid conclusion and limit the inevitable human suffering by striking rapidly and hard, even though the immediate result may be momentary loss of human life. For my part I cannot imagine a worse lesson to teach the generals of this country than that whenever, by the exceeding rapidity of their operations, these sufferings are caused they are to be the subject of comment in Parliament and used as the counters of politicians like the hon. Member for the Carnarvon Boroughs, and that their credit and honour is to be made the plaything of contending parties. I hope the House will never lend itself willingly to this procedure. Let hon. Members attack the Government as much as they like. We are accustomed to it; it is our trade to listen to these comments, and we do so with the utmost philosophy. But do not let the House lend itself to attacks which, under the guise of attacks on the Govern-

177
ment, are attacks on generals in the field, and by attacking generals in the field sap the very foundations of our military strength.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: In the few words, Mr. Lowther, which I shall address to the Committee, I hope I shall be able to maintain a somewhat calmer temper than has been exhibited throughout the course of the somewhat long harangue—
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Not "long."
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The speeches of the right hon. Gentleman never seem long, but this one did seem longer than usual in consequence of the high tone that was maintained. The right hon. Gentleman began his speech by rebuking my hon. friend the Member for Carnarvon for having made a "discreditable" speech. Without applying such an epithet as that applied to the speech of my hon. friend, I think the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman at least commenced his observations was not worthy of him or the House or the occasion which has created the debate. The right hon. Gentleman said that it is an attack on Her Majesty's Government which really animates us, and I am not at all surprised to find that that sentiment was largely endorsed by the Secretary for the Colonies, for he gives us no credit whatever for any sympathy with suffering, no credit for a desire for an inquiry into what amount of faulty proceedings there may be in relation to the treatment of the sick and wounded in South Africa. According to the right hon. Gentleman we do not share at all the anxiety, the thrilling feelings which the people of this country have experienced by the revelations made by the hon. Member for Westminster. We have no feelings, apparently, of that kind; our one squalid idea is to attack, rightly or wrongly, Her Majesty's Government. The right hon. Gentleman thinks that in a debate of this nature, originated in the manner to which I shall allude presently, it is worthy of his position as Leader of the House to make such an imputation. I have said I would refer to the circumstances in which this debate has arisen. How has it arisen? The hon. Member for Westminster published the letter in The Times to which such
178
frequent reference has been made. That letter so deeply moved public opinion that a number of us felt obliged to ask simple questions in order to ascertain what the view of the Government was with regard to it, and the right hon. Gentleman then got up, and what did he say? He did not blame the hon. Member who had written this letter. He did not blame us for asking questions on the subject, but he said that "the matter is so serious that the state of things disclosed so rightly calls for inquiry that we ourselves will institute an inquiry. We will send out a commission." [Mr. BALFOUR: No.] Did he not say so? Then what was the meaning of the indignation with regard to my hon. friend the Member for Ilkestone when he asked whether an inquiry would be made? The reply of the right hon. Gentleman was, "I said so yesterday." The right hon. Gentleman laid so much stress on this inquiry yesterday, he so recognised the natural desire of the House of Commons to discuss this serious matter, these great revelations, that he said, "We will go out of our way and invent a new method by bringing in a Supplementary Vote of £5 in order that the House may discuss the subject." Now he thinks that we forget all this, and says that it is we, with the world behind, who have invented this occasion to get up this attack, this rigged-up attack, on the Government. No, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman will find, I think, when he cools down a little that we have a perfect right to discuss this matter without having such imputations made upon us.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I made no imputation.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I call it an imputation. In a matter of this great gravity, of this solemn character, involving as it does the lives and deaths and sufferings, or escape from suffering, of thousands of our brave fellow-countrymen, the right hon. Gentleman will find that we are merely taking an opportunity which he gave us, and that we are not really animated by the sole desire to have a good party attack on the Government. The hon. Member whose writings in The Times originated the whole of this discussion must, I think, be on the whole thoroughly satisfied with the proceedings

179
of to-night. I am merely repeating what has been said before when I say that not one of his allegations, as I understand it, not one of the facts he has stated, has been disputed, certainly not controverted, on the part of Her Majesty's Government. And, therefore, the hon. Member stands in this position, that he has disclosed to the country a part, at all events, of the truth of this great matter, and he has done it in such a way that he can receive nothing but thanks from the community for doing it. Now, Sir, I have heard no reference made to-night to two curious passages in the paper that was circulated this morning. We have heard all along of the hon. Member for Westminster and of his papers in The Times. But in the War Office telegram to Lord Roberts the War Office say, "We are receiving private telegrams complaining of alleged general breakdown in hospitals," and then they go onto say, "A complaint of your hospitals at the front has just come in." That one complaint which has just come in was obviously a telegram from the hon. Member. But what are the other private telegrams complaining of a general breakdown? We have not heard any explanation of those. That telegram was sent on 5th June. A goad many days, and even weeks, elapsed, and on 20th June the War Office, who profess to have no knowledge of these mistakes and defects pointed out by the hon. Member, write, "We continue to receive disquieting reports as to the state of hospitals." We have heard nothing of what those disquieting reports, rumours, and complaints are. But, at all events, they show that Her Majesty's Government are not indebted only to the hon. Member for their information upon the subject. But the country at large is. The hon. Member's information came like a thunder-clap upon the country, because up to that time we had all been saying that, although many departments of the Army administration had surprised the country by their efficiency during this war, there was one which had excelled all others—namely, the medical department, and the country was under the belief that in regard to medical matters everything was at its best in the best of all possible departments in South Africa. The disclosure came as a great blow upon the country. Now, Sir, I cannot altogether divorce the surprise with which these revelations were received from the
180
very uneasy feeling which has pervaded a largo portion, at any rate, of the community, inducing us to doubt whether we were receiving really full and true information, not only in regard to hospitals, but in regard to other matters in South Africa. This is the first time, so far as I am aware, that this country has engaged in. a war on anything like this scale under the influence of what is called a censorship. To a censorship applied to purely military questions, to a censorship which restricts news which may be of a character capable of giving undesirable information, to the enemy, we all willingly bow and submit. But when we find, as we do, that military censorship applied to political matters, to private letters, to private telegrams, how can we fail to have some doubt—I will go no further than that—whether, after all, with all the newspapers and teeming intelligence around us, we understand really the full facts of the case? Now, Sir, the hon. Member's allegations have not been disputed nor disposed of, as I have said, but merely explanations and excuses have been made for them. This debate must necessarily be incomplete and unsatisfactory, because we are not in possession of the facts which would enable us as individuals to judge of what has happened. We do know certain bald facts. We know, for instance, that for every one man who has died of his wounds. in South Africa, two men have died of enteric fever. Roughly, I think, that is about the proportion. The question we have to consider is, generally, was this danger of great sickness and enteric fever realised and provided for by the Government and by their advisers? My hon. friend the Member for Ilkeston has related to us the part he took. He suggested that when you were sending out eminent surgeons to see that the surgical treatment of the wounded was properly conducted, you ought not to have neglected the weightier matter of sending out eminent physicians to advise as to matters affecting the sick. The right hon. Gentleman made game of my hon. friend's proposal. He talked of it as a roving commission which was to dictate to the generals what they were to do. Why did he send out surgeons? What is a patriotic act in a surgeon cannot be quite a crime in a physician. With regard to the general question, we have evidence on all hands that the probability of a great prevalence of this particular dis-

181
order was known to every one acquainted with the circumstances of South Africa. The right hon. baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean quoted from the Army Medical Report an account given last year of the liability of Ladysmith and that quarter to this particular disease. We want to know whether that danger was fully realised. The Under Secretary says that it was. Then was it fully provided for? We do not know, and we cannot know until this inquiry takes place. The second question is this—whether, during those weeks of waiting at Bloemfontein everything was done that could be done. The first epidemic was incubated elsewhere; but there has been a second outbreak since. Was not each of these attacks capable of being guarded against, or the results modified, by certain steps which might have been taken? The Under Secretary says that Lord Roberts's first duty was to feed the large army under him, and that then he had to accumulate stores as well as he could to keep them during their rapid advance. I suppose that the supply of nurses and orderlies would come afterwards. Some of us are not sure that they should have come afterwards.
MR. WYNDHAM: I did not say they must come after accumulation. I said they must come after bare subsistence.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: That is a military matter. If they could come before accumulation of stores, it disposes of all your argument.
MR. WYNDHAM: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. You must prepare fifteen days subsistence for the advance, or you cannot make it.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: That is obviously a matter of opinion and judgment. The right hon. Gentleman says that we are condemning Lord Roberts. I say that I do not condemn Lord Roberts, because I have not knowledge enough to pronounce an opinion on the subject. That is precisely one of those subjects with which this inquiry, so strongly promised and so eagerly expected, must occupy itself. Apart from the allegations of the hon. Member for Westminster, which no one disputes—I mean
182
the allegations of fact—there is a case here of some neglect of ordinary care in some quarter. But we are not in a position to apportion the blame which, I think, is due to someone. I decline altogether to attempt to do so with the knowledge that we have. We have two hon. Members hero who have been to South Africa, and they take opposite views of the question. But the facts remain—the facts witnessed by the hon. Member for Westminster remain. The tremendous proportion of deaths remain, and they are surely sufficient to justify this discussion and to point the necessity for this inquiry. But I am indeed surprised to find that the right hon. Gentleman said nothing definite and positive about this committee of inquiry. Perhaps he was so much engaged in endeavouring to beat the wind and to raise party feeling that he forgot it. But it is obvious that no time should be lost, if it is not to be a sort of South African Committee to inquire after it is too late. It is to be a Committee to proceed to the spot and inquire; and I hope that that inquiry will be thorough and immediate. But there is another point. Several hon. Members have said that we may draw great lessons from all that has happened as to the future reorganisation of the Army Medical Department, and so forth. That is as to the future; and the state of things disclosed by the hon. Member for Westminster is of the past. But what of the present? There are 5,000 or 6,000 men in the hospitals at this moment—[Cries of "More!"]—some of them at Cape Town, in those hospitals which are independent of defective transport, and any faults of which cannot be distorted by the most ingenious mind into an attack on Lord Roberts. Have the Government and the War Office taken to heart any lessons from what has been disclosed and even from what is acknowledged by Lord Roberts and themselves to be a state of things which existed a few weeks ago? Are they guarding against a repetition of such horrors? Are we entitled to feel secure, as I hope that we are, that our countrymen will not be again exposed to that which they have already gone through with so much courage and endurance?
MR. LABOUCHERE: I have two questions I wish to ask the

183
First Lord of the Treasury. My right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition has just now urged that a Commission should be appointed immediately.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Lord Roberts urges it.
MR. LABOUCHERE: Lord Roberts only urges that men of common sense should be put on the Commission, whom, I gathered from his telegram, he did not anticipate would be found in this House. What I want to ask is, who is going to appoint this Commission? The right hon. Gentleman and his Government are persons concerned; their conduct is to be inquired into. If they are to appoint the Commission we know very well what it will be. It will be another whitewashing Commission. I do not know whether a Royal Commission or a Committee, or what, is to be appointed; but whatever it is, I think before the gentlemen are appointed we ought to have an understanding that their names should be submitted to the House of Commons, and that an opportunity should be given for some sort of discussion upon them. Otherwise, under the circumstances of the case, it is perfectly obvious that this Commission will give no satisfaction either to gentlemen on this side of the House or to the public generally. I do not know what are the views of the hon. Member for Westminster with regard to this Commission, which is proposed in consequence of the charges he has made, but I cannot suppose that he himself would not wish that the names should be submitted to the House and some opportunity given to Members of the House to suggest that this or that gentleman is not, perhaps, quite independent, or that some other gentleman should be put on the Committee. It is the only possible way in which an independent Commission can be obtained in this matter which will satisfy the exigencies of public opinion. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to tell us he treats all this with philosophical calm. The right hon. Gentleman is a philosopher, and I have before now said that I sit at his feet as regards his philosophy; I believe in his philosophy much more than in his politics. But this is not a mere question for philosophers; it is a question for practical men, and we
184
want practical action in the matter. I am bound to say that unless we have this Committee or Commission practically appointed by both sides of the House the country will not regard it with that philosophical calm upon which my philosophical leader prides himself. There must be a full inquiry into the whole of this miserable state of things at Bloemfontein which has been revealed to the House now, but which has been carefully kept secret up till now. You may talk as much as you like about the correspondents, and say that they are independent. How is it, if the correspondents are independent, if they were not afraid of offending the powers that be out there, that while they were telegraphing and sending letters home, giving all sorts of news, some true, some false, they did not allude to what was going on at Bloemfontein? If it had not been for the fact that, fortunately for the country, the hon. Member for Westminster went there and had the courage to reveal in the press what he saw, we should know nothing whatever about this even now. There is another question I wish to ask. The Leader of the Opposition read a telegram that has been published and put into our hands today, saying that the War Office were receiving telegrams respecting the breakdown of hospitals. During the debate the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for War said the War Office had been in correspondence with the Commander at Cape Town, and with the medical heads there. The Government promised, in giving us the Paper issued to us to-day, to lay every fact at their disposal before us. They have not done so. Here are two things we do not know, and I want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman will agree to lay before the House this correspondence with the authorities at Cape Town.
Resolution agreed to; to be reported upon Monday next. Committee also report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.
Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn"—(Mr. Balfour)—put and agreed to.
Adjourned at five minutes before Twelve of the clock, till Monday next.

