Sitting of 4 May 1900

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY HILL.
  As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.

  EDINBURGH DISTRICT LUNACY BOARD BILL [Lords] (BY ORDER).
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. URE: I rise to move that this Bill be read a second time this day six months. The motion is, I

  737
  am aware, an unprecedented one, but in fairness to myself, I think I may point out that the Bill too is unprecedented, The promoters are the Edinburgh Lunacy Board, and in Scotland, as in other countries, it is the duty of a lunacy board to take care of pauper lunatics. It has no other duty, and it has no right to convert itself into a railway company, a water company, or a sewerage company. Now I understand that the Edinburgh Lunacy Board have under their care some 600 people deprived permanently or temporarily of their reason. In seeking to provide accommodation for those lunatics, they have obtained statutory power to erect an asylum, and, in casting about for a site, they chanced upon a spot fourteen miles from Edinburgh, and in the county which I have the honour to represent. They purchased an estate of 861 acres at a cost of £13,000, and they propose to expend a quarter of a million sterling in erecting the asylum. Anyone who is acquainted with these matters must be well aware that the estimate will probably be exceeded by many thousands of pounds. As to whether it is necessary that they should proceed on this heroic scale I have nothing to say, because I have no information in my possession to enable me to judge whether this accommodation is absolutely required for these 600 lunatics. Besides that, the board have already obtained power to erect the asylum, But they are seeking other powers to which think I am justified in objecting, and hence my reason for challenging this Bill at the present stage. They propose not only to erect an asylum, but also to become proprietors of a railway on which it is intended to carry goods and passengers. The railway, no doubt, is a short one, about one and a half miles in length, but it is proposed to take statutory powers to charge three penceper mile for first-class passengers and one penny per mile for third class. The usual limitations as to the free carriage of luggage of passengers are also embodied in the Bill. It seems to me somewhat strange for a lunacy board to take such powers. Certainly they do not propose to work the line themselves, for they have entered into an agreement with one of the big railway companies to do it for them, and in consideration thereof the company is to take 50 per cent. of the receipts, it being understood that the
  738
  minimum payment shall be £1,500 per year. That works out at something like £25 per week per mile, and inasmuch as even the most prosperous lines earn only £18 per week per mile, it is a little extravagant to suppose that this small line will earn so much more. This does not exhaust my objection to the Bill. The lunacy board are not content with becoming a railway company. They aspire also to become a water company. They have purchased an estate of 861 acres, while they propose to secure an additional catchment area of 700 odd acres for the purpose of supplying water to these 600 lunatics. It seems to me that this is rather an extravagant arrangement, for it is quite obvious that such a catchment area would give far more water than is required for 600 people. But it is admitted by the promoters, with frankness, that they propose to supply water to outsiders; indeed, they ask for power to do so, and the Edinburgh ratepayers, if it is granted, will be in this position. If the lunacy board's railway and water speculations turn out successful undertakings they will have to pay nothing for their lunatics; but if, on the other hand, they turn out commercial failures, then the cost of the lunatics to the public will be enhanced to the extent of the loss on the railway and water scheme. The promoters of this measure are a statutory body. They have no duty but the care and benefit of lunatics. As to their qualification for that I have studiously refrained from inquiring, but seeing that they are now proposing to become railway directors and water commissioners, I think we are entitled to ask what special qualifications they possess for such positions. They propose, further, to take certain powers for dealing with sewerage. All these proposals are, I submit, outside the proper powers and duties of the lunacy board, and I may add that I am supported in.my opposition by the inhabitants of Bathgate, one of the largest towns in my constituency—a town which, with its small rateable area and limited water supply, has a claim on this catchment area. On these grounds I beg to move the resolution of which I have given notice.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the word? 'upon this day six months.'"—(Mr. Ure.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  SIR LEWIS McIVER: Now that the hon. and learned Member has perpetrated his joke with all the honours, he will perhaps see the propriety of allowing the House to proceed to the important public business which is set down for discussion to-night. I say "joke" advisedly, since no one, least of all the hon. and learned Member himself, can take this motion seriously, and now that he has amused at least himself for fifteen minutes I think he might gracefully allow his motion to be negatived without a division. The hon. and learned Member apparently does not assent, and I must therefore follow him over some of the wide ground he has covered. The impression that he has conveyed to those who do not know the facts is that we, the promoters of the Bill, are fired by most lawless ambitions. That we are, in fact, a private party, seeking in the name of the lunatic asylum, and in the face of much just op- position from public bodies, to become at once a railway company, a water company, and a sewage farm. Well, as a matter of fact, all that part of the speech was mere rhetorical flourish. We are not a private party, we are a public body, a statutory body, endeavouring to fulfil statutory and compulsory obligations, and we are doing this with the approval or assent of all the public bodies interested, at all events with no opposition from any public body. We have the support of the Scottish Office, of the General Lunacy Board, of the county council. We do not want to become a railway company or a water company. It is true that, on the face of it, our Bill would suggest some justification for these charges, but then the hon. and learned Gentleman knows perfectly well that this is not the case in fact; and although our Bill is nominally a railway Bill, three-fourths of our clauses are purely formal and inoperative, and are inserted merely to satisfy the established procedure of Parliament. A few words will make this clear to the House. In discharge of our statutory obligations we are about to build a lunatic asylum. For purposes of convenience and economy in construction we have built ourselves a little railway, one and three-quarter miles long, on our own property. This we are perfectly
  740
  entitled to do without coming to Parliament, just as the hon. and learned Member may build himself a toy railway in his back garden. Our railway has cost us £20,000, and saves us £20,000 in the cartage of building material, and remains a valuable and permanent asset. In order to extract this value in the future by carrying passengers and goods to the asylum, we are obliged to invoke the assistance of one of the great railway companies to work our little line on the usual terms; but before this can be done the one and three-quarter miles on our ground must be clothed with Parliamentary power, that is to say, with statutory protection and statutory obligations. That is the whole story about the railway. With regard to the charge that we seek to be made a water company, the sole foundation is that at the request of the county council we are asking for powers to part with our surplus water to some of the neighbouring districts which the county council could not itself supply except at a very great expense. That I think disposes of the hon. and learned Member's larger and vaguer charges. But, when we come to the real ground of his attack, it is clear that the hon. and learned Member's forensic enthusiasm has been largely reinforced by a perfervid imagination. He imagines that he has got a client, and he imagines that that client has got a case; whereas the facts are that he has not got a client, and the client that he has not got has not got a case. Bath-gate is the supposed client, a charming picturesque town, with an intelligent and humorous, if slightly fickle, population. I know they are intelligent, because they greatly approved of the only speech I ever delivered to them. And when I say "fickle" I only mean that the second thoughts of Bathgate are generally bettor than their first. To illustrate that, I may say that the speech I have just referred to was devoted to persuading the intelligent people of beautiful Bathgate not to elect the hon. and learned Member as their representative in Parliament. On that occasion they accepted my advice. Later Bathgate changed its mind, and in consequence of that second thought this House is now adorned by the presence and eloquence of the hon. and learned Member. Well, Sir, in the present case also Bathgate's second thoughts, have been wiser and better than her