LORD INCHIQUIN.
Ordered and Directed, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That a Certificate be sent by the Clerk of the Parliaments to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland, stating that the Lord Chancellor of the United Kingdom has reported to the House of Lords that the right of the Lord Inchiquin to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to the satisfaction of him the said Lord Chancellor; and that the House of Lords has ordered such report to be sent to the said Clerk of the Crown in Ireland. And it is hereby also Ordered, That the said Report of the said Lord Chancellor be sent to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  SOUTH METROPOLITAN GAS BILL.
  A Petition of Messrs. Bircham and Company, of No. 46, Parliament Street, Westminster, Parliamentary agents, praying for leave to present a Petition of the Strand District Board of Works
  2
  praying to be heard by counsel against the Bill, although the time limited by Standing Order No. 93 for presenting such Petition has expired; read, and ordered to lie on the Table; and Standing Order No. 93 to be considered on Monday next, in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said Petition.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (SPITAL-FIELDS MARKET) BILL.
Report from the Select Committee, That it is not expedient to proceed further with the Bill; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
MORLEY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Reported with Amendments.
WORKINGTON RAILWAYS AND DOCKS BILL [H.L.]
The Queen's consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
WELLINGBOROUGH AND DISTRICT TRAMROADS BILL.
The Queen's consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
BRIGHTON CORPORATION BILL.
The Queen's consent signified; and Bill reported with Amendments.
BRITISH GASLIGHT COMPANY (STAF-FORDSHIRE POTTERIES) BILL.
Reported without amendment.
CALEDONIAN RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  LONDON AND SAN FRANCISCO BANK BILL [H.L.]
    HAMMOND (G. H.) COMPANY BILL [H.L.]
    Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
    NORTH WARWICKSHIRE WATER BILL.
    Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
    WIDNES AND RUNCORN BRIDGE BILL.
    Read 3a, with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
BRAY AND ENNISKERRY RAILWAY BILL.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
    TOTTENHAM URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
    Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION (STOCK) BILL [H.L.]
  SCOTTISH AMERICAN INVESTMENT COMPANY, LIMITED, HILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to.
READING CORPORATION (TRAMWAYS) BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
MIDLAND RAILWAY BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Duke of Sutherland be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Lord Mancaster; read, and agreed to.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL [H.L.]
  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
LEITH BURGH PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL [H.L.]
Commons Amendment considered (according to Order), and agreed to.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (GAS) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL. (No. 146.)
  LONDON (CLERKENWELL AND HOL-BORN) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL. (No. 147.)
    LONDON (POPLAR) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL. (No. 148.)
    Read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ARMY.
  Return respecting. Laid before the House, pursuant to Order dated 25th May, 1900.

LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
Orders made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of—

I.

A light railway in the county of East Sussex, from Robertsbridge to Pevensey.

II.

A light railway in the county of Gloucester, from Cheltenham to Cleve Hill.

III.

A light railway in the county of Sussex, from Bexhill to St. Leonards.

IV.

A light railway at Cheltenham in the county of Gloucester.

LUNACY.
Fifty-fourth Report of the Commissioners in Lunacy to the Lord Chancellor (appendices and tables of contents, etc., to follow).
Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

Finance accounts of the United Kingdom for the year ended 31st March, 1900.

WOODS, FORESTS, AND LAND REVENUES.
Seventy-eighth Report of the Commissioners, dated 29th June, 1900.
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

MEDWAY CONSERVANCY.
Statement of receipts and expenditure for the year from 25th March, 1899, to 25th March, 1900. Delivered (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
HOSPITALS (EXEMPTION FROM RATES).
Leave given to the Marquess of Bristol to attend the Select Committee of the House of Commons, pursuant to message of Tuesday last, if he think fit, and his Lordship consenting thereto, a message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.
NEW BILL.
  MEMBERS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES RELIEF BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to relieve members of county councils and others from disqualification—was presented by the Duke of Northumberland; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 144.)

ECCLESIASTICAL ASSESSMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
*THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH): My Lords, in rising to move the Second Reading of this Bill, which has already passed the House of Commons, I shall not detain your Lordships for many minutes. The Bill is designed for the removal of a grievance of old standing, one which is perfectly well known to noble Lords from Scotland, and if the
6
House passes the Bill and it becomes law I believe that in practice it will effect its object. I do not propose to go into the history of ecclesiastical assessments in Scotland. I believe that history is perfectly familiar to noble Lords from Scotland who are interested in the question, and I am not sanguine enough to suppose that I should be able to interest noble Lords who do not belong to Scotland in a subject of this kind. The position of matters is this. The obligation to provide Church accommodation, a house for the Minister, and a burial ground for the parish has been for a great number of years a burden upon the Land of the parish. If there is anything in the argument, of which we hear a good deal sometimes in other connections, that such and such a rate is an hereditary burden upon property, then this burden is one out of which the landowners in Scotland have no title to escape. So long as a parish remains purely rural in its character I think that even at the present time no one can make out that any grievance exists; but it is different when the character of a parish has changed from rural to urban, when a good deal of building has taken place, and when that system of allotting land for building, which in Scotland is known as feuing, has proceeded to any considerable extent. By a series of legal decisions, and by the operation of the Valuation Act, passed in 1854, two distinct systems of raising ecclesiastical assessments are now in practice. In rural parishes the assessment is, speaking generally, laid on what is known as the old valued-rent, and in parishes where much building has taken place very often the real rent has been substituted for this purpose for the old valued-rent. At the present time it is possible for any one valued-rent heritor to insist that the real rent shall be brought into practice. The object of this Bill is to provide that if at a meeting of valued-rent heritors a majority of two thirds in value of the valued - rent heritors prefer to retain the old system they shall be at liberty to do so, and, if not, then the parishes will be assessed for this purpose on the real rent. The main part of the Bill is contained in the clause which provides for the case of parishes in which the real rent either has been brought in in the past or will be brought in in the future. In those cases a grievance does press upon

7
those heritors who are feuars and those of small amount, and the object of the Bill is to make legal a transaction which is very often carried into effect at the present time. It is proposed in this Bill to effect the exemption altogether of heritors under £50. But there is this condition attached, that the authorities of the Church in the parish shall be prepared to pay the amount which would have been raised from those exempted under this Bill. By this Bill the Church is not asking anything for herself but is only asking Parliament to permit her to relieve ratepayers from certain charges which are now levied upon them by legal sanction, but which are sometimes imposed under conditions which involve practical hardship. The Bill is only to make legal a method which is often at the present moment arrived at as a private compromise, but which in practice is liable to be obstructed by a small minority of individuals, for the purpose not of relieving themselves of the burden, but of making as much difficulty for the Church as possible.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My Lords, I shall not detain the House for more than a few moments in referring to the statement the noble Lord has just made—the Bill is of too small a character to warrant me in doing so. In Scotland at this moment we have in full blast a system of supporting the Church by tithes and Church rates, both being charges upon the land. The Church rates are used, as the noble Lord has stated, for the building and repairing of churches and manses and the provision of burial grounds. These charges have always been willingly paid by the landowners, but a difficulty has arisen in collecting them from the smaller landowners in different parishes. To meet that grievance, surely one of two courses would have been proper—either the Church rates should have been abolished altogether and the duty of building and maintaining church fabrics and manses thrown upon the congregation attending them; or, if you are not ready to take so heroic a remedy as that, at any rate, to meet particular grievances you should have said that landowners below a certain valuation should not be charged at all. This Bill proposes to do neither
8
of these two things. On the one hand it says that the larger landowners may hold a meeting of their own, and that if two-thirds, reckoned by valuation, of those landowners are in favour of relieving the smaller landowners altogether they may do so, and levy the amount on themselves, by which there is always a possibility of a certain number of the landowners in the parish having; thrown upon them extra burdens to which they have not assented. This seems a doubtful way of dealing with the matter. On the other hand, it is pro-posed that, where the whole of the landowners in the parish are to be retained in the assessments, then, if the kirk session is willing, it may cause a certain amount to be struck off the valuation of all the landowners of the parish, providing the deficiency is made up by the kirk session. I have never heard of a kirk session being a body which had very much money to dispose of, and I should like to know where they are to get the money from with which to do this. I suppose they will have to rely upon voluntary contributions or bazaars. This is the first time I have heard a proposal in an Act of Parliament that rates should be assisted, with the sanction of Parliament, by voluntary contributions. I do not think the noble and learned Lord will say that I have misinterpreted the provisions of his Bill, which seems to me to be founded neither on good principle nor on courageous opinions. In practice it will be of little importance, for in many parishes the principle is already adopted by the consent of the landowners. I shall, therefore, content myself by saying not content when the question is put from the Woolsack.
On Question, agreed to. Bill read 2a accordingly; and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Thursday next.

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of SELBORNE): My Lords, I would especially invite your attention to the unique;

9
circumstances under which the movement for federation in Australia, which has ended in the Bill now before your Lordships for consideration, has had its origin, and brought its history, I hope, almost to the point of fulfilment. The Constitution of the United States of America was born of a struggle for national independence. The Constitution of the Dominion of Canada was accepted as the solution of internal political troubles constantly recurring over a course of many years, and sometimes acute. The consolidation of the German Empire was rendered possible toy the victories of a great war. It has been reserved for the people and the statesmen of Australia alone to determine to federate out of what I may call pure reason. They, and they alone, have looked to the future, and, as custodians of the interest of their descendants, have determined to consolidate the colonies of Australia in one great commonwealth. The fact that this movement has existed and the work has been completed under no special pressure calls, I think, for a tribute of admiration from us, because it must have greatly added to the difficulties of the statesmen who had the task in hand. They had to reconcile six different States, each with divergent interests, each with its own separate local conditions and its own separate history, and in each of which had arisen the usual growth of vested interests; and to have completed the work of federation without any very great pressure is a most remarkable performance, and one that will place the statesmen of Australia on a level with those statesmen who have been admired by the world for the Constitutions they gave to America and the Dominion of Canada. I would ask you, my Lords, before you read this Bill a second time, to take note of some very remarkable features in the Constitution embodied in the Bill. First of all, there are the provisions for a change in the Constitution in the future, if necessary. Any law for altering this Constitution must be passed by an absolute majority of each House of Parliament, that is, the Senate and House of Representatives. When so passed it must be submitted to the vote of the electors in each State who are qualified to vote for the election of members in the House of Representatives. If in a majority of the States a majority of the electors who vote are in favour of the proposed law, and if
10
a majority of all the electors voting in all the States are also in favour of the proposed law, it passes, and must then be presented to the Governor General for the Queen's assent. I think I ought to assure my noble and learned friend Lord James of Hereford, that in those colonies where there is womanhood suffrage as well as manhood suffrage, only half the number of votes are allowed to count. I would ask your Lordships to observe that no proposed alteration of the Constitution the object of which is, either (1) to diminish the proportionate representation of any State in the Senate or House of Representatives, or (2) to diminish the minimum number of representatives, or (3) to alter in any way the limits of a State, or (4) to affect the provisions of the Constitution in relation to any particular State, may become law unless it is approved by the majority of the electors voting in the State which will be affected by the proposed alteration. I would ask you to compare those provisions for a change of the Constitution with the provisions that obtain in the United States of America. You will notice that in the case of the Commonwealth of Australia a proposed change must not only be passed by a majority of the people in a majority of the States, but also by a total majority of those voting in all the States on the question. In the Constitution of the United States there are two methods of effecting a change of the Constitution, but I will only mention one which, I believe, has been invariably used in all the changes of the Constitution which have taken place. Congress, i.e., the Senate and the House of Representatives, may, by a two-thirds vote in each House, prepare and propose Amendments. Those Amendments, when so prepared and proposed by Congress, must then be submitted to the Legislatures of the States, and they are only passed if the Legislatures of three-fourths of the States ratify them. I think your Lordships will see that in one point, at any rate, those two processes are likely to have the same effect. In neither case is it probable that any Amendment of the Constitution can be made to which a majority of the people are opposed. If you come to consider the converse proposition, whether it is possible or likely that a change in the Constitution, which the majority of the people really desire, may not be effected owing to the process which the Constitution