  741
  first. In another place Bathgate opposed our Bill, and asserted a claim to the silver mine burn. That claim was rejected by the Lords Committee. Since then Bathgate has discovered that even if the claim were allowed she could not afford to pay for its exercise. Consequently intelligent Bathgate has discreetly dropped her opposition to the Bill. And so, although my hon. and learned friend has got a most intelligent constituency, he has got no client in this case, and it is therefore somewhat difficult to realise the ground or motive of his opposition. But, Mr. Speaker, I have to appeal to the House to disregard this opposition, upon the broader ground of Parliamentary practice. No doubt the custom of opposing Private Bills on Second Reading is alarmingly on the increase, and it is one greatly to be deprecated. But the present case, happily, is one almost without precedent. This Bill in substance, whatever may be its external appearance, is a most simple and ordinary one. It has passed through all its stages in the other house, including a most searching investigation in Committee. In this House it is practically unopposed for its Committee stage. And to refuse it a Second Reading here seems to me to amount to almost a discourtesy to the Committee which has already examined it, and I would appeal to the House to stand by the traditions of Parliament, and I following the usual procedure, to send this Bill upstairs.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,): The hon. Member who has just addressed the House has, if I may be permitted to say so, put his case a little too high. I do not take the same stand, for I think the House is indebted to the hon. Member for Linlithgow for having called attention to the peculiar character of the Bill before it. It is a Bill to enable a lunacy board to convert itself into a railway company, and a water company, and to establish a sewage farm. Certainly these are not proposals of an ordinary character. I do not say that it may not be very desirable in this particular case to confer those powers. It may be of advantage to the asylum to have its own railway instead of being required to convey its patients and its stores to the building over rough
  742
  roads. But still I do think the House is indebted to the hon. Member for having called attention to the peculiar features of this Bill. We have heard a good deal lately on the subject of municipal trading, but this Bill seems to be municipal trading gone mad. I rise, not for the purpose of objecting to the Bill, but to say that, in my opinion, it is a matter which deserves consideration. I therefore hope it will be sent to a Committee.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire): I do not propose to take any part in the contention which has arisen between the hon. Members for Linlithgowshire and West Edinburgh. Both gentlemen are well able to take care of themselves. It would have been within the power of the Scotch Office to have stopped the whole proceeding, and I will tell the House why it was that without deciding on the merits of the Bill we agreed that a proper Bill had been presented for the consideration of Parliament. This lunatic asylum scheme is one of unparalleled magnitude, and in view of the situation selected for it we thought it was obvious the construction of a railway would be of great public advantage, not merely for the conveyance of patients and stores, but also to friends of the poorer inmates of the institution by giving them greater facilities for visiting. I think it will be obvious, too, that the proposals as to water and sewage may be desirable, although as to them I am not personally prepared to express any definite opinion. That being so I hope the House will allow the Bill to go upstairs, where the various difficulties which have been suggested can be dealt with by a Committee in the ordinary way.
  MR. URE: I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed.

  BLACKPOOL, ST. ANNE'S AND LYTHAM TRAMWAYS BILL.
  "To authorise the Blackpool, St. Anne's and Lytham Tramways Company,

  743
  Limited, to construct Tramways in substitution for their existing Tramways in the County Palatine of Lancaster; and for other purposes," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

  RAILWAYS (IRELAND) AMALGAMATION BILLS.
  Lords Message [1st May] relating to the appointment of a Joint Committee on Railways (Ireland) Amalgamation Bills considered.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Committee of four Members be appointed to join with the Committee of the Lords to consider the Great Southern and Western and Waterford and Central Ireland Railway Companies Amalgamation Bill, the Great Southern and Western and Waterford, Limerick, and "Western Railway Companies Amalgamation Bill, and the Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland Bill, as requested by their Lordships in their Message of 1st May. Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith. That the said Committee be nominated by the Committee of Selection. That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records."—(Mr. J. W. Lowther.)
  MR. DILLON: I was unavoidably absent when this question was before the House at an earlier date,* and I rise on the present occasion not with the intention of dividing the House or of opposing this proposal at this late stage, but for the purpose of entering my own protest and of safe-guarding myself, as well as a large section of Irish Members, from this being used as a precedent in the future. I do not desire that it should be on record that we have agreed to this novel procedure being applied to important Irish Bills. Two or three such Bills have this session been referred to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons, and I for one cannot see why Irish private business should be dealt with on different lines from English and Scotch business. Had I been in the House when the matter was debated I think that unless much stronger reasons had been advanced than we have yet heard for submitting the Dublin Corporation Bill to this method of
  * See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxxi., page 1239.
  744
  proceeding, I should have felt it my duty to oppose it. But as I was absent, and as we are now asked to pass what is only, after all, a consequential motion based on the decision already arrived at, I have decided to confine myself to registering this protest, thereby safeguarding myself against any future statement on the part of the Irish Government, that the whole body of Irish Members have acquiesced in what is certainly a novel and, to my mind, a most objectionable procedure.
  MR. MONK: I see it is proposed in the resolution as it appears on the Paper, that two shall form a quorum. Does that mean two Members of this House or two of the whole body?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: That part of the motion appears on the Paper by inadvertence, and I am not going to move it. There will be no quorum. All the members appointed will have to sit and hear the evidence and decide according to that evidence.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Ordered, That a Committee of Four Members be appointed to join with the Committee of the Lords to consider the Great Southern and Western and Waterford and Central Ireland Railway Com- panics Amalgamation Bill, the Great Southern and Western and Waterford, Limerick, and Western Railway Companies Amalgamation Bill, and the Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland Bill, as requested by their Lordships in their Message of 1st May.
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.
  Ordered, That the said Committee be nominated by the Committee of Selection.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.—(Chairman of Ways and Means.)

  TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5).
  Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Tramways Act, 1870, relating to Bournemouth Corporation Tramways, Houghton-le-Spring and District Tramways, Liverpool Corporation Tramways Extensions, Portsmouth Corporation Tram-

  745
  ways, Rothesay Tramways, Weston-super-Mare Tramways, and Whitefield Urban District Council Tramways, ordered to he brought in by Mr. Ritchie and Mr. Hanbury.

  TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
  "To confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Tramways Act, 1870, relating to Bournemouth Corporation Tramways, Houghton-le-Spring and District Tramways, Liverpool Corporation Tramways Extensions, Portsmouth Corporation Tramways, Rothesay Tramways, Weston-super-Mare Tramways, and Whitefield Urban District Council Tramways," presented accordingly, and road the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 186.]

  STANDING ORDERS.
  Resolutions reported from the Committee:—

  (1) "That, in the case of the Great Indian Peninsula Railway Company Petition, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

  (2) "That, in the case of the Bray Urban District Council Petition, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

  Resolutions agreed to.

  GREAT INDIAN PENINSULA RAILWAY COMPANY.
  Report [this day] from the Select Committee on Standing Orders read.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Andrew Scoble and Mr. Cohen.

  LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
  Ordered, That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee on the Manchester Ship Canal Bill, in session 1885, be referred to the Committee on the London and North-Western Railway Bill.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP A).
  Mr. BALDWIN reported from the Committee on Group A of Private Bills,
  746
  That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Tuesday next, at Eleven of the clock.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP D).
  Mr. ALEXANDER HARGREAVES BROWNreported from the Committee on Group D of Private Bills, That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Tuesday, 15th May, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to the Pontefract Park Bill, without amendment.
PETITIONS.
  BURIAL GROUNDS BILL.
  Petition from Salisbury, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  ECCLESLASTICAL ASSESSMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Aberdeen, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Stirling, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT (1894) AMENDMENT (No. 3) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Perth; and Glasgow; to lie upon the Table.
  LUNACY BILL.
  Petitions for alteration, from Northampton; Cardiff; and Strand; to lie upon the Table.
  PETTY CUSTOMS ABOLITION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions against, from Inverness; and Stirling; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Broadway and Forest Gate; to lie upon the Table.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Clay Cross; Bolton; Auckland; Hunwick; Hazel

  747
  Grove; Denton; Marple; Harlesden; Batley; Nottingham; Nelson; Lynton; Leicester; Stockton-on-Tees; Accrington; Rawtenstall; and Stafford; to lie upon the Table.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (No. 2) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Clay Cross; Sheffield; Callington; Hawkshead; Rosemary; Gravesend; Longtown; Carlisle (two); and Cardiff (thirteen); to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Burnbank; Glasgow; Elie; St. Combs; Coatbridge; and Portellen; to lie upon the Table.
  SCHOOL BOARD ELECTIONS (LONDON) BILL.
  Petition from St. Mary, Islington, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SMALLER DWELLINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Aberdeen, against; to lie upon the Table.
  SOLDIERS AND BAILORS ON ACTIVE SERVICE.
  Petitions for legislation, from Auckland; Leominster; Tadcaster; Cardiff; Leicester; and Lambeth; to lie upon the Table.
  SUNDAY CLOSING (MONMOUTHSHIRE) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Salisbury; Brampton; Gravesend; and Forest Gate; to lie upon the Table.
  YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Dorchester; and Worcester; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND CHARGES ACT, 1891.
  Paper [presented 3rd May] to be printed. [No. 161.]
  TRADE UNION FUNDS.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 5th April; Mr. Woods]; to lie upon the Table.
  AFRICA (No. 4, 1900).
  Copy presented, of Memoranda relating to the Uganda Railway [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EMIGRATION AND IMM GRATION.
  Copy ordered, "of Statistical Tables relating to Emigration and Immigration from and into the United Kingdom in the year 1899, and Report to the Board of Trade thereon."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  EDUCATION AND LOCAL TAXATION ACCOUNT (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1892.
  Copy presented, of Return showing the allocation and application of the Contribution out of the Local Taxation (Scotland) Account, under Section 2, Subsection (5), of the Act (Equivalent Grant), for the financial year ended 31st March, 1899 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Endowed Charities (County of Worcester).—Return relative thereto [ordered 16th February, 1899; Mr. Grant Lawson]; to be printed. [No. 162.]

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  Mr. HALSEY reported from the Committee of Selection, That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures:—Sir Elliott Lees; and had appointed in substitution: Sir Herbert Maxwell.
  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 Agricultural Holdings Bill: Sir Alexander Acland-Hood, Sir Thomas Gibson-Carmichael, Mr. Munro Ferguson, Mr. Humphreys-Owen, Mr. Heywood John-stone, Mr. Brynmor Jones, Sir John Kinloch, Mr. Lambert, The Lord Advocate, Mr. Jasper More, Earl Percy, Captain Pretyman, Mr. Price, Mr. Solicitor General, and Colonel Williams.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  SELECTION (JOINT COMMITTEE ON MUNICIPAL TRADING).
  Mr. HALSEY reported from the Committee of Selection, That they had

  749
  discharged the following Member from the Joint Committee of Lords and Commons on Municipal Trading: Sir Samuel Hoare; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Lewis Fry.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions
  QUESTIONS.

    SOUTH AFRICAN WAR —BRITISH PRISONERS AT PRETORIA.
    GENERAL RUSSELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the attention of the Government has been called to the repeated reports of the ill-treatment and neglect of British prisoners at Pretoria, of the want of proper shelter, of the neglect of ordinary sanitary arrangements and of the deficiency of medicines for the sick, and also that the comforts and supplies forwarded by friends have never reached these prisoners; and whether any inquiries and representations have been made to the American Government, with a view to the American Consul at Pretoria, who has charge of British interests, making inquiries as to the truth of these statements.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to the reports of the condition of the British prisoners of war. Her Majesty's Ambassador at Washington was instructed on March 15 to request information through the United States Consul at Pretoria as to the treatment of the colonial prisoners. The reply was that they were not harshly treated. Had the prisoners generally been ill-treated, it is presumed the Consul would have mentioned the fact in his report on the colonial prisoners. The Government have no information as to the alleged deficiency of medicines for the sick, or as to comforts and supplies forwarded by friends not having reached the prisoners. The Government of the Republic allows the United States Consul to forward letters and to deliver letters, papers, and supplies to the prisoners. The question of making further inquiries through the United States Consul is under consideration.

    SPION KOP DESPATCHES.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary for War a question of which I have given him private notice—Whether the copy, issued in this morning's papers, of the telegram 170, dated March 28th, from the Secretary of State for War to Field-Marshal Lord Roberts is a full and complete copy of the telegram as actually sent; and if not, has any and what part of the telegram been omitted or altered.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. WYNDHAM, Dover): We have published every line and every word which has passed between the Secretary of State for War and Field Marshal Lord Roberts in reference to the despatches on Spion Kop which have been published. I ought to add that obviously we have not published any references to those documents which, rightly or wrongly, have not been published. To have done so would have been to stultify our actions and to mislead the House, because the references would have applied to documents not published.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: May we understand that this telegram of March 28th is the first telegram in reference to the publication or non-publication of these despatches?
    MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir, certainly.

    CONTRABAND OF WAR—LANDING OF BOER SUPPLIES AT DELAGOA BAY.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I bog to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, has he observed a statement recently made to the effect that the Boer Government is obtaining enormous supplies of provisions which are landed at Delagoa Bay by German and French steamboats, are landed direct into trucks, and are promptly despatched to the Transvaal; and that the German steamboat "Herzog" was on 30th April discharging about 3,000 tons of such provisions; whether this is the same steamboat "Herzog" which was detained by Her Majesty's ship "Thetis" and brought into Durban on 6th January last on suspicion of carrying contraband of war, and which was released by order of the Admiralty of 7th January last without any examination being made of her cargo to ascertain if the suspicion that part of it

    751
    consisted of contraband of war was well founded; and whether Her Majesty's Government propose to continue to prohibit Her Majesty's cruisers from visiting this and other mail steamers and, in case of reasonable and probable suspicion, from detaining and bringing in such steamers for due examination of their cargo by the Prize Court; if so, does Her Majesty's Government propose to take any other, and if so what means to prevent the supply of contraband of war to the Queen's enemies by neutral vessels.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guildford): The statements made as to the importation of provisions at Delagoa Bay destined for the Transvaal have been noticed. But provisions, unless there is evidence that they are intended for the use of combatants, are not deemed to be contraband of war. The ship mentioned is no doubt that which was taken to Durban. Her cargo for Delagoa Bay was examined by the Portuguese customs, whose attention was specially called to this ship, but no report has been received to show that she landed contraband. The instructions to Her Majesty's ships are that mail steamers are not to be arrested on suspicion alone.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what other ground than suspicion there can be until a ship is arrested and examined?
    [No answer was returned.]
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, have Her Majesty's Government given attention to a statement recently made to the effect that contraband of war is shipped at the French ports of Diego Suarez and Jiboutil to be landed at Delagoa Bay for transmission to the Transvaal; that at Delagoa Bay the contraband of war is transhipped into barges and landed at night; that the examination at the Portuguese Custom House is a pretence; and that contraband is often landed, not at the custom house but at the Netherlands railway pier, a mile higher up the harbour, by permit from the Portuguese customs authorities: have they observed the further allegation that the accuracy of these statements can be verified by Major H. P. Young, late head of the Intelligence Department, by
    752
    Lieutenant Davidson, R.N., and Mr. Longe, of Her Majesty's ship "Thetis," by Captain Sedgwick and Lieutenant Stopford, R.N., and by Mr. Hodgkis, Mr. Nulty, Mr. Treadwell, and Mr. Gould, of the Intelligence Department; and have Her Majesty's Government received any Reports on the matter from any of these officers; and, if not, will they call for Reports, and lay them upon the Table or communicate their purport to this House.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. GOSCHEN, St. George's,): We have given attention not only to statements recently made on the subject in question, but the whole course of events in the waters mentioned has been a subject of our daily concern. I am not prepared to admit that the examination at the Portuguese Custom House is a pretence. I had heard that contraband had been landed, but not by permit from the Portuguese customs authorities. In no case have we been able to obtain any proof that such a traffic exists, nor have we reason to believe that the accuracy of the statements can be verified by the officers mentioned. We have received reports from the admiral with enclosures from the captains of certain ships, but at this short notice I am not able to say whether they would be laid on the Table of the House. In many cases it would be clearly inadvisable to do so.