11
enjoins, then I must say I think the advantage lies with the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia. It is obviously more difficult to make a change in the Constitution of the United States than it would be in the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia. The only comment I would make upon that is that it seems to me that the proposals in the Commonwealth Bill are more truly democratic than those of the United States. I use that term with its ordinary grammatical meaning and without any attribution of merit or demerit Under this Bill the final arbiters on a question of a change of the Constitution are the people—the voters. The next provision to which I would call your Lordships' especial attention, one of very peculiar interest for this House, is the provision against a deadlock between the two Houses. Section 57 runs as follows—
"When the House of Representatives has passed a law which the Senate rejects or fails to pass, or amends in a way to which the House of Representatives will not agree, the House of Representatives may, if it wishes to force matters to a conclusion, again pass the law with or without any amendments emanating from the Senate, after an interval of three months. If the Senate again rejects it or omits to pass it, or amends it as above, the Governor-General may dissolve both Houses simultaneously, but such dissolution must not take place within six months of the natural date of dissolution of the House of Representatives."
I may say here, in passing, that the House of Representatives must be re-elected every three years, but the Senate as a body is never dissolved, except under the provision which I have just quoted. A member of the Senate is elected for six years. Half of the first Senate will be elected for only three years, and after that a half will be elected every three years. So you will see this is a very special provision for a dissolution of the whole Senate in the case of a deadlock. The section continues—
"If after dissolution the new House of Representatives again passes the law with or without any amendments emanating from the Senate, and the Senate again rejects it, or fails to pass it, or amends it as above, the Governor-General may convene a joint sitting of the members of both Houses. The joint sitting may deliberate together on the proposed law, and on any amendments as to which the two Houses have disagreed. After deliberation the next step is to vote on the law. This they must do together, and if the law itself, with or without Amendments, is carried
12
by an absolute majority of the total number of: members of the two Houses, the law as passed by the joint sitting will be regarded as duly passed by both Houses."
Your Lordships will observe that the terms all through are permissive and not obligatory. "The Governor-General may dissolve both Houses." That is, of course, the Governor-General acting on the advice of his Ministers. "The Governor-General may convene a joint sitting of the two Houses." He is not obliged to do so, but may do so on the advice of his Ministers. But when once this meeting of the two Houses is convened then the vote—the final vote—must be given by the two Houses sitting as one House, though the deliberations which take place previous to the vote may, if they like, in each case be separate. There is a variation to which I would draw your Lordships' attention in those cases where the disagreement is as to a change in the Constitution. In the case of an ordinary disagreement this process is only applicable if the Bill on which the dispute has occurred has emanated from the House of Representatives. There is no corresponding privilege to the Senate in the case of a Bill which has emanated from the Senate. But if the Bill as to which disagreement exists is a Bill proposing a change in the Constitution, then the same privilege obtains in the case of both Houses. My Lords, the observations that I would make to you as regards this process are two-fold. In the first place, I believe it is the very first time that in an Anglo-Saxon Constitution any attempt has been made to provide for a solution of a deadlock between the two Houses. There is no such provision in the Constitution of the United States of America; there is no such provision in the Constitution of the Dominion of Canada. The second observation I would make is that the plan in this Bill has this merit: that it goes to the root of the whole matter and refers the final decision to the electorate—it does not leave the decision to one of the two Houses which are parties to the dispute. Therefore, whatever decision is arrived at is one that must be accepted as final and conclusive by all parties. I would briefly point out to your Lordships the provisions for the election of the two Houses. The Senate is devised specially as a representative Chamber of the States as States. Each original State has six

13
Senators, no matter what its area or population may be. The electors for the Senate are the same as those for the House of Representatives, and in the absence of any provision to be made by Parliament in the future the electors vote in each State as one electorate. The election, as I have already mentioned, is for six years. In the case of the Senators first elected, half of them are chosen by lot to go out at the end of throe years. The House of Representatives is to have a total number of Members which is to be double the total of the Members of the Senate, and which are to be allotted to each State in proportion to their respective populations. The States are to be divided into constituencies for the purpose of this election by their own State Parliaments if they wish. In default of such legislation the electors will vote as one electorate. The electorate for the Commonwealth Parliament is in each State; to be the same as the electorate for its own Chamber. And here I must commiserate with my noble and learned friend whom I congratulated just now, on the fact that the rights of women voters in those States where womanhood suffrage prevails are carefully guarded by Section 41 of the Bill. The election of the House of Representatives is to be triennial, and each member is to get a remuneration of £400 per annum. No man can sit in both Houses. The feature of this Constitution which seems to me to most differentiate it from the American Constitution is that throughout it strictly follows the English plan of uniting the Legislature to the Executive, and in taking care that the Government of the day is armed with the full authority of the people who elect the majority in the Chamber. Your Lordships will appreciate the reason why I lay stress upon that if I remind you what the condition of affairs is under the Constitution of the United States of America. There the President is elected once in every four years. The House of Representatives is elected once in every two years, and one-third of the Senate is elected every two years. The result is that, although all authority in the United States necessarily and exclusively emanates from the people, yet it never so emanates at one moment. The will of the people of to-day is constantly influenced by the will of the people of yesterday and to-morrow.
14
That is not our English plan, and the Constitution of Australia strictly follows the English plan. There can be no doubt that under it the Government of the Commonwealth of the day will represent the opinion of the Australian people at the moment of the last election. Of course, one of the most difficult class of questions that meets the framers of a Constitution like this is the principle on which the separation of power between the Federal Parliament and the local or State Parliaments is to be devised. The principle of this Bill is very simple. Section 52 defines the very few subjects in respect to which the Commonwealth Parliament is to have exclusive authority. There is a catalogue in Section 51 of the subjects with which the Federal Parliament may deal concurrently with the State Parliaments. The only powers, in fact, in matters of legislation which are taken away from the State Parliaments are those referred to in Section 52. The Commonwealth Parliament may extend its legislative horizon and deal with other matters if referred to it by the State Parliaments, and these provisions give that general character of elasticity to the Constitution which, I think, is its most prominent feature. The framers have made a deliberate choice between what I will call the rigidity of the American Constitution and the flexibility of the English Constitution, and although not able to allow that flexibility which has been of such great advantage in this country, yet the Constitution is framed on lines of flexibility rather than on lines of rigidity, and I do not think that any of your Lordships will doubt that in making this choice the framers of the Bill have followed a true instinct of the British race. It is in strict accordance with the political instincts of our race that our machinery should be of such a kind that it can be changed and developed as the times and conditions alter, and that we should not now attempt to stereotype a particular machinery which our descendants may not be able to change or alter, however much the condition of the country required it. There is one subject which I have not yet touched upon. I have referred to these matters because their importance has been rather obscured in the other House of Parliament by the attention which has been devoted to Clause 74. That is the clause, as your Lordships are well aware, which deals with the question of appeal to the Privy

15
Council. Considerable controversies have centred upon that clause—controversies which your Lordships on both sides of the House will be glad have ended so happily. What I wish to explain briefly is the exact position of the matter as it has been left by, I will not say the compromise, but by the solution arrived at with the consent of all parties. The position of the Dominion of Canada with respect to appeals to the Privy Council has been generally adopted as a model for our admiration. Now, in what respect will the right of appeal in Australia differ from the right of appeal in Canada? In Canada an appeal may be taken by a litigant from one of the inferior courts direct to the Supreme Court of Canada, or to the Privy Council. Under this Bill an Australian litigant will have the same privilege. In Canada, if a litigant has chosen to go to the Supreme Court of Canada, he may appeal from the decision of that; court to the Privy Council with and by leave of the Privy Council. In Australia a litigant will have the same privilege, except in one special class of cases where the question which has arisen is the limits inter se of the powers of any State, qua the Commonwealth, or of one State qua another State. In those cases litigants may still have the liberty of appeal to the Privy Council from the High Court of Australia, only the leave for that appeal is to be given not by the Privy Council, but by the High Court from which the appeal is to be carried. That is a very slight variation. It has been contended, I know, that its effect in questions involving constitutional issues is to make the High Court of Australia a coordinate court with the Privy Council. I speak with great diffidence in the presence of legal authorities, being no legal authority myself, but I understand that there is a strict precedent in the law of this country. At the present moment there are appeals in questions of bankruptcy from the Divisional Court to the Court of Appeal; and it is not the Court of Appeal but the Divisional Court which gives the leave to appeal, and no one will argue that the power of the Divisional Court to give leave to appeal constitutes it ipso facto a co-ordinate authority with the court to which it gives leave to appeal. If any doubt should remain in any of your Lordships' minds as to whether this settlement has obtained the full concurrence of the Australian colonies
16
and people, perhaps you will allow me to read a few communications which have reached us since such communications as we had received had been laid before Parliament. The present Agent General of Victoria, Sir Andrew Clarke, writes under date 21st June—
"I have pleasure in communicating to you the following telegram, which I have received from my Government: 'Commonwealth Bill. Inform Secretary of State for Colonies Victoria approves Clause as now altered, and hopes speedy passage of Bill. Thank Secretary of State for Colonies for great trouble, kindly interest, and congratulate him on successful settlement.'"
Earl Beauchamp telegraphs from Sydney—
"Resolution passed by Legislative Assembly preferring Clause 74 in Bill as submitted by Australian Colonies, but, failing that, desiring compromise mentioned in your telegram of 16th instant. Telegram sent to New South Wales delegate late last night asking him to convey decision to you."
Lord Tennyson telegraphs from South Australia—
"Cabinet Ministers cordially acknowledge your continued efforts and of Imperial Government to reconcile what appeared to be to them the conflicting interests of Australia and Empire in connection with appeal clauses of Commonwealth Bill, and rejoice at prospect of early accomplishment of Federal union."
Viscount Gormanston telegraphs from Tasmania—
"Referring to your telegram of 21st June Ministers request me to send you following message:—'Begins: They desire to express gratification that whilst safeguarding British interests you have given to Australian colonies wider scope for the development of national life, and to express gratitude for patience and tact exercised by you throughout the conduct of deliberations and negotiations.'"
Lord Lamington sends the following telegram from Queensland—
"On behalf of my Ministers and myself I desire to offer you my hearty congratulations on the successful manner in which you have overcome the difficulties arising out of earlier proposals for amendment of Clause 74, Commonwealth Bill, and to express appreciation of satisfactory nature of the compromise in the clause as now passed."
The result of those communications is to show that while the Governments referred to would have preferred Clause 74 as brought from Australia to this country, yet they accept the arrangement proposed, and I think it is not unfair to say that all the other colonies concerned are completely satisfied with the clause as

17
now framed, including those who were supposed to be most strongly in favour of the original form of Clause 74. I believe the solution arrived at is one which not only commends itself to the Australian people, but one which will be found to work well in practice; and I will only conclude by asking your Lordships to read the Bill a second time, and to join with me in offering the heartiest congratulations of this House to the Statesmen and the people of Australia.
Moved, "That the Bill now be read a second time."—(The Earl of Selborne).
EARL CARRINGTON: My Lords, the House has listened, with the attention that it deserves, to the very clever, remarkable, and interesting speech which has just been made by the noble Earl the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies. It was an interesting speech, because, for the first time, we have some idea of what the real intentions of Her Majesty's Government have been in regard to this measure, which, up to the present time, have been both confused and confusing; it was remarkable for its omissions as well as for the paucity of its admissions; and it was extraordinary for the cleverness with which the noble Earl skated over the thinnest of ice, threw difficulties behind him as if they never existed, and almost made the House believe that there had never been any crisis on this question at all. Indeed, so dexterous was his way of dealing with the subject, that while he was speaking I could not help thinking that I was in one of the Parliament Houses at Cape Town, where, as your Lordships know, the custom is that the same Minister can bring in a Bill in both Houses, though he can only vote in one. The noble Earl's work was so skilfully done that I thought the same skilful hand that piloted the Bill through the other House was now starting it on its passage through your Lordships' House. Verily, though the voice was the voice of Jacob, the hand was the hand of the well-known and astute political Esau. The noble Earl did not say one single word as to the manner in which this great question originated, and I hope your Lordships will bear with me for a few minutes while I refer to it. The Federation of Australia first came within the range of practical politics in the month of October, 1889, when Sir Henry
18
Parkes, to the great amazement of the colonies, and without having said a word to the Cabinet, made a great speech in which he said that the time had come for the federation of the Australian colonies. The idea ran like wildfire all over the great Continent of Australia, and in the early part of the following year, 1890, in spite of the difficulties of the Federal Council—which, as your Lordships will remember, was a Council of the different States of Australia, with the exception of the Free Trade State of New South Wales—-which were eventually got over—a Convention was held, I think, at Melbourne, at which Lord Hopetoun, who for five years was the representative of the Queen in the great colony of Victoria, made his first appearance in public. The toast of "United Australia" was responded to by Sir Henry Parkes, who made a speech worthy of the man and of the occasion. I need not weary your Lordships by mentioning the difficulties that arose. There were the Free Trade and Protection difficulty, the military difficulty, and, of course, there was the great question as to whether the capital was to be Melbourne or Sydney. There were many disappointments and many delays, but all these difficulties were successfully overcome, and at the end of last year a Bill was piloted through all the different Houses of Parliament, and submitted to a referendum of the Australian Colonies, and carried by a majority of nearly three to one. I want the House to remember—it was a point carefully omitted by the noble Earl—that during the whole of the ten years over which those negotiations extended, the British Government, who wore kept well informed of everything that was going on, and knew every detail of the Bill as well as they knew that largo quantities of arms were being smuggled into the Transvaal in piano cases, ladies' bonnet-cases, etc., took no more notice of them than they did of the importations of the arms to which I have referred. It was therefore thought that when the Bill came over to this country there would be no possible objection to it, and it was not at first thought necessary to send delegates. Thank goodness, wiser counsels did prevail, and five delegates came to England to explain the provisions of this self-made compact of the Australian people. Those delegates had not the smallest

19
right, power, or authority to accept one single word of amendment or alteration in the Bill. They came over solely for the object of explaining the clauses of the Bill. They were very hospitably entertained when they reached London in the early part of this year, but the man in the street, who somehow or another seems to know a great deal more than the Ministers of the Crown, said there was a rift in the lute, and that there were some objections to some of the provisions of the Bill. And then it came out that Mr. Chamberlain had put his back against the wall. In another place the right hon. Gentleman made a public announcement as to the intentions of the Government with regard to the Bill, and before he did so he made a remark which I think your Lordships will have noticed that every English Englishman—by that I mean a man who has never visited the colonies—always makes in speaking about them. The right hon. Gentleman said that the links between this country and the colonies at the present time were so slight that almost a touch would break them. After the way in which the colonies had unanimously rallied to the support of the mother country, when British territory in South Africa was in- varied, and invaded under circumstances of preparation for defence which would probably have delighted the heart of Ethelred the Unready, it was astonishing that such a statement should have been made. If there ever was a time when the links between the mother country and the colonies were stronger than ever, it is, I should have thought, the present time, when all parts of the Empire have rallied together in its defence. Having delivered himself of that pious opinion, the right hon. Gentleman proceeded to do what a child of ten would have been able to tell him was the very thing to break these links, if they could be broken, which I deny. He put the Colonial Office finger in the Australian pie, and announced the two great objections which Her Majesty's Government entertained to the Australian Commonwealth Bill, neither of which was mentioned in the noble Earl's speech. The first objection was that the definition of a colony raised a doubt whether the legislation of the new Commonwealth Parliament would or would not come under the provisions of the Colonial Laws Validity Act. There is that old
20
question of definition again, which seems to knock all Colonial legislation on the head. It seems to me that one reason why Her Majesty's Government seem destined once in every ten days to plunge Up to their necks in some dreadful difficulty in their Colonial policy is their absolute inability to call a spade a spade. It was said, "You cannot have such an easily mistaken and difficult word as 'Colony' in the Bill; it cannot be allowed. Why put the word 'Colony' in the Bill at all?" The Australian delegates were asked their opinion as to the proposed great change, and they agreed to it with a twinkle in their eye, with gratitude in. their hearts, and with their tongues in their cheek. Mr. Chamberlain had triumphed, and Australia breathed again. The second objection—the real lion in the path—was as regards Clause 74, but the noble Earl absolutely omitted to tell us what Clause 74 in its original shape and form was. Clause 74 was simply this, that in all matters relating to Australia, and Australia alone, in which the public interest of any other part of the British Empire was not concerned, the final decision should rest with the High Court, and that there should be no appeal to Downing Street. That was the practical and logical conclusion of Home Rule. It was Home Rule in its best, simplest, and fairest form. But the right hon. Gentleman said to himself, "Am I not a Unionist?" and he kicked the clause as high as Diamond Jubilee did his heels when he went down the course before winning the last Derby. The contention of the Secretary for the Colonies that Clause 74 would destroy one of the most important ties connecting the different parts of the Empire is, at any rate, a logical position, whether one agrees with it or not. That may be the idea of English Englishmen, but is it the idea of the great majority of the Colonists throughout this great Empire? I venture to think not. To get out of the difficulty about the right of appeal the right hon. Gentleman put forward what seems to me, since the Imperial Zollverein, one of the most madcap schemes that was ever devised for tying the tails of the Australian kangaroo and the British lion together in an impossible sailor's knot. He proposed to put a certain number of coronets on the heads of illustrious Colonial Judges, and put £6,000 or £7,000 a year in their pockets

21
for a period of seven years. What would happen to them afterwards? He does not make them life Peers—they are to have a lease only of a Peerage; and when the seven years expire I presume they would have to return their robes into store in the same way as a servant who only stays a very short time in a nobleman's family does his plush breeches and liveries. Having succeeded in forming this great judicial body, the right hon. Gentleman took a Palmerstonian attitude, and, putting himself on a pedestal, made a civis Romanus sum and soda-water kind of speech, in which he said that he never would be a party to doing anything which would put an end to the right of every British citizen all over the Empire to lay his grievance at the foot of the Throne, and he was very strongly backed up. That was a perfectly legitimate position, but a dangerous one from the point of view of those who desired to see the expressed wishes of the majority of the Australian people respected. I am speak-under correction, but I believe I am right in saying that the right hon. Gentleman thought he had "four by trumps" in his own hand. He was acting under the aegis and with the advice of the eminent, powerful, noble, and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack as Lord High Chancellor of England. That, I believe, was well known. He also had the support of the Chief Justices of four of the colonies—men of light and leading, and men of the highest possible honour, whose opinions ought to be very much respected. He had the great advantage of being backed up by The Times, the Melbourne Argus, and the Brisbane Courier, and he had the support of the Member for Australia, Mr. J. Henniker Heaton. He had the additional advantage of publishing a controversial despatch from a Constitutional Governor—it seems to me that Her Majesty's Government have a sort of mania for publishing despatches—and he had the hearty good wishes of the conscientious and honourable opponents of the Australian Federation Bill, who looked upon the right hon. Gentleman's interference with great hope that it would result in the Bill being subjected to a referendum, which, plus British interference, might be the means of staving off the measure for five, ten, fifteen, and perhaps twenty years. The question at that period had assumed an acute phase, and the imminence of the peril and the
22
greatness of the danger afforded the only ground of hope. The future of Australia practically lay in the hands of one man—a man who, unlike all the rest of his colleagues, has two most wonderful characteristics. The first characteristic of the right hon. Gentleman seems to me to be his ability to make himself believe anything he likes at any particular moment. Was he not the man who, throwing aside the Spartan simplicity of his earlier life, was so overcome with the glamour of twenty-five minutes conversation with ah Emperor, that he announced to astonished Europe and the amazed Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, that an alliance had been concluded between England, the great Empire of Germany, and the United. States? Was he not the man who was so easily able to look at both sides of the question at once, that he openly and publicly, in his place in Parliament, defended the man who was responsible for the greatest mistake of modern times, the unsuccessful invasion of a friendly State by 400 armed men? Was he not the man who at that time used language which threw away the honour and the good name of his country? In the hands of that single man lay the future of Australia. The crisis was a great one. So anxious was the time that the health of one of the delegates, Mr. Deakin, one of the finest representatives of Australian manhood, broke down absolutely, and he had to return to his own country. The only chance lay in the possibility of the right hon. Gentleman finding some way to get round what he had said, and to extricate himself from the dilemma in which he was placed, and, fortunately, that chance came off. The next time the right hon. Gentleman had an opportunity of explaining his position it was evident that he had thrown up the sponge. If the light hon. Gentleman had come forward before the House and acknowledged that he had made a mistake, not one word would have been said on this side of the House or by any Liberal in the whole country. But he did a very different thing. One of those extraordinary transformation scenes took place with which, unfortunately, we have of late become so familiar. The Secretary for the Colonies got off his pedestal, threw off the toga of the Roman citizen and the Palmerstonian frock-coat, and now, being the man who took up a perfectly illogical position which would have emasculated and

23
mutilated the Bill, he stands before the country as one of the creators and champions of Home Rule, or rather rule at home, all over the world. I should like to read to the House what the right hon. Gentleman proposes to do. He said—
"Clause 74 will be exactly reversed. Whereas in the original clause the appeal was to cease in all cases where the public interest of some portion of Her Majesty's Dominions was concerned, in the clause as we now propose to insert it, the appeal will lie in every case except the case where Australian interests alone are concerned."
Does the House of Lords understand that any more than the House of Commons did? It seems to me a distinction with-out a difference. Punch's Kangaroo remarked—
"Well, I suppose I've got what I wanted; but I'm hanged if I know what I've got."
The right hon. Gentleman performed a most extraordinary feat of political legerdemain. He took up this 74th Clause, which, he said, was doing away with the ties which connect the Empire, threw it up into the air and caught it again, turned it inside out, and then handed it across the Table as the Chamberlain compromise. It was done so rapidly that it took the House of Commons in, and especially Mr. Asquith, who got up and congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on having arrived at a solution which was honourable to both sides. The House of Commons apparently went home thinking that such an agreement had been arrived at. But there is a French proverb which says, La nuit porte conseil, and when the Members of the House of Commons came down to breakfast and read their Times they found there was no agreement at all, but a surrender. As the critic of The Times newspaper said—
"To all appearances the Colonies were ready to acquiesce in the original decision of the home Government. But time may, perhaps, show that here the sacrifice has been excessive and unwise."
It was no longer an agreement, but a sacrifice. Men went forth to their labours. They read the Daily News, the Daily Chronicle, and the Westminster Gazette, and the scales fell from their eyes. They discovered that this so-called agreement was a surrender, a surrender, I admit, of an impossible and dangerous position, and a position that never ought to have been taken up, but a surrender as complete and as unconditional as that
24
of the Boer commander Cronje to the soldier-statesman Lord Roberts. I should like to ask what is the position of those men who so loyally supported the right hon. Gentleman when he decided to knock out the 74th clause and to retain the Privy Council? What shall we hear from noble Lords who supported this action of Mr. Chamberlain? Shall we hear that they have changed their mind with the Secretary of State, and that they agree with this unconditional capitulation? I have but one word more to say. I hope the House will put its foot down on the doctrine which has been assiduously preached in some places, that Australian nationalism and federation is a Tory discovery, and that the friendship and support of the colonies are of Tory creation. This has been preached in the country by people who ought to know better, and I hope that both sides of the House will stand shoulder to shoulder in their determination to stamp out any attempt to make political capital out of Australian federation. I have to apologise for having made such a lengthy speech, but I must say, in conclusion, that we unitedly hail the wise and patriotic action of Australia as a step towards that still larger federation of equal rights and common citizenship under the Crown, and towards that dual allotment of responsibility in all dealings with other nations which must give permanent security to our Empire at large. A united House of Lords offers its congratulations to the delegates on the victory they have so deservedly won, and a united Empire will congratulate your Lordships' historical and hereditary House on unanimously passing the Second Reading of the Australian Commonwealth Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): My Lords, I have listened with amazement and the greatest possible pain to the oration which has just been made. The noble Lord lays down the dogmatic proposition that it is undesirable to make political capital out of this Bill. Yet he has given an extraordinary and distinguished example of the wish to do it himself. I should like to know very much what is the attitude of the Liberal party in respect of this Bill. Do they admire it and desire it to be passed, or not? Judging from the conclusion of the noble Lord's observations, he desired that both sides of the House