    SHIPMENT OF BOER TREASURE TO FRANCE.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask; the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has observed the statement recently made that, on 28th April, the French steamer "Gironde" sailed for | Europe with £135,000 in specie and £121,000 in bar gold, a total of £256,000, consigned to Paris by the Banque Francaise at Johannesburg; whether he has any reason to doubt that this large amount of treasure is the produce of the Transvaal, now at war with this country, or that it is transmitted in payment of supplies or of recruits to be used in hostilities against Her Majesty's troops; and whether Her Majesty's Government have any means of preventing, by Her Majesty's Naval forces, the carriage by neutral vessels of the produce and property of Her Majesty's enemies.
    MR. BRODRICK: The statement in question has appeared in the newspapers, but Her Majesty's Government have no official confirmation of it. Enemy's property, other than contraband of war, is protected on neutral ships by the Declaration of Paris, but Her Majesty's Government are giving careful attention to the subject.

    KOORN SPRUIT DISASTER.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for War whether the Government have now received despatches with reference to the recent loss in convoy, prisoners, and Horse Artillery guns at Koorn Spruit.
    MR. WYXDHAM: No, Sir.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: Is there any reason to suppose that a despatch is on its way?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I presume so. The delay is most unusual, but last Saturday was the first day on which any steamer could arrive with written information.

    CUSTOMS—WOUNDED SOLDIERS' BAGGAGE.
    MR. PENN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that wounded officers and men, arriving in transports at the docks, are compelled to see their baggage through the Custom House; and whether he will arrange with the Custom House authorities that such baggage shall be examined on board.
    MR. WYNDHAM: No wounded officers or men are compelled to see their baggage through the Custom House. The transport officer or a comrade may act as their agent. The examination is the slightest possible, and every facility is afforded by the Customs Authorities. If the hon. Member can inform me of any specific case in which the regulation has not been observed, I will inquire into it.

    DIRECTOR OF INTELLIGENCE AT BLOEMFONTEIN.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, who has replaced Colonel Henderson as Director of Intelligence at Bloemfontein headquarters on the invaliding of that officer to this country.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Brevet-Major C. J. Mackenzie, Seaforth Highlanders, was appointed to succeed Lieutenant-Colonel Henderson during his absence through sickness.

    ARMY POST OFFICE—DELAYS AT THE FRONT.
    MR. GOULDING: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he will cause an investigation to be made into the complaints of delay in the delivery of correspondence and newspapers to Her Majesty's troops serving in South Africa; and whether he will consider the advisability of at once increasing the postal staff.
    MR. WYNDHAM: In view of the growing pressure the Army Post Office Corps in South Africa has recently been largely increased.

    BREWERS AND THE WAR TAX.
    MR. PLATT-HIGGINS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the importance of distinguishing direct and indirect taxation, it would be possible to have a Return made of the brewers who are bearing the war tax of 1s. per barrel themselves, of those are putting it upon the publicans, and of those who are dividing the tax with the publicans, and specially stating how tied houses have been dealt with in this respect by the brewers who own them.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EX-CHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): The Government have no information that would enable them to compile such a Return, nor any power to obtain it, and I do not see how it would bear on the distinction between direct and indirect taxation. There are modes by which the tax might be imposed on the consumer, even though a barrel of beer was sold by the brewer at the same nominal price as before.

    SOUTH AFRICAN WAR MEDALS.
    LORD BALCARRES: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office to whom the designing of the South African War medals has been entrusted.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS,): The design-

    755
    ing of the medals has been, as usual, entrusted to the Mint.
    LORD BALCABRES: Who is the designer? I ask not for the authority, but for the man.
    MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: I will ascertain the name and communicate it to the noble Lord personally.

    ARMY PAY DEPARTMENT AND ARMY SERVICE CORPS.
    MR. MOON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the numbers of the Army Pay Department and Army Service Corps in South Africa are below the recognised proportion to the other troops in the field, and are in point of fact proportioned to a field force of some 60,000 men only; whether permanent injury is being hereby inflicted on the health of those so overworked; and whether the Secretary of State will consider how this may be remedied with as little delay as possible.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The answer to the first paragraph is in the negative; the numbers are proportioned to the total force in South Africa. Though these officers and men are working very hard, no reports have been received of any injury to health beyond that incidental to active service.

    MILITIA—UNIFORMS FOR EMBODIED REGIMENTS.
    LORD EDWARD MANNERS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the fact that neither the tunic nor blue serge working dress, as issued to line battalions and line recruits respectively, is issued to the Militia, he will give instructions that these articles of clothing be issued to such Militia battalions as are embodied.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The question of the Militia clothing has been thoroughly considered. The Militia have two suits of strong clothing, and this is considered sufficient for home service. Those regiments which have gone to South Africa are supplied with the same clothing as the line battalions.

    OFFICERS' PENSIONS.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State
    756
    for War, in view of the fact that pensioned officers now being recalled to the service are having their pensions withheld during the period of their return to the service, although such a course is not followed in the case of non-commissioned officers and men, and a pension is held to be a reward earned by past service, whether he will consider the advisability of placing officers upon an equal footing with non-commissioned officers and men in this respect, more especially as officers are liable to be compulsorily recalled to the service.
    MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir. The cases are not on a par. Only those officers are compulsorily recalled who belong to the reserve of officers, and one of the conditions of such recall is that the officer drops his retired pay when he returns to full pay. The reserve of non-commissioned officers and men is not made up of pensioners.

    RESERVE OFFICERS—UNIFORM ALLOWANCES.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that officers appointed to the Reserve battalions from the half-pay list are obliged to provide themselves with the special uniform laid down in special Army Order, he will grant them the outfit allowance to which Reserve and retired officers are entitled.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The question is now under consideration.

    SECOND LIEUTENANTS OF ROYAL ARTILLERY AND ROYAL ENGINEERS.
    CAPTAIN PHILLPOTTS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether any decision has yet been arrived at respecting the disadvantage under which second lieutenants of the Royal Artillery and Royal Engineers labour, as compared with officers belonging to other branches of the Army, by the regulation now in force that compels them to serve three years in that rank before receiving promotion.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The matter is under consideration.
    CAPTAIN PHILLPOTTS: When will the period of gestation be concluded?
    [No answer was given.]