25
unanimously and with great applause should pass this Bill. May I ask, if that was the meaning of his oration, what was the object and purpose of that oration? In what one respect beyond his concluding sentence has he said anything to induce you to pass it with that applause, beyond a very violent and, if he will forgive me for saying so, I think a very inappropriate attack upon the Secretary for the Colonies, in which not only his conduct in respect of this particular Bill (as to which I shall say a word presently), but in respect of his whole political career has been the subject of a most violent attack? May I suggest to him that it is very easy to say hard things of persons who are not present to defend themselves? Mr. Chamberlain, I can assure him, is quite able to answer for himself, and if in the House in which he sits and speaks this oration had been made, I am sure he would have had a good answer to each of the gibes the noble Lord has indulged in. What are we dealing with?—a Bill that has been approved of by the Australian people and by the House of Commons (on both sides) in its present form; and I do not understand what the noble Lord means by his suggestion that after the House had approved of it they woke up next morning and found they had been deluded. What evidence is there of that? I am not aware that the House of Commons has retracted the approval it gave, or was so confused that it did not know what it was doing. Upon what authority docs the noble Lord say that the Liberal party retracted their approval, and is he put up here to say that the Liberal party, if they dared, would refuse to accept this Bill? If not, what is the meaning of the statement that the House of Commons had changed its mind and did not know what it was doing? I am afraid the noble Lord is intoxicated by his own eloquence. What is the objection to what has been done with great care, assiduity, and skill? My right hon. friend the Colonial Secretary welcomed the views of the delegates, listened to their objections, and pointed out the extent to which he was not able to meet their views. When, after consultation with the various Prime Minister's of the various colonies, they came round to what has been called a fair and intelligible compromise, the House of Commons unanimously, I may say, approved of and admired the skill with which that com-
26
promise had been effected. What are we discussing? What does the noble Lord object to? What is there now in the Bill which can justify his extraordinary attack on Mr. Chamberlain? I am not aware that the noble Lord has pointed out anything that is wrong. Is this speech to be quoted in Australia as the opinion of noble Lords on the Liberal side of this House in respect to this measure? The legal, commercial, and all the other elements which constitute Australia's greatness have approved of this Bill, and it is received in this House by a speech in which every gibe which ingenuity and fluent rhetoric could suggest was levelled at the Colonial Secretary for accepting that view. I do not know what is supposed to be the object of this speech, but it appears to me that it is calculated to do great mischief and is calculated to spoil the harmony and the unanimity with which this country accepted this Bill. It certainly will give rise to the suspicion that, though the Liberal party in the House of Commons accepted this Bill in the spirit in which they did accept it, it was sorely against their will to do so, and if they had had the chance they would have rejected it. I hope that that is not the case, though it is what the noble Earl's attack on Mr. Chamberlain would lead one to suppose. I do not descend to argue what has not been argued at all, but what has been thrown out as a mere suggestion. I rise solely for the purpose of making this protest against what is, to my mind, a most mischievous speech, calculated to give great offence and to do no possible good that any human being can suggest.
*LORD DAVEY: My Lords, I regret that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has not given any explanation as to some of the clauses of this Bill which have been referred to. I shall not, of course, follow the Lord Chancellor in the remarks he made upon the speech of the noble Earl below me, but shall confine myself to a few criticisms of the Bill. I do so, not with any hostile intention towards the Bill, but because this is the only opportunity one will have of offering such criticisms. In the concluding words of the speech of the noble Earl who moved the Second Reading I am sure every one of your Lordships will concur—namely, in congratulating the people of Australia on having brought this great project to so

27
successful an issue. I am disposed to go further and to say that I feel sure those of your Lordships who have studied this Bill, including those who take part in the judicial business of this House, must have been struck by the care, pains, and skill with which this Bill has been constructed. It is not humanly possible to so frame a Bill of this kind as to avoid giving loophooles for litigation, but I have never seen any Bill drawn more skilfully and with greater cave than this one. I would like to draw your Lordships' attention for one moment to Clause 51. That is a very remarkable clause, because, differing from the analogy of the Constitution of the great Dominion of Canada, it does not propose to give exclusive powers to the Parliament of the Commonwealth, but names a number of subjects on which the latter will have concurrent jurisdiction, as the noble Earl said, with the Parliaments of the different States which compose the Commonwealth. In that way you will avoid many questions which have arisen between the provinces and the Dominion of Canada as to the limits of their legislation. But, on the other hand, I am afraid the Australian people will find that they will fall into another class of difficulty—namely, the difficulty of reconciling the Acts passed by the Commonwealth Parliament with the Acts passed by the different Parliaments of the different States on the same subjects. There will, in short, inevitably be considerable overlapping. Those of your Lordships who have looked through the numerous subjects included in Section 51 must have been struck by their generality. That is no fault of the Bill, because in a Bill of this kind you cannot foresee the detailed manner in which these questions will arise, and all you can do is to lay down general principles regulating the legislative limits of the Parliament. But the generality with which this clause is expressed will, of course, give rise to many questions. Undoubtedly many questions of a Constitutional character will crop up both as to the limits of the legislative powers of the Commonwealth and of the States, and also as to the reconciling of Acts passed by both the States and the Commonwealth under their co-ordinate powers. During my practice, which was spread over a great many years, before the Judicial Committee, and since I have had the honour of a seat on that body, I have made the
28
personal acquaintance of many of the gentlemen who have been and are judges of the Australian Courts, and I have had an opportunity of seeing their ability and the impartiality and integrity with which the judicial work in Australia is carried on. I have no doubt that the Judges of the Australian Courts will approach the consideration of these constitutional questions in a large and statesmanlike spirit, and will treat this Act as it ought to be treated, more in the nature of a treaty for the purpose of reconciling conflicting interests. The fact that it must inevitably load to a great many difficult questions lends all the more importance to the consideration of the clause which was referred to by the noble Earl, and which has been so much discussed, not only in Parliament, but in the public press and in the country—namely, Clause 74. That clause has gone through, I think, four transformations. As it originally appeared it provided that no appeal should be permitted to the Queen in Council on any matter involving an interpretation of the Constitution unless the public interest of some part of Her Majesty's dominions other than the Commonwealth or the States was concerned. But as regards matters not involving any constitutional question, the appeal would lie from the High Court to Her Majesty in Council by the leave of Her Majesty in Council. The first proposal made by the Government, as I understand it, was that the appeal to Her Majesty in Council should be maintained intact. That was found impossible. The second proposal was, I think, of a rather extraordinary character. It was that an appeal should be allowed with the consent of the States involved. That amounted to saying that a defeated litigant should not be allowed to appeal except with the leave of his victorious opponent, and that could not be maintained for a single moment. Next we have the clause as it is at present, and it is most important to consider in what way it differs from the clause as it originally stood. In the first place, I have an old-fashioned prejudice in favour of the English language in a British Act of Parliament, and I do not see why Latin words should be introduced when English words would do just as well. But that is rather a small criticism. I should like to know what is the meaning of the words "unless the High

29
Court shall certify that the question is one which ought to be determined by Her Majesty in Council." If it means nothing more than that no appeal shall be allowed except with the leave of the High Court, then I can understand it. But what is the meaning of "one which ought to be determined"? The clause means nothing more, I apprehend, than this, that an appeal shall not lie without the leave of the High Court, leaving the High Court to lay down the principles and conditions under which such leave shall be granted. I think it is a great pity that the ordinary well-known legal language was not used in this case. Coming to the substance of the clause, it appears to me that it is both larger and narrower than the original clause. It is larger because it gives larger jurisdiction to the High Court, those very important words to which, I understood, the Colonial Secretary attached considerable importance, having been omitted. The original clause contained the words "unless the public interest of some part of Her Majesty's dominions other than the Commonwealth is concerned." I should like to ask why those words are omitted in the clause as it at present stands. As the Bill was originally drafted there was an appeal to the Queen in Council, by leave of the Queen in Council, from the decision of the High Court on constitutional questions which affected the public interest of any other part of Her Majesty's dominions, but under the clause as it is at present worded, although the question may be one vitally affecting some other part of Her Majesty's dominions, no appeal will lie to Her Majesty in Council except by the leave of the High Court itself. I think we are entitled to some explanation why those words have been omitted. As the Bill originally stood constitutional questions were made the exclusive jurisdiction of the High Court. In that respect the clause as it at present stands differs very materially, and it also differs in this, that an appeal—and this is a matter of very considerable importance—will lie from any of the State Courts to the Privy Council, that is, to Her Majesty in Council, on any constitutional question, as well as on any other question, as it did before. As the Bill was originally framed no constitutional question, whether it came from the State Courts
30
or the High Court, could be brought by way of appeal to Her Majesty in Council, but as the Bill now stands constitutional questions may come direct from the State Courts to Her Majesty in Council. I do not hesitate to express my personal opinion that constitutional questions are exactly the class of questions which I should have thought that Australians would have wished to refer to Her Majesty in Council. And for this reason. In a question between individuals the matter may, and generally does, affect merely the interests of the individuals, but constitutional questions between two States may create a vast amount of feeling in those States. Suppose a question arose between Victoria and New South Wales. It is inevitable that a certain amount of local and State feeling would arise. At any rate, it is quite possible that friction would accrue. I do not question the absolute impartiality and integrity of the Australian Judges, but it is important, not only that they should decide the question impartially, but also that the public should believe that they would decide it impartially, and I should consider that there was a danger that the public might think, in a burning question which excited interest in two States, that the opinions of the Judges in the Australian Court had been more or less influenced by outside agitation. Do not believe for a moment that I say I think it would be so. I do not. But I say they ought to be preserved from any suspicion of that kind, and for that reason I should have thought that this was exactly the class of cases which would more fitly come to be decided by a tribunal which, whatever may be said of it, is not influenced by local or colonial agitation. I admit, in the fullest possible manner, that that is a question for Australians themselves to decide, and as they have thought fit to come to that decision—no doubt from excellent reasons and after much debate and discussion—I do not wish that the opinion of this country should override Australian opinion on the subject. It has been said that the arrangement which is at present made by Clause 74, is, in substance, that which prevails in the Dominion of Canada, and I observed that the noble Lord, in the very interesting and able speech with which he introduced tin's Bill, made an observation which had previously been made by the Attorney

31
General in another place. But it appears to me that the difference between the two is absolutely vital. In Canada, as the noble Earl justly said, a litigant can appeal straight from the Provincial Court to Her Majesty in Council, or he may, if he prefers it, appeal to the Supreme Court, and there in no appeal from the decision of the Supreme Court without the leave of Her Majesty in Council. I may here take the liberty of saying that it is an exceedingly difficult thing to obtain that leave; it is only given where a really serious question affecting not merely the interests of the litigants but of others of Her Majesty's subjects, such as the construction of an Act of Parliament or something of that kind is concerned. Permission is not usually given in cases where the Supreme Court has agreed with the Provincial Court, or unless there has been considerable difference, as there sometimes is, of judicial opinion within the Supreme Court itself. No doubt some conditions of the kind will be observed by the High Court of Australia in giving leave, when they are asked to do so, for an appeal from their decision; but, as I said just now, the difference between the two cases appears to be vital. Clause 74 as it stands is a perfect solecism in jurisprudence, and for this reason, that it creates two final coordinate courts of appeal, neither of which is bound by the decision of the other. Suppose, for instance, a question arises in one of the State Courts, and it goes by way of appeal to the High Court, and the High Court decides unanimously one way. The same question, we will suppose, arises affecting the same States or different States—it matters not much—and the defeated litigant (the State Court having followed the decision of the High Court) appeals to Her Majesty in Council, and the Judicial Committee advises Her Majesty to take a different view from that taken in the High Court, with the result that a decision is given the other way. The Judicial Committee, of course, is not bound by the decision of the High Court, nor, as I understand, is the High Court bound to follow the decisions of the Judicial Committee in matters of this kind. They may therefore each maintain their own opinion. I know that the answer that may be made to me is that the Australian Judges are men of such high principle and good sense that they will find some way of either agreeing
32
with the Judicial Committee, or of allowing the matter to be finally decided. They may; but it lies in their discretion, and unless they do so you will have two coordinate Supreme Courts of Appeal from the same Courts on the same class of subjects deciding in entirely different ways. That, I venture to think, is a solecism in jurisprudence. Just consider in what condition the State Courts would be put in that case. You would have this very curious result, that the men who were victorious in the State Courts would always be defeated ultimately; and for this reason. If a State Court followed the decision of the High Court the defeated litigant, of course, would not then go to the High Court but to Her Majesty in Council. But, on the other hand, if the State Court, not considering itself bound by the High Court, should follow the decision of the Privy Council, then the defeated litigant would, of course, go to the High Court and the High Court would maintain its own opinion and reverse the opinion of the State Court. Therefore, whoever gets the first decision in the State Court under this clause, if it is maintained in its present form, must suffer ultimate defeat. I do not think that is a very happy solution of the difficulty. The original clause was perfectly logical. It gave the High Court exclusive jurisdiction, but the present clause does not commend itself to my judgment or experience. I do not suggest that your Lordships should make any alteration in the clause. I have made these criticisms in the hope that the question may be considered by the Australian authorities, who have the power, if they think fit to exercise it, of making such modifications in the clause as will remedy the inconvenience I have pointed out. I saw in the ordinary sources of information this morning a suggestion by a gentleman who writes with some knowledge of the subject—I think one of the Australian Judges—that it should be altered in this way, that whenever the High Court disagreed with the Court below (the State Court) on a constitutional question, then there should be an appeal to Her Majesty in Council as of right. That, of course, would at once remove any inconvenience that might otherwise be felt, because then the Privy Council would continue to be the sole ultimate appeal authority. But whether any provision of

33
that kind can be adopted is, of course, as I have said, a matter entirely for the Australian statesmen and lawyers to settle for themselves. I have only to say, in conclusion, that I hope my humble contribution to the criticisms of this Bill will not be misunderstood. It is not conceived in a spirit of hostility. I have no right, in answer to the challenge of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, to speak for the Liberal party, but I can only say, as a humble member of that party, that I rejoice as heartily as any of your Lordships at the introduction of this Bill.
*THE EARL OF JERSEY: My Lords, after what has fallen from the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, I shall not detain your Lordships except for a few observations with regard to two points. I think the noble Lord opposite did not do justice to the speech in which the noble Earl the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies opened this debate. I thought the speech of my noble friend Lord Selborne was certainly couched in clear and distinct terms, and he brought before the House all the salient points in the Bill. We must remember that this measure has been before the public for a great many months, that it has been followed very closely, and that as it comes before the House it is the result not only of the views of the other House of Parliament but also of the views which are held by the very Colonies of Australia who are interested in the matter. There was also one other point the noble Earl mentioned. He was surprised that the Colonial Office had not interfered to express their views when this measure was being discussed in Australia. I thought it was the great glory of this Bill that it was the work of Australians for Australia, and I could imagine the indignation which would have been raised through the voice of the noble Earl opposite if the Colonial Office had taken upon themselves to tell Australia what their Commonwealth Bill should be. My Lords, my words will be very few, and my only excuse for saying anything at all is on account of the interest I must naturally take in the welfare of Australia. The Parliament and the people of this country have accepted this measure with trust and hope, and why have they done so? The gallant deeds of the Australian troops, and the enthusiasm of
34
the Australian people, have created the, greatest interest in this country, and the feeling that not only are we one by race and language, but also in spirit and sentiment. But those who have had the advantage and the honour of being associated with Australian Parliaments and Australian public men have an additional and a greater reason for their hope and trust May I, just in passing, say that I feel perfectly certain that there is no body of men who can be more trusted to do their duty free from outside pressure and free from outside excitement than the Gentlemen who fill the posts of Judges in that country. The same questions, the same problems, which we have to deal with at home are also to be met and to be dealt with in Australia. They have been dealt with hitherto with great success, and we have some reason to believe and to feel confident that, as these questions have been dealt with in the several colonies successfully, so when there is a united Parliament to deal with them they will be dealt with even still more successfully, and that if under the old régime the different colonies have advanced rapidly to success, still more rapid will be the advance of Australia when all her best councillors meet together in unison. Now consider what this measure will effect. A vast continent, almost as large as Europe, will for the first time be joined together under one directing Government. Hitherto there have been no less than six different Governments dealing with that continent, and some of them sometimes actuated, one must admit, by a spirit of jealousy, which, we trust, will for ever now disappear. The power of this united country will be something enormous. Its policy—and everyone must admit that Australia should be supreme, should be predominant, at any rate, in the Pacific Ocean—and the direction of its sentiment will be under one head, so that we may feel certain that we are creating a country which in time to come will probably do on that side of the world what we hope, not in vain, I trust, that Great Britain has done in this part. And, my Lords, can any country be started upon a fairer basis than the one which we are about to start now? Because we must remember that, by this Commonwealth Bill, United Australia in a few years will be totally different to what it has been in the past, with its separate colonies, and I certainly believe that, under Divine Providence, we

35
are about to give the most priceless gift which our generation, or almost any generation, can give to those who here after will live to enjoy the blessings of a free Constitution. My Lords, there is no doubt that a measure like this has not been arrived at without a great deal of labour and trouble; conflicting interests have been brought together; and we ought to give our meed of admiration to those who, not only in the Convention, but in addressing their fellow-citizens, have succeeded in bringing the people of Australia nearly to one mind upon this subject. I quite agree with what the noble Earl said, that men like Mr. Kingston and Mr. Barton and Mr. Deakin deserve well of the Empire also for their work, in the way in which they have shown their abilities and their common-sense in dealing with the difficult questions they have had to deal with in this country. In the future history of the Empire it is almost certain that there will be from time to time awkward questions arising, questions which can only be settled by the exercise of common-sense and goodwill upon both sides; and surely, if any man may feel satisfied with what he has done during six years it is the Colonial Secretary, notwithstanding the attack of the noble Earl opposite. If it had not been for him it is quite possible that this question would have been in a very different position now. He requires no praise from me, but, at any rate, he must have the satisfaction of knowing that the result of his labour has been that the House of Commons has passed this measure, that this House is not prepared—not one, I believe, in this House is prepared—to go against it, and that he has the support of all the five colonies interested. That must, after all, be the best answer that can be given to any attack as to whether he acted well or not. My Lords, I will say no more, except this: that we are about to set our seal upon a measure which will not only add to the power of Australia for good in the future, but which will also sensibly increase the resources and the strength of the whole Empire.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, in the first place I wish to dispel any idea that may be entertained by the noble Earl on the Woolsack or any Member of this House, that I do not regard
36
this Bill with the utmost favour taken as a whole. I regard it as a most auspicious event to the Empire. I regard it as reflecting the highest credit upon the Australian statesmen who, with much difficulty, have managed to frame what is admitted on all hands to be a most excellently drawn up Constitution for that great country. After all that has boon said it is really unnecessary to go into the matter at large, or to say anything more than that it is an auspicious occasion. We are not called upon to criticise the greater part of this Bill. That has passed without any objection whatever. The noble Earl who moved the Second Reading very properly and very clearly went through the different clauses of the Bill. I am not going to discuss these clauses, with the exception of one to which I will refer presently, because there has really been no contest whatever with regard to them. I wish to impress upon the House, turning our eyes altogether for a moment from the one disputed clause, that it is to the highest credit of those who framed this Bill that it should be a Bill which, taken generally, and even in detail, has met with the general approval of the British Parliament. I say that that is a remarkable effort in the way of drawing up a constitutional document. We have never attempted to draw up a Constitution in writing in this country, and I should have doubted myself whether we were qualified to do it. But I should change my mind now, because I should say that probably we are as well qualified as our Australian brethren, and our Australian fellow-subjects have shown us that it is quite possible for men of the English race to draw up a constitutional document of this kind with perfect success and clearness. Now, my Lords, having said that, I will not trouble the House on the subject of the Bill generally, because I think I should be occupying your time unnecessarily; but I will now refer for a moment to Clause 74, which has been the subject of considerable controversy. Of course, I am not going to attempt to discuss the legal questions involved. I must, however, say a word in reference to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Carrington upon this Clause 74, around which has raged whatever controversy there has been. It is perfectly true that there are men on this side of the House—and I am perfectly free to confess that I include myself

37
among thorn—who, however they may regard this as a non-party matter and rejoice at the establishment of this Constitution for Australia, yet do not think themselves entirely debarred from criticism as to the manner in which the controversy on Clause 74 has been conducted. I hope I am not usually ungenerous to opponents, and I certainly have not the least wish to be ungenerous towards the Colonial Secretary; but I think there is an impression—and something said by the noble Lord who has just sat down rather tends to confirm it—that there has been a desire shown to ascribe an undue amount of credit to the right hon. Gentleman for his share in bringing about the settlement of this Constitution. In point of fact, the passing of this Bill, except in regard to the 74th Clause, did not depend upon any Colonial Secretary, nor, in point of fact, did it depend on Her Majesty's Government, because it was not framed here and did not proceed from any suggestion from Her Majesty's Government; and, indeed, I think it is to the credit of Her Majesty's Government and of all parties that they did not commit the egregious error of attempting by proposals made here to induce the Australian colonies to adopt a federation. I have always held, and I am more than ever convinced of it, that all proposals for federation should emanate from the colonists themselves. Without going back upon an old subject which is present to my mind, I must say that the attempt of an old friend of mine, whom I much esteemed, though he was a political opponent, Lord Carnarvon, by active measures on the part of Her Majesty's Government to bring about federation in South Africa, was one of the most disastrous events in the history of those Colonies. Perhaps I may be allowed to say that my noble friend, after he had determined upon his action, came across to me in this House and spoke to me about it. I told him I was entirely in favour of federation, but I condemned his action and told him his attempt would end disastrously, though I promised him I would put no impediment in his way. I regret to say that my prevision turned out to be well founded. I merely mention this by the way, but again I say it is not reasonable or fair to give exclusive credit to the Minister upon whom happens to devolve the duty of carrying a measure of this kind through Parliament.
38
I do not wish to detract from the value of the service rendered by any Minister, but I do say it is not right to ascribe credit for the Bill to Mr. Chamberlain, or in fact to any one in this country. With regard to Clause 74, I cannot help thinking, reading the clause as it stands here and referring to the clause as it stood in the original draft, and without professing to have any great legal knowledge, the difference is by no means large, and T have extreme doubt whether any particular advantage has been gained by all the controversy which has been set up. The clause, as it stands is, no doubt open to criticism, as my noble friend behind me has shown. The clause as it stood protected specially, in direct terms, any interest which might be outside the Australian colonies; the clause as it stands does not give that protection. Well, I am not saying that I attach very serious importance to it, but still you must set off one thing against another, and I doubt very much indeed whether much has been gained, while undoubtedly, although the whole matter has ended happily, some considerable risk was run in the course that was taken, and considerable apprehension was roused in the minds of many who were greatly in favour of the Bill. No doubt a settlement has been arrived at; no one rejoices more than I do that that settlement has been arrived at, and that it is accepted by the colonies; but I doubt very much whether anything was gained by running the considerable risk of questioning what the colonial referendum had approved. The fact that those numerous changes were made in the proposals laid before the other House showed, in my opinion, not any very judicious apprehension of the whole matter, nor do I think it showed any particular skill in negotiation or in the managing of the Bill. However, all's well that ends well; and I am quite willing to congratulate the Colonial Secretary that this matter has ended as it has ended. The noble Lord on the Woolsack spoke very severely of my noble friend near me, and said, as I understood him, not only that he had made an attack upon Mr. Chamberlain, but also that he in point of fact had attacked the Bill. Now, I understood my noble friend to have as strong a feeling of approval of the Bill, speaking of the Bill generally, as any noble Lord in this House; and therefore the matter turns entirely upon the attack

39
which he made on Mr. Chamberlain. I think we cannot altogether exclude from our debates attacks upon statesmen in the other House, who sometimes are not very scrupulous in their attacks upon those who sit here; and, although I think I may say that I have no particular tendency that way, yet I have heard in this House, in the course of my experience here, very severe attacks indeed made upon colleagues of mine by distinguished members of the Opposition. I shall not mention their names now, because, unhappily, they are no longer Members of this House, but they were very distinguished men, of great authority—I mean the men who made the attacks—men who justly commanded admiration, not only from their own party, but, by reason of their ability, from those who opposed them: and I certainly have heard not a few attacks which have been made of a very severe character indeed upon Members of the other House. I remember one to which I myself undoubtedly took exception, very much in the way that to-night exception has been taken to the remarks of my noble friend. It is always a very convenient thing to say, "Oh, you must not make an attack in this House upon a Member of the other House." Well, for my own part, I confess that I would always rather have my opponent facing me—that would be more agreeable to me and fairer to him: but we cannot altogether exclude from our debates in this House comments upon the proceedings, the opinions, and even sometimes the character of public men who occupy high and distinguished positions in the other House, and I should protest against any doctrine that laid it down that such attacks should be altogether excluded. I say that entirely apart from the merit of the attack; each case must be judged by itself; attacks may be made which are not deserved, and attacks may be made which are deserved. My noble friend, I think, might have some ground for criticising the manner in which the negotiations were conducted, and I, myself, cannot help thinking that there was a great want of foresight in not having, during the time that these matters were under discussion in Australia, confidentially made known to the statesmen of that country, without interfering directly with them, what were the opinions held here upon
40
so important and so very difficult a matter as the question of the appeal to the Privy Council. It seems to me that that kind of assistance ought to have been given to the Australian statesmen; if they had been made aware of what was the opinion of the highest authorities in this country, which might easily have been conveyed to them two or three years ago, it might have led, not to a formal agreement embodied in despatches, but to the production of some clause which would have been accepted beforehand by all parties. I do not mean negotiations. I merely mean that they might have been made acquainted with the views of important people here in a confidential manner. My Lords, I have really nothing more to say to your Lordships, except again to repeat that I welcome this as a very great and most important measure; and I believe, with the noble Earl who has just sat down, that it will tend to the augmentation of the prosperity and the contentment of our great colonies in Australia, that it will strengthen the whole Empire, and that, as he said most justly, it will lay the foundation of such a State as we may hope may eventually prove to be one of the most important branches of this Empire—taking part in the defence of the Empire, showing to us, by experiments which they can easily try in a new community, and which we cannot so well try in an old community, what may be the best mode of dealing with the new problems which from time to time arise. And I look forward to the day when, if we continue to allow them to govern themselves in their own way, with as little interference with them as it is possible to exercise, this country will be surrounded by a number of great States, descended from us, which will form part of the Empire, but in point of fact will be close allies, bound to us not merely by ties of interest, but also by that strongest and most important tie—the tie of common kindred, common loyalty to a common Sovereign.
*LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: My Lords, this Bill has been subjected to different degrees of criticism, and those who have been connected with it have had their actions somewhat criticised. The speech of the noble Earl opposite, Earl Carrington, I think will live in the memories of most of us—at any