    CHINA—PIRACY ON THE WEST RIVER.
    MR. MOON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state what has been done by the Viceroy of Canton in reference to Sir Henry Blake's proposal that he should assist in freeing part of the West River from pirates (China, No. 1, 1900, No. 411), and whether on the whole the nuisance has been abated.
    MR. BRODRICK: The result of an interview that took place between the Viceroy and the Governor of Hong Kong on January 15th is regarded as satisfactory, the Viceroy having expressed his cordial desire to co-operate with the British authorities, and having practically accepted the Governor's suggestions. No recent reports have been received as to the increase or decrease of piracy, and there has not yet been time for the new arrangements to come into working order, but the question is being carefully watched.
    MR. MOON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether a water police force provided with fast steam launches to repress piracy on the West River has now been established (China, No. 1, 1900, No. 405); and whether any telegraphic report has been received as to the examination of the Upper Yang-tsze, appointed to be made in the month of April by Her Majesty's ships "Woodlark" and "Woodcock." '
    MR. GOSCHEN: No such arrangement has yet been made. The Commander-in-Chief has been in active communication with the Governor of Hong Kong on the subject and with the new Viceroy Li Hung Chang. The responsibility for law and order on the river-rests, of course, primarily with the Chinese Government, and while Her Majesty's Government will take such measures as the situation requires, the Chinese Government cannot be relieved of its responsibility. The new Viceroy has expressed himself anxious and willing to co-operate with the Governor and Commander-in-Chief for the suppression of piracy, and a further gunboat will be placed by us on the river. I should add that I have just received a letter from Admiral Seymour stating that he had 'been up the West River himself, as he thought a personal visit would help to
    758
    form his judgment, and he hoped for an early improvement. The examination of the Upper Yang-tsze, which was to be commenced in April, has probably not yet been completed, as no telegraphic communication as to the result has been so far received.

    THE LOSS OF THE "KOWSHING."
    MR. MOON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which of the various forms of arbitration mentioned in the correspondence of December last (China, No. 1, 1900, Nos. 431 and 446) has been adopted for the "Kowshing" ease.
    MR. BRODRICK: It has been agreed to refer the questions at issue to the arbitration of an eminent foreign jurist.

    CHINA—REFORMERS' LIVES THREATENED.
    MR. MOON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the attention of the Foreign Office has been called to a letter dated 22nd February from the native correspondent in Peking of the North China Herald, and appearing in their issue of 7th March, in which the writer states that he has seen a list of the reformers who are to be made away with within the month of March, gives the names of some of them, and adds that a long limit of time to live is allowed other reformers, but that he has it from an authoritative source that a list has been drawn up containing over 300 names; and whether, if executions similar to those of the coup d'etat of September, 1898, are contemplated by the Ex-Empress, the British Minister will be instructed to make the strongest protests.
    MR. BRODRICK: No information has been received to corroborate the reports mentioned in the letter referred to, and there is no reason to suppose that any such action is contemplated by the Chinese Government.

    CIUDAD BOLIVAR CONSULATE—MR. LYALL'S MURDER.
    MR. H. P. PEASE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received a report from the British Consul at Ciudad Bolivar in reference to the investigation of the circumstances con-

    759
    nected with the murder of the Vice- Consul, Mr. James Lyall; whether the murderer has been convicted; and whether Her Majesty's Government have claimed any compensation from the Venezuelan Government on account of the crime.
    MR. BRODRICK: Reports have been received from the British Consul at Ciudad Bolivar and from Mr. Haggard, Her Majesty's Minister at Caracas. The murderer was arrested and an investigation was at once commenced in the Criminal Court. Mr. Haggard has made urgent representations on the subject to the President and the Venezuelan Government, and a special Commissioner has been appointed to examine and report upon the case. The result of the investigation has not yet been reported and Her Majesty's Government have hitherto made no claim for compensation.

    UGANDA RAILWAY.
    MR. PERKS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the total gross income of the Uganda Railway from the opening of the line up to the 31st December last, or to such date as Returns have been received; how much of such income is represented by passenger or goods traffic carried for the Uganda Protectorate or the British Government; and also what is the total amount of expenditure incurred upon revenue account during such period; what is the total expenditure actually incurred upon the construction of the sections of the railway already opened for traffic, and what further expenditure will be incurred in the completion and alteration of such sections; what is the length of mileage of the railway which has been relaid or altered consequent upon an alteration of the original gradient from 1 in 50 to 1 in 100, or otherwise; and what would be the cost of altering the gauge of the railway from 3 ft. 3 in. to 3 ft. 6 in., so that the Uganda Railway may be of the same gauge as the Egyptian railways, and traffic and rolling stock may be thereby interchanged.
    MR. BRODRICK: The Revenue Accounts up to end of 1899 were presented to Parliament in July, 1899. (See Africa, No. 6, 1899.) The accounts for 1899 will be ready to present next July. Up
    760
    to 30th June, 1899, the figures are as follows:—Gross income passengers and stores (excluding railway construction), Rs. 961,258, or £64,084; of which passengers and stores carried for Protectorate earned Rs. 411,473, or £27,431; general public traffic amounted to Rs. 549,785, or £36,653. The expenditure on the portion opened for traffic could not be separated from the total expenditure without great labour. There has not been any alteration of gradients from one in fifty to less steep ones since construction was commenced. The cost of altering the line to 3 feet 6 inches gauge, including altering the rolling stock, would probably amount to about £500,000.

    INDIA—PROPOSED IMPERIAL CONTRIBUTION TO INDIA OFFICE CHARGES.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether Her Majesty's Government intend to act on the recommendation of the Royal Commission on the Expenditure of India that, in order that there may be no ground for allegation that India is treated less favourably than other parts of Her Majesty's Empire, Parliament should be asked to make a contribution towards the charge of the India Office.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the general answer which I gave the other day to a similar question applies to the specific point which the right hon. Baronet has raised. It is impossible, without a great deal more consideration than the Government has been able to give to it, to come to any decision upon the point.

    TRUST INVESTMENTS—COLONIAL GOVERNMENT SECURITIES.
    MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now in a position to make a statement, promised on 15th March, in reference to the ranking of Colonial Government securities as trust investments.
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I have nothing at present to add to the statement I made on the 5th April in reply to a question by the hon. Member for the St. Rollox Division of Glasgow.‡
    † See pages 15 and 278 of this volume.
    † See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth. Series], Vol. lxxxi., page 1264.

    JAMAICA RAILWAY DEBENTURES— INCOME TAX DEMAND.
    MR. COHEN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that although the interest on the four per cent. debentures of the Jamaica Railway was not paid till April, 1900, it actually became payable at various dates during, and prior to, January, 1900, when the interest became due. And whether Sir Henry Primrose, chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue, has officially instructed the various agencies paying dividends that income tax is to be deducted at the rate in force when the dividend became due.
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The Income Tax Acts do not impose any liability to duty in respect of income derived from sources outside the United Kingdom' unless or until such income is received in this country. Payment of the arrears of interest referred to was not obtained nor obtainable in this country prior to the 6th April last, and consequently no liability to income tax in respect of it arose until the current year. In these circumstances the interest is chargeable under the provisions of the Income Tax Acts with the rate of duty in force, for the current year. The hon. Member is under some misapprehension if he supposes that any official instructions have been issued inconsistent with the terms of this reply.
    MR. COHEN: In view of the doubt which exists and the necessity for a uniform system, will my right hon. friend issue an official notification on the subject?
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I think notification has already been made.