41
rate, the humorous and good-natured portions of his speech; and I think we shall be disposed in the end to come to the conclusion that the noble Earl did not intend to attack very violently either the measure or the light hon. Gentleman who had charge of it in the other House. We learn from the noble Earl opposite that Lord Carrington is an enthusiastic supporter of this Bill—that he approves of it as much as the promoter of it. Why, then, the promoter of it was so attacked it is not worth while to discuss. One sentence in the speech of the noble Earl, the Leader of the Opposition, was somewhat superfluous—it was the statement that he was not in the habit of attacking his political opponents unduly, for I feel sure there is not a Member of this House who is not well aware that the noble Earl opposite is not apt to criticise political opponents unduly, and that he never makes an unfair attack upon those with whom he differs. Now may I call the attention of the House very briefly to what the criticism of the noble Earl opposite is? He does not object to the wording of the Bill; he does not object very much to the course taken by the Minister who had the principal charge of this Bill in the negotiations here; but it is rather a criticism of a negative character. Why, says the noble Earl, did not the Colonial Secretary some two or three years ago make a communication in an informal manner to those who represented the colonies, and tell them what his thoughts were upon the subject? Now I appeal to the noble Karl's fairness, the admiration for which he has so truly won from the House. He goes back to the year 1897. In 1897 the representatives of the colonies came to this country, and the Colonial Secretary made to them exactly the communication which the noble Earl now says he ought to have made. He has stated in the House of Commons that he did take that course. Now, accepting as we do the very eloquent peroration of the noble Earl that we are all agreed upon the beneficent objects of this Bill and the manner in which it has been conducted, do let it be noted that here in this Chamber the only criticism which the Leader of the Opposition has to make in respect of the Bill, or the conduct of, it is to complain that that was not done which was absolutely done in the very terms in which he says it ought to have been done. Mr.
42
Chamberlain took the very course which the noble Earl says he ought to have taken; and I hope it will go forth that the course which the member of the Government who had charge of the Bill took was the very coarse that the noble Earl with all his experience and judgment and his knowledge of the colonies—having been in the Colonial Office—says ought to have been taken by those in charge of the Bill.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Will the noble Lord allow me to say one word? The Bill was not printed, if I remember rightly, in 1898. Of course, my view was that a communication ought to have been made upon the words of the Bill as it was provisionally framed—not that before the Bill was provisionally framed the matter should have been gone into. I said two or three years ago, and I was not far out in my dates, but that was what I meant.
*LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: I think the noble Earl's explanation leaves the matter as I put it; but was it not wiser for the Colonial Secretary to suggest his views and to state before the Bill was framed what his views were? If he had delayed doing so, would not the observation which fell from my noble friend Lord Jersey have come into effect—what would the colonies have said if they had been interfered with by the home Government at the very time when they were in federation trying to agree upon a Commonwealth Bill? The Colonial Secretary really took the very course which the noble Earl him- self says ought to have been taken. Now I desire to deal very briefly with some of the criticisms which fell from my noble friend Lord Davey. I am sure that here again we shall agree that all his criticisms were uttered in a spirit of good feeling towards this Bill. His first criticism was upon Clause 51. Of course that clause involves a great deal of overlapping, because there might be a conflict between the State Parliament, the Provincial Parliaments, and the Federated Parliament. Everyone has borne testimony to the way in which this Bill has been drawn in Australia. The noble Earl, Lord Carrington, said that the Secretary of State ought to have accepted the Bill in totidem verbis—that he ought not to have rejected anything.
*LORD DAVEY: I think my noble friend has misunderstood me. I think

43
I said expressly that the Bill excited my admiration; but I said that it was inevitable that there must be overlapping, not from any defect in the drawing of the Bill, but from the nature of the subject.
*LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: The noble Lord, I understood, maintained that Clause 51 would produce that result.
*LORD DAVEY: Not from any defect in the drafting of the Bill.
*LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: It is not a matter of drafting, but I think my noble friend's attention cannot have been called to the very important consideration that those who drew the Bill in Australia saw that some overlapping might occur, because in Clause 109 they deal with this very difficulty. The clause says—
"When the law of the State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid."
So that they saw that very point, and they made provision for it. Overlapping, as my noble friend says, was inevitable from the nature of the question, but they provide that when it does occur the law of the Commonwealth shall prevail as against the law of the province. Now, my Lords, only two other principal objections were taken by Lord Davey. I am sorry to detain your Lordships at all, and I will therefore be as brief as I possibly can. My noble friend said in the first place that there was a difference between the appeal which exists in Canada being given by the leave of the Privy Council and the appeal that was given by the leave of the High Court. That is so, but I should say that the method suggested by this Bill is the better. It is in favour of the colony. The suitor from Australia would have to come to this country and produce before the Privy Council here all his statements, in order to obtain his leave to appeal. It is easy to see what an expensive process this would be to the suitor living thousands of miles away. The High Court has all the necessary knowledge before it. It has the counsel engaged in the case, and it has full knowledge of the case, and then and there at the end of the case the application can be made, at no expense, probably, at all—at least, a very nominal expense. That is a great advantage to the colonial suitor, and is it
44
not advisable to meet the wishes of the colonies upon this point, and to give to their Court the right of giving leave to appeal, rather than bring the suitor here this long distance to obtain that leave? It is nothing to say that on a matter of procedure of this kind—not a matter of principle—there would be a difference of procedure between Canada and Australia, if the interests of the Australian suitor have been considered. Now, only one other main objection was taken by my noble friend. He pointed out that under Clause 74—and I really think that this is the substance that we have to deal with—you will have an appeal from the State Court and you will have an appeal from the High Court.
*LORD DAVEY: No; either to the High Court or to the Privy Council.
*LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: I said so—from the High Court to the Privy Council.
*LORD DAYEY: From the State Court.
*LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: The objection my noble friend made is grounded entirely on this: that you will have a judgment of two co-ordinate: Courts, and that there will be no superior judgment of one Court only. If my noble friend will allow me for once to differ from him, I do not think that is so. I think that the decision of the Privy Council would prevail, and must prevail. The decision is the decision of the Queen. It is not the decision of any body of men—it is the decision of the Queen herself, the fountain of justice administering justice throughout her Empire both at home and abroad. No man delivers that judgment personally, it is delivered in the name of the Queen herself. There is an appeal from the High Court to the Privy Council, and as the Privy Council has the power of reversing the opinion of the High Court, not only by mere comity, but in fact, the decision of the Privy Council would be superior to and would affect the judgment of the High Court, and no judge of the High Court in Australia would presume to say that the judgment of that Court should prevail against the judgment of the Privy Council. This point has been fully considered by those whose judgment the Government had a right to rely upon, and

45
it is their firm belief that that is the case. This is the view that, after remission of the state of things to the advisors of the colonies by their delegates, has been arrived at as a fair solution. I hope that the spirit which the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition has shown us, is the unanimous feeling of this House—that really there is nothing by way of criticism that ought to cast a doubt on the efficiency of this great measure, which has been placed in the position it occupies mainly by the great efforts and discretion of my right hon. friend Mr. Chamberlain.
*LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN: My Lords, I do not propose at this hour, notwithstanding the importance of the discussion, to occupy your Lordships beyond a moment or two. I confess, having listened to the whole of this debate, there has seemed to me to be an air of unreality about it except in one respect, namely, in the concurrence—the gratifying concurrence—in all the speeches delivered on both sides of the House in rejoicing that this measure is about to receive the assent of the Imperial Parliament. I say the tone of the debate is unreal, because one cannot shut ones eyes to the fact that, recollecting the history of this Bill, the enormous labour that its preparation involved, the necessity for the assents to the very terms of the Bill of so many widely diversified and widely apart interests, no one proposes to introduce an Amendment into the Bill, but we all understand that it is to be passed in the exact form in which it left the House of Commons; therefore our discussion is of an academic character. But I cannot pass without noticing the criticism of my noble and learned friend who has just sat down upon the speech of my noble friend near me (Lord Davey). The first point which it seems to me necessary to draw attention to is the effect of the original appeal clause as it stood in the proposition of the delegates. Now, I do not agree at all with my noble friend the Earl of Carrington, who opened the debate on this side of the House, in undervaluing, or regarding as an unimportant thing, the question of an ultimate appeal to the Queen in Council. On the contrary, I should have liked to see this Bill give unrestricted rights of appeal, subject to the leave of
46
the Privy Council, and subject to regulations with reference to the importance of the subject-matter in controversy and the like, but unrestricted liberty of appeal in every question in which other than purely Australian interests were concerned. For I regard that right of appeal to the Queen in Council, not merely as an important indication of the Imperial Sovereignty of the United Kingdom, and of this Imperial Parliament as its mouthpiece, but also as a not unimportant factor operating in the direction of a uniformity of system of law between the home country and the colonies, and even a not unimportant factor, working in the direction as far as varying circumstances may properly admit, of something approaching uniformity in the law itself. Now, as the Bill was originally presented this was its effect; that appeals were allowed in all matters except certain constitutional questions there referred to, and even in those questions appeal was allowed to the Queen in Council where any public interest was involved. This is the exact effect of the original clause as it stood, which clearly recognised the Privy Council as the paramount court. What is the clause as it now is? The clause as amended is this:—
"No appeal shall be permitted to the Queen in Council from a decision of the High Court upon any question howsoever arising as to the limits inter se of the constitutional powers of the Commonwealth and those of any State or States or as to the limits inter se of the constitutional powers of any two or more States, unless the High Court shall certify that the question is one which ought to he determined by Her Majesty in Council. The High Court may so certify if satisfied that for any special reason the certificate should he granted, and thereupon an appeal shall lie to Her Majesty in Council on the question without further leave."
Now, what is the result of that? The result of that is this—and it has not yet I think been stated to the House. The result is to do away absolutely with the exercise of the Queen's prerogative in every one of the cases coming within that exception. It cuts down the prerogative of the Queen. It is not that it leaves it open to the Queen by those who advise her to say whether any appeal shall or not be permitted, but it makes it impossible for the Queen to grant permission in such a case. You will recollect that in order to make it quite clear that this is the effect upon

47
the prerogative of the Queen, the clause goes on to say—
"Except as provided in this section, this Constitution shall not impair any right which the Queen may be pleased to exercise by virtue of Her Royal prerogative to grant special leave of appeal from the High Court to Her Majesty in Council."
What is the consequence of that? The first observation I make is this—and I speak upon the authority of those more conversant with the matter than I can pretend to be—that these so-called constitutional questions arise much more frequently in Canada as between the Dominion Parliament and the Parliaments of the Provinces, or between the Parliaments of the Provinces them selves than between the Dominion Parliament and the Imperial Parliament. All those questions are now cut out of appeal.
*LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: Except by leave.
*LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN: Yes! but leave of the High Court, not of the Privy Council. I most heartily agree in the observation of my noble and learned friend near me (Lord Davey) that one would have thought that the very class of question as to the limits of constitutional power as between the Commonwealth and the States, or as between the States inter se, were eminently the class of cases which it was desirable from every point of view should be determined by a tribunal which stood aloof and apart from all questions of local interest and local prejudice. The third and last point to which I will call attention is this. While there is no appeal according to this clause from the High Court, except by leave of that Court, in the cases mentioned, there is an appeal from the decision of the State Court to the Queen in Council, and thereupon arises the conflict to which reference has been made—which Court is to prevail? I do not seek to dogmatise upon this matter, as to which there are obviously, from what my noble and learned friend has said, different opinions; but I fail to see anything in this Bill asserting directly or indirectly that where the decision of the Privy Council conflicts with the decision of the High Court the decision of the Privy Council is to prevail. I see nothing to that effect expressed certainly, and nothing I think
48
to be implied. When I remind your Lordships that the clause expressly says that the High Court shall be the final judge in the matter unless it chooses to give leave, surely that does lay a solid and reasonable foundation for the contention that it is thereby, as regards matters so dealt with in the clause, created the final Court, and therefore coordinate with the other final Court—namely, the Privy Council. It seems to me that that is a difficulty which will very likely arise. The High Court may well say, "We are co-ordinate in this matter, for the Imperial Parliament has said to us, 'You are to deal with it finally, unless you see some reason why you should not allow it to go further.'" Let me put an illustration. The High Court has dealt with a question coming before it in favour of a particular litigant; a question of a cognate character has arisen in another State Court, and that goes to the Privy Council; the Privy Council takes a different view. I think it is very doubtful how effect is to be given to that view by the High Court or in Australia. But suppose that in the province the decision of the High Court has been acted upon, rights adjudicated upon, interests transferred under that decision, how is all that to be undone? It seems to me that the conflict is inevitable. I admit that in other cases, outside the classes of cases as to which the High Court has exclusive jurisdiction, I think there is ground for saying that the Privy Council is the paramount controlling Court; but in the case I have put I cannot help thinking that difficulty may arise. I will only trouble your Lordships with this concluding observation. As a Home Ruler, which I am—I may be allowed to profess it in these days when it is not so popular as it once was—as a Home Ruler I rejoice at this Bill; I am delighted to see that the fullest powers are given to Australia to work out its own destiny by its own methods, and I have no doubt that it will be able to work out that destiny and fulfil it in complete harmony with the great interests of the Empire.
*VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: I will not detain your Lordships for more than two minutes, but as I may not be able to be present at other stages of this Bill, I would like to say one word upon it. as one who has a genuine interest in the question, and who, whether in office or out

49
of office, has constantly urged upon Australian statesmen that they should endeavour to find a solution of these difficulties. The last speaker said that in some points of view this debate is not real; but I can assure him—and I am speaking for every noble Lord present now—that as to our satisfaction at this great question having been settled the debate is very real indeed. The difficulties in arriving at a solution of the many questions were very great—indeed, perhaps they have hardly been appreciated by those in this country who have not studied colonial questions. At one time there was, no doubt, an impatience of the delay, and a fear that the difficulties might not be overcome. In one sense it is a good thing, perhaps, that there has been that delay, because it is a good omen that this great Commonwealth has been established by law in a year in which the colonies have shown their sympathy with the mother country, and their loyalty to the Empire, and it is therefore not, perhaps, to be regretted that there has been some delay and some prolonged consideration of the question. Then, my Lords, the only other observation I would make is this. We all wish God-speed to the new Commonwealth, not only in their own interests but in the interests of the Empire; and if good sense and conciliatory spirit and toleration are shown in the management of the Commonwealth as they have been shown in getting over and solving the detailed difficulties in the course of the discussions in Australia and in this country, I am quite satisfied that there can be no doubt of the success of the Commonwealth. I for one most heartily desire that that success shall be complete.
*LORD BRASSEY: My Lords, if I venture to add two words it is because the last Convention, to whose labours we owe the Commonwealth Bill, was held in Melbourne, and I am reluctant to allow the opportunity to pass by of bearing to your Lordships the testimony of an eyewitness to the patriotic spirit, the ability, the patience, the mutual forbearance, and the entire absence of party spirit which marked all the proceedings of that Convention.
On Question, agreed to. Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Tuesday next.

MINES (PROHIBITION OF CHILD LABOUR UNDERGROUND) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
LORD BELPER: My Lords, I have been asked by the Home Office to call attention to the fact that some drafting Amendments were put into this Bill by the Standing Committee. There was no opportunity then of considering these, but the Home Office have since considered them, and practically the points which they dealt with have been considered before, and the Home Office do not consider that these Amendments are necessary, although they probably will do no harm. I must point out that there are several errors in them which would have to be amended, and therefore, as I understand, the noble Earl in charge of the Bill would approve of them being left out. I shall beg to move that the last clause, Clause 3, which was put in in the Standing Committee, be omitted and also the schedule.
EARL GREY: I quite agree with the noble Lord.
Amendments made; Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.

BURIAL GROUNDS BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order). Bill reported without amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION BILL [H.L.]
  VOLUNTEERS BILL [H.L.]
  Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bills to be read 3a on Monday next.
COLONIAL SOLICITORS BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order). Bill reported without amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.

MILITARY LANDS BILL [H.L.]
[THIRD READING.]
Bill read 3a (according to Order).
*LORD THRING: In moving the Amendment which stands in my name I

51
shall say but very few words, and I am conscious that they will probably be of very little effect. What I have done is this. I have put in a schedule the contents of eighteen lines of the Bill; in other words, I have fully explained in the schedule the whole of the clauses which are in fact embodied by reference in the Bill. I myself had great difficulty in discovering what the clauses were, and I admit that it was on the authority of one of the officials employed by the noble Lord who kindly aided me by his direction, that I believe that they are accurately described. I admit that I could not make out the elaborate clauses that were referred to. I also admit that what the Chairman of Committees said was correct, that a great many of these clauses ought to have been put in the Bill, but if I had put them in the Bill it would have required the Bill to be entirely recast, and I had no time to do it. What I have done is to endeavour to make what I think is extremely intricate plain, and I hope I have succeeded. With respect to the substance of the Bill, it is this. A county has a right to pass a resolution that it requires to hire land by compulsion. It is has passed this resolution, the resolution is sent to the Local Government Board; the Local Government Board, if no objection is made, may pass it into law—they may make an order, and it becomes law. If an objection is made, then they have to direct a local inquiry, and, according to that local inquiry, they may or may not pass it into law. Therefore, it must be obvious to your Lordships that the proceeding is somewhat drastic. I think it must be obvious that it ought to be plainly put out in the Bill what that procedure is. With respect to the principle of the Bill, I think it is extremely desirable that rifle ranges should be encouraged. I make no objection to the principle of the Bill, although it gives unusual powers, but what I still object to is that the nature of those powers should be concealed under a cloud of words which I, although I think I may claim to be somewhat of an authority in the matter of referential clauses, was perfectly unable to unfold.
Amendment moved—
"In Clause 3, page 2, line 5, to leave out from 'and the' to the end of the clause, and insert 'and for the purpose of carrying such resolution into effect the provisions contained
52
in the schedule hereto shall apply as they were enacted in the body of this Act.'"—(The Lord Thring.)
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: It will, perhaps, save the time of your Lordships if I immediately follow my noble friend and explain my own position. I am not qualified to form any opinion as, to whether the schedule which the noble Lord has introduced is a proper and correct interpretation of the law, but what I do want to call your Lordships' attention to is this, that under this Bill land can be compulsorily taken from any owner on the initiation of the county council and hired compulsorily for thirty-five years. Now, my Lord, as most of the land in the neighbourhood of London which is desirable for building purposes is high land, and naturally the land which is hired, great injustice might be done when the land is taken, and after such land had been taken such land became useful for building operations. Let us see what the effect of the Bill as it now stands would be. A council could compel an owner to lease his land for thirty-five years. That owner at the time might not be able to show in any definite and distinct way that such land could be used for building purposes. Who would have been able to foresee the enormous development of Working, Guildford, and other towns near London, or, indeed, near any other large centres of population in the provinces? What I think would meet the exigencies of the case would be if your lordships are prepared to accept the principle of compulsory hiring—which I do not discuss now, but having accepted that, then provide that such an owner should have the power in the same way as is given under the Act of 1894, which is referred to in this Act, to resume possession of his land where such land came in for building purposes. The owner has now that power where such land can be used, for mining purposes. It must also be borne in mind that such resumption would not be arbitrarily or vexatiously undertaken, because first, he would have to satisfy the Local Government Board, and. secondly, he would have to pay such compensation as the Local Government Board might determine—first of all as the Council and he might agree, or failing agreement, as an arbitrator might direct. All it seems to me that I am asking for—and I am sure it is a point that is of the

53
greatest importance—is that an owner should not have his land taken away from him and perhaps the value of his property enormously deteriorated by being unable to part with his land for thirty-five years without any power to resume it again under totally different circumstances.
LORD THRING: I ought to have explained to your Lordships that there were two exceptions that had been added to this clause; first, that a person injuriously affected as well as the person interested in the land should be able to appear; and, secondly, there is a clause that the landlord might resume the land if he wanted it for building purposes in the same way as he might under the incorporated clause resume it for mining.
*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): I regret the trouble to which the House and my noble friend have been put owing to this clause. I can assure him that far from desiring to offer obstinate resistance to his proposal I should have been very glad indeed to meet him and to accept his schedule if I could have been convinced that that schedule correctly represented the law as it stands without any material alteration of language. But, my Lords, I have only to-day received from the Local Government Board, which Department I need not say is largely concerned in the administration of these Acts, a memorandum which I will not attempt to read to the House, but which goes to show that the schedule of the noble Lord is not one which could be safely added to the Bill. The Department has sent mo a proof of the noble Lord's schedule annotated in blue ink with the Amendments which would be necessary in order to effect the minimum of alteration to bring it into conformity with established practice, and those Amendments are extremely numerous. The memorandum goes on to say that the schedule contains a number of passages which import a wider meaning than the words of the existing law have been given; the omissions are enumerated; the fourteenth section is described as being certainly an incomplete version of Section 1 of the incorporated Act, and in conclusion I am advised that the schedule cannot at present be regarded as a workable substitute for Clause 3 of the Bill.
54
My Lords, I am afraid that in the face of that strong expression of expert opinion I cannot possibly accept the schedule of my noble friend, but I cannot help thinking that my noble friend, and perhaps some other Members of the House, have altogether over-estimated the danger to which owners of land will be exposed under the provisions of this Bill. It is not the case that the passing of this Bill will enable persons to come forward in the guise of those free selectors of whom we heard earlier in the evening to place rifle ranges in the middle of a private estate. The noble Earl told the House that this, Bill would put it absolutely into the hands of County Councils to deal with this question.
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: What I said was that the County Council could hire land compulsorily from the landlord, and he would have no power to resume for building purposes such as he would have now in the case of minerals.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Quite so, but the matter does not rest, as the noble Earl supposes, with the County Council. This is what happens. The parish council has to move first. The parish council has first to try to hire by agreement. If the parish council fails to hire by agreement it may represent the case to the County Council, then the County Council go to the Standing Committee for allotments, and after that a public inquiry is held in the parish.
LORD THRING: May I interrupt the noble Marquess? The parish council have nothing on earth to do with it.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I am reciting the procedure followed in the case of the compulsory hiring of allotments.
LORD THRING: I was misled in exactly the same way, but I can assure the noble Marquess that tinder the Bill the parish council has nothing on earth to do with the matter.
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: The County Council certainly has.
LORD THRING: Yes, but not the parish council; that is one of the very traps that I myself fell into.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Let us begin then with the County Council. The County Council holds a public inquiry; then there is an opportunity to any person interested to memorialise. The Order is deposited with the Local Government Board, and if a memorial has been presented and not withdrawn, then the Local Government Board in its turn proceeds to hold a local inquiry, after which the Order may be confirmed. So that really the rights of the private owner are hedged in by a whole series of inquiries, inquiries which must take considerable time, during which any person aggrieved will have ample opportunity of stating his grievances. I cannot, I am afraid, after the warning I have received, accept this Amendment, but the Bill of course has to pass through the other House of Parliament, and I have no doubt that before it becomes law the point which my noble friend has raised will be considered and properly discussed.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY): I am not surprised to hear that my noble friend behind me (the Marquess of Lansdowne) after the report he has received from the Local Government Board feels himself unable to accept the Amendment of the noble Lord opposite. I somewhat regret it, because, even if it did not actually follow the present procedure with regard to allotments, I should have preferred to see some procedure laid down in the Bill which would make it clear to everyone what was intended. In
It appearing that thirty Lords were not present, the Lord Chancellor declared the question not decided. Further debate on the said Amendment adjourned to Monday next.
this case the parish council has nothing whatever to do with the matter at all. It is the council of the borough or the council of the county. They make their own inquiries, and as the noble Lord said there is an appeal to the Local Government Board, but only one appeal. The question of compulsory hiring is an entirely new principle, except with regard to allotments, and compulsory hiring for a rifle range is a very different thing to hiring a few acres for an allotment. It extends over a much larger area, and, therefore, I think it should be carefully guarded. The question of injuriously affecting is one that ought to be carefully considered in allowing this compulsory hiring for rifle ranges. Then with regard to what my noble friend the Earl of Portsmouth said as to the land possibly becoming available for building purposes, I think that also requires some consideration. The point is not whether building is going on at the present time; it is whether in the course of the thirty-five years land which was when the hiring commenced possibly waste land, becomes within that time a large building area. Such a contingency is quite possible, and I think there should be some provision, with careful restrictions, to enable the land to be resumed if it is required for building, in the same way that it can be resumed now if minerals are under it. I venture to call the noble Marquess's attention to those two questions, which I think are deserving of his consideration.
On Question, whether to agree to the said Amendment, their Lordships divided:—Contents, 2; Not-Contents, 11.

CONTENTS.

Portsmouth, E. [Teller.]

Thring, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS.

Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

James, L.

Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

Frankfort de Montmorency, V.

Lawrence, L.

Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

Churchill, L. [Teller.]

Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

Lansdowne, M.

Heneage, L.

TOWN COUNCILS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read la; and to be printed [NO.145]
House adjourned at ten minutes before Eight of the clock to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven of the clock.