    INCOME TAX ARREARS.
    MR. BARTLEY: I beg-to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what rate of income tax has been charged since the 1st April on incomes for the year ending 31st March, 1900, to those persons who did not pay their income tax demands before 31st March, 1900, and whether the charge is in accordance with the statute.
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The charge for income tax on incomes for the year ending 31st March (or more correctly 5th April), 1900, will be at the rate of 8d., whether the tax be paid before or after
    762
    5th April, 1900. Whether incomes received after 5th April be income for the year ending 5th April, 1900, or for the year ending 5th April, 1901, is a separate question, which has to be decided according to the circumstances in each case.
    MR. BARTLEY: Cannot the same rule be applied to the Jamaica Railway debentures?
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I have already explained that case.

    POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS IN DUMFRIESSHIRE.
    MR. JOHNSON-FERGUSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that parcels sent by parcel post to many parts of Dumfriesshire are not delivered until the second day, and if Sunday intervenes the third day, after they are despatched; and whether the Post Office, considering the inconvenience caused to the inhabitants of these districts through the delay in the delivery of the parcel post, will reconsider the arrangements for its delivery.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY,): It is understood that the hon. Member refers to the district served from Ecclefechan. The special night mail train is run at a high rate of speed and stops only at important junctions in order that the arrival at Edinburgh, Glasgow, and the chief towns in Scotland may take place as early as possible. To stop at stations of less importance, such as Ecclefechan, would delay the mails for all places further north. The letter mail for Ecclefechan is therefore put out by means of the mail apparatus as the train passes the station, but the parcel mail cannot be so transferred, and has to be sent on by the first stopping train, which does not arrive before the rural postmen have been despatched. The number of parcels delayed is not large, and the Postmaster General regrets that no arrangement can be made for improving the service except at an expense considerably greater than he would be justified in incurring.

    POST OFFICE SICK REGULATIONS— CASE OF MR. HOWSON.
    MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to

    763
    the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. Howson, a probationary telegraphist in the Central Office, London, who was certified as unfit for duty by a doctor, and to the fact that the Post Office medical official disregarded this certificate, and compelled the clerk to duty, with the result that Howson was found in a fainting condition in the instrument gallery, and was removed by the superintendent to the medical department; whether, in spite of the protests of the superintendent, the medical officer declined to permit the patient to cease duty, and it was not until another application had been made, after a lapse of some hours, that Howson was permitted to leave the office; and whether the Postmaster General can state the reason of the non-acceptance of the private doctor's certificate, and the treatment of Mr. Howson after his superior officer had stated that the clerk was too ill to perform his duties.
    MR. HANBURY: The facts are as follows:—Mr. Howson wrote on the 20th of March that he was ill, and furnished a private medical certificate that he was suffering from debility with attacks of faintness, and required a few days rest. He was given leave until the 23rd, when he was seen by the official medical officer. That officer considered that in Mr. How-son's own interest he should try to take up his duty, which he did; but within a few hours he had two nervous attacks, and he was then put off duty and granted sick leave till the 27th of March. He then resumed duty for two days, when he was granted sick leave till the 2nd ultimo, on which date Mr. Howson was allowed to go on his annual leave. The medical officer states that he was suffering from simple nervous debility, brought on by over study at home.

    AUXILIARY POSTMEN—CASE OF C. J. OSGODBY.
    MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether C. J. Osgodby, an auxiliary postman in the service of the General Post Office, after being tried on 20th November, 1899, at the Central Criminal Court on a charge of stealing postal orders and acquitted, was dismissed from his position as auxiliary postman two weeks subsequently after a
    764
    service of nine years; whether the said C. J. Osgodby applied on 12th March, 1900, to the Postmaster General for reinstatement or for a reference to enable him to obtain another situation; whether the Postmaster General on 15th March, 1900, replied that he could not be reinstated, and that in making any statement as to his character it would be impossible to exclude reference to the circumstances under which his employment in the Post Office terminated; and whether the Postmaster General, in view of the circumstances of the case and the fact that Osgodby has been for three years and still continues to be employed at evening work by the same employer, will reconsider his decision, with reference either to reinstatement or to the form of the reference to be given to the dismissed postman.
    MR. HANBURY: The facts as stated in the first three paragraphs of the question are correct, except that besides the particular case upon which Osgodby was prosecuted there had been a large number of other cases of stolen letters, the facts of which were material to the question of Osgodby's fitness for employment in the Post Office. In the circumstances the Postmaster General would not be justified in reinstating Osgodby; nor could he, if referred to for Osgodby's character, withhold facts the suppression of which might seriously mislead any person who contemplated employing him.

    L. & N. W. RAILWAY—MILFORD AND BROCTON LEVEL CROSSING.
    MR. COGHILL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the insufficient accommodation provided by the London and North Western Railway Company at their Milford and Brocton Station, and to the dangerous level crossing there; whether he is aware that a number of fatal accidents have taken place at this crossing, and that on Easter Monday a girl lost her life by being pushed off the platform; and whether he will take steps to induce the Company to provide a bridge over the line and additional platform accommodation.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,): Yes Sir, and communications in reference thereto were made by the Board of Trade

    765
    to the railway company, who in December last informed the Board that it was their intention to build a road bridge and dispense with the crossing at the station. I am informed by the company that it has been necessary before proceeding with the work to complete certain negotiations with the local authorities and other persons interested, and to purchase land for the approaches to the bridge. With regard to the accommodation at the station named, no complaints that it is insufficient appear to have been made to the Board of Trade. The company's general manager states that he is assured that it is adequate for the traffic at the place. He adds that the unfortunate fatal accident which occurred to a girl at the station on Easter Monday was shown, by the evidence brought before the coroner's jury, to have been caused by her attempting to get into a train in motion, although all passengers had been warned to keep away until the train had come to a stand.

    IRELAND—WEIGHTS AND MEASURES —FINES AND FEES.
    SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the annual amount of the fees received by the authorities in Ireland for the testing of weights and measures and the average sum annually paid under the head of fines.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY TOR IRELAND (MR. G. W. BALFOUR,): The average annual amount of the fees received in respect of the past three years for comparison and stamping of weights and measures has been £4,334, and the average annual amount of the fines imposed during the same period in prosecutions for breaches of the Weights and Measures Acts has been.£189.

    LICENSING REGULATIONS AT NEWMARKET, CO. CORK.
    MR. FLYNN: I bog to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that notice was served upon all the licensed publicans of New market to keep their premises closed from eight o'clock a.m. on Sunday, 29th ult., to seven o'clock a.m. on Monday; is it necessary that such notices must be signed by two magistrates, and was Mr.
    766
    J. O. Harold, of Mallow, one of the magistrates who issued this order; and is Mr. Harold qualified to adjudicate at or act in New market Petty Sessions district; and, if not, on what authority did he act in issuing a magisterial order outside the district for which he is qualified.
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: section 21 of the Licensing Act of 1833 authorises two or more justices, where any riot shall be apprehended to take place, to order that all licensed premises situate within their respective jurisdictions shall be closed for such length of time as they may direct. I have called for a Report respecting the issuing of the notices referred to in the question, which only appeared on the Paper this morning, and in the absence of such Report I must ask the hon. Member to repeat the question on Monday.

    NATIONAL MEMORIAL TO MR. GLADSTONE.
    LORD BALCARRES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what pro gross has been made with the National Memorial to the late Mr. Gladstone.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Mr. Brock, the sculptor, informs me that the full-sized, clay model is far advanced, and he hopes to have it completed by the end of June. I am sorry to say that the delay in the completion of the model is due to the long and painful illness from which Mr. Brock suffered last year.

    QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION— ADDITIONAL JUDGES.
    MR. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware of the fact that the General Council of the Bar and the Incorporated Law Society have repeatedly recommended the appointment of additional judges of the Queen's Bench Division of the Supreme Court; that a joint Committee of those two associations representing the Bar and Solicitors of England was recently appointed to consider the arrears of legal business in that Division of the Supreme Court, and that after careful consideration of the report of that joint Committee a resolution was passed by the General Council of the Bar, and communicated to the Lord Chancellor, declaring that an addition to the judicial strength of the Queen's Bench Division was an imperative necessity in the interests of suitors and of the public; and

    767
    whether, having regard to the constant arrears of legal business in that division of the Supreme Court, and to the repeated recommendations of the associations named, Her Majesty's Government mean to take any steps to remedy the grievances mentioned.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am advised that the Lord Chancellor is prepared to consider any particulars that may be adduced as to the condition of business in the Queen's Bench Division. My information, however, does not support the statement in the question that there are constant arrears.

    ANCIENT IRISH GOLD ORNAMENTS.
    SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I bog to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will state how the case stands at present with reference to the Irish gold ornaments; if he is aware that an offer has been made by private individuals to repay to the British Museum the sum paid by the Museum for these ornaments; and what steps the Government intend to take for the purpose of restoring those ornaments to Ireland.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The question whether those ornaments wore treasure trove was submitted to the Law Officers of the Crown, both of England and Ireland, who have advised in the affirmative on the assumption that the facts as stated can be legally upheld. I have sent the opinion to the Trustees of the British Museum, and hope we shall arrive, without undue delay, at a settlement of this much vexed question.

  NEW BILL.
    GROCERS' LICENCES (SCOTLAND) ABOLITION.
    Bill to abolish Dealers' or Grocers' Licences in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Sir John Leng, Mr. John Wilson (Govan), Mr. Crombie, Mr. Dalziel, Captain Pirie, Mr. Souttar, Mr. Colville, and Sir William Wedderburn.
    GROCERS' LICENCES (SCOTLAND) ABOLITION BILL.
    "To abolish Dealers' or Grocers' Licences in Scotland," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 30th May, and to be printed. [Bill 187.]

SUPPLY [7TH ALLOTTED DAY].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1900-1901.
Motion made, and question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £275,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Salaries and Miscellaneous Charges of the War Office, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901.
MR. RUNCIMATST: In rising to move the reduction of the Vote in order to call attention to the publication of the Spion Kop despatches, I must apologise for rising to introduce such an important discussion so early in the afternoon, but it is due entirely to the reluctance of the Under Secretary for War to make his customary statement at the commencement. As the day for the discussion of the subject was fixed by the First Lord of the Treasury in order, as he said, that the Government might have a chance of relieving the serious misconception which has arisen in the public mind, I suggest that it would have been better had the statement of the Under Secretary for War been made at the beginning instead of later on in the discussion. In this instance the Government have passed through three stages—they were bold in publishing the despatches, and they were bold in appointing a day for the discussion, but they are not over bold in the making of their statement. I do not propose to criticise the officers who have been dealt with in the Spion Kop despatches, because the Commander-in-Chief in South Africa is the only proper person to do so. Nor am I the mouthpiece of any reckless disapproval of just censure, because I believe the benefits of such censure are so great that any relaxation of the standard of criticism would undoubtedly lower the standard of efficiency. I do not believe that any serious objection is taken to the publication of despatches apart from strategic and other similar considerations, because the public would be best satisfied when it felt it was receiving the fullest information consistent with the national interest. The circumstances of the pub-

769
lication of these despatches are, however, somewhat extraordinary, for the Government appear to have disregarded almost every other consideration except that of publicity. In passing, may I refer to another instance earlier in the campaign in reference to the same battle? A telegram from General Buller was published stating that he intended that night to deliver an attack on Spion Kop. The publication of that, which has never been explained, caused through one weary night an enormous amount of anxiety to thousands of our fellow-countrymen. The positions of the Commander-in-Chief and of the Secretary for War naturally come under our purview in considering this question. I believe the Commander-in-Chief is bound, in his covering despatch, to criticise the despatches he sends, or else for ever be silent. It is not only his duty, but it is necessary for the welfare of the service. We can congratulate the service that it has at its head in South Africa a man who can deliver criticisms so fearlessly, and who was so bold in standing by them. His responsibility, however, so far as the public knows, ends with the delivery of his opinions. Then the politician steps in, and it is the politician who has to say whether or not the despatches should be given to the public. It seems to me from the telegrams just published that the Secretary for War has deliberately attempted to throw the responsibility of publication on the Commander-in-Chief at the Cape. In his first telegram to Lord Roberts he says he cannot see his way to publishing all the documents. Then he makes the extraordinary statement that he would not be justified in publishing any without the concurrence of Lord Roberts; then he suggests that the matter might be referred by Lord Roberts to General Buller; and finally he makes the remarkable suggestion of an alternative set. Lord Roberts' reply was that he had made the enquiries and that General Buller refused to prepare a duplicate set, and Lord Roberts said he had no objection to the publication of the Papers which had been selected by the War Office. Lord Roberts could have no objection. It was the duty of the Secretary of State for War to have published or not to have published the despatches. Lord Roberts' opinion had been written with no timorous quill, and he had no right to be ashamed of having done his duty by the country. Then we
770
come to the telegram in which the Secretary of State takes the plunge. He alone is responsible for the publication. It is not the first time he has taken such a step, and on a former occasion when he took a similar step the general officer implicated was ordered home. On this occasion the Commander-in-Chief declares that three officers, all holding prominent positions with the forces on the Tugela, were guilty of errors. He said that one officer was presumptuous in taking a command, at a critical time, to which he was not entitled. He said that another officer showed errors of judgment and a want of administrative capacity, and that the officer in supreme command contributed to disaster by a disinclination to assert his authority. When this was published the public were naturally amazed. I do not know of any other occasion on which officers have been retained after being so ruthlessly criticised, and the public naturally expected that some strong action would follow. The only justification of the publication, so the public thought, would be the withdrawal of the officers censured. The public, however, were mistaken. A colonel has been retired on half pay, but the officer who proved himself presumptuous is still in command, and no doubt rightly so. The general officer who had been found wanting in administrative capacity has been sent to administer a largo portion of South African territory, and the officer in supreme command, we are glad to know, still retains his position. Presumably these officers are necessary to the Army in South Africa, and, that being so, the censure ought not to have been made public. If the object of the publication was to make clear the action of the Government, then it has signally failed, for throughout the length and breadth of the country the publication is unintelligible. If we are to have a new era of reckless publicity, why not subject the officials of the War Office who cripple our forces by want of administrative capacity to the same merciless exposure? The hon. Gentleman smiles at the responsibility which rests on the officials of the War Office. It is no light; responsibility, and during a campaign it is no loss than that of officers in the field. What are the precedents for the action of the Government? I do not know of any instance in which a Secretary of State has published a despatch con-

771
demning an officer and still allowed him to remain in command. It may not be a serious matter that the Government is landed in a dilemma. It has been so landed not once, but many times during its career. But it is of the utmost importance that the Government should do nothing to embarrass the officers at the front, and, in my opinion, the publication of these despatches is not only dangerous to discipline, but is calculated to lessen the confidence of our men in their officers. The intelligent confidence of our men in their officers is one of the proudest boasts of the British Army. What can be more risky than to tell the men that their officers cannot be depended on—that some do not exercise their authority when they should, and that others are lacking in administrative capacity? I well remember at the beginning of the session the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs saying that the action of the Opposition in expressing in their Amendment to the Address the belief that the Government had shown a lack of foresight and preparation tended to add to the difficulties of our officers in the field. I do not know of anything that any member of the Opposition has done that has added so much to the difficulties of our officers in the field as the action of the Government in having the denunciations of our officers placed before the men under their command. The feeling of the country has to a great extent gone out in sympathy to the officers, and rightly so, because, although we are but imperfectly aware of the hardships through which they pass in time of war, we are fully sensible of the courage, boldness, and resource which are necessary for the discharge of their duty, and we honour them for the service they have done for their country. I think it is only right that there should be some provision whereby our officers may be censured, and rightly censured, but they should not at the same time be subject to be placed in the pillory to be shot at by any amateur critic. who cares to try his hand. Another matter of the greatest importance has come to light during the course of to-day. In the telegrams which have been placed in our hands we find a somewhat startling disclosure—a disclosure of the utmost importance to the reputation of this country. We were all well aware that it was customary to
772
write duplicate despatches, one for the information of the War Office and the other for publication in the public prints. [Mr. WYNDHAM was understood to dissent.] The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I think I can quote one instance —when Lord Liverpool wrote to Lord Wellington in the Peninsula and requested him in future to write his despatches in duplicate in order that the information he sent home might not pass into the hands of the enemy. We knew that duplicate despatches had sometimes been used, but we see in the telegrams published this morning an attempt on the part of the Secretary of State for War to have a despatch made to order, and made to order so that the public at home should not know the truth. We owe a debt of gratitude to General Buller for having taken so strong a line. He has done much for us in the field, and he has shown that, apart from being a strong soldier, he is a strong man. We are pleased to think that General Buller put a spoke in the wheel. The serious part of this disclosure is that the public now are apt to lose confidence—I go further and say they will lose confidence—in the publications which are made by the War Office. It was said by an old diplomatist that language was given to men that they might disguise thought. The War Office appear to believe that despatches are published in order to conceal the truth. I believe that a system such as the Secretary of State shows some signs of initiating is derogatory to the reputation of any honourable Department, and it is for this reason, above all others, that I venture to propose the reduction of the Vote by £200.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A (Salaries) be induced by £200, in respect of the salary of the Secretary of State."—(Mr. Runciman.)
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. WYNDHAM,): I make no apology to the Committee for rising now, although I am aware that many hon. Members wish to take part in this debate. Indeed, I have been criticised for not having risen first, but there were good grounds for not adopting that course. This day was sot apart, not because, in the first instance, the Government wished to discuss the manner in which they had exercised their discretion

773
as to publication, but because it had been urged in some quarters inside the House, and in many quarters outside, that grave errors had been committed, and, as the Leader of the House declared, grave misconceptions existed as to the manner in which the Government had discharged their duty. Some of those misconceptions were known to the Government, but there might have been others, and I wished to hoar them all put forward before endeavouring the not too easy task of satisfying the Committee on this subject. There was one allegation at the end of the hon. Member's speech which I must take up without a moment's delay. He seemed to suggest that the Secretary of State for War had adopted an unprecedented course, and a course which reflected unfavourably upon the repute and honour of public men in this country. I doubt whether the hon. Member wished to make a charge as severe as was indeed embodied in the words which he used. He must know that my noble friend in this matter is altogether above any suspicion of being guilty of such conduct. The question of judgment, the question of error, the question of discretion are still open to argument, and I will argue them. But the question of personal honour and rectitude is not, I think, open to argument.
MR. RUNCIMAN: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to interpose. I did not wish to make any imputation against the personal honour of the Secretary of State.
MR. WYNDHAM: I will not pursue this dialectical controversy. The hon. Member told us that in past history there were precedents for the writing of duplicate despatches. It has been my duty during the last few days to study the question, and I can find no such precedents. The hon. Member has cited the letter from Lord Liverpool to the Duke of Wellington, but he has not cited the reply which was made more than once by the Duke of Wellington. This difficulty has arisen before. There has always been a difficulty about the question of the publication of despatches. Wars, I am glad to say, are happily not too frequent, and in the intervals between them we forget the old difficulties. While Wellington was in command in the Peninsula this very question was
774
threshed out again and again. On 23rd May, 1811, the Duke of Wellington wrote to Lord Liverpool—
"I am obliged to you for your letter of the 7th regarding the publication of my despatches. I generally confine myself to a relation of facts, and seldom give any opinion upon them, and always send the same despatches to the Portuguese Government. … I then mark in the Portuguese despatch those facts which, in my opinion, ought not to be published; but that opinion goes no further than to what appears to me that it would be inconvenient that the enemy should obtain a knowledge of, and seldom to circumstances which it would be desirable to withhold from the knowledge of the public. I shall, with your Lordship's permission, adopt the same practice with my despatches to you, and mark with a pencil in the margin those parts which, in my opinion, ought not to be published, leaving it to you afterwards to omit such other parts as you may think proper."
That disposes of the question of duplicate despatches. The hon. Member has brought two subjects before us this afternoon. First, there is the general question of the publication of despatches and the obligation which rests upon the Government to publish so much as may be made public consistently with the public interest; and, again, there is the discretion which is vested in the Government of omitting all such parts as do not fulfil that condition. The hon. Member has animadverted not only upon the course which the Government have pursued in regard to the Spion Kop despatches, but generally on the course followed since the beginning of the war in giving information to the public. That is a large question, which we shall have to consider. The hon. Member has also brought forward with great force, clearness, and cogency the more particular charge—namely, as to whether the Government were well advised in publishing the despatches on the operations of Spion Kop. That subject is in itself painful; and whilst I may be allowed to compliment the hon. Member, who, I believe, has never addressed the House before, upon the force and clearness of his speech, I am grateful, and we shall all feel grateful to him for having dealt with this very difficult and painful subject with so much tact and with so much consideration for all those who are interested in it. The tenor and trend of his speech, however, does show that many misconceptions have already been dispersed; many misconceptions which were rife a fortnight ago are now set upon one side

775
and forgotten. It is true that a fortnight ago there were many people who believed that criticism by Lord Roberts or Sir Redvers Buller on Lord Methuen in respect of Magersfontein had been deliberately suppressed by the Government. It may be that there are some who still believe it, although I have said, and now say again, that that is not the case, and that there has been no criticism by Lord Roberts or Sir Redvers Buller on the dispositions made by Lord Methuen at the battle of Magersfontein. Then there have been criticisms to the effect that the Spion Kop despatches were withheld for some time; that they were then published to meet a popular demand, and published without any reference to Lord Roberts or Sir Redvers Buller. That misconception has gone. I am glad those misconceptions have gone, because what remains? A perfectly fair point, which the hon. Member has put fairly and clearly—Why did the Government publish the criticism on Sir Redvers Buller if it was intended to leave him in so important a command? It is desirable that all this cobweb of suspicion of base motives and favouritism and the like should have evaporated and disappeared, and that we should be arraigned upon a specific and legitimate charge—the charge that, in the exercise of the discretion vested in the Government, we have made an error of judgment. Those who listened to the hon. Member's speech will allow me to claim that that only is the charge which I have now to meet. The first question is a short question, but it is not a simple question. It may be called a plain question; it may be expected that I shall give what is called a plain answer. But a plain answer is not necessarily a short answer. I am ready to give a plain answer, an answer as to the meaning of which there can be no doubt. But I cannot give a short answer, and that being so, I lay myself under an initial disadvantage when our judgment is criticised and our aims are considered. For in relation to the tragic incident of Spion Kop it is natural to desire some simple and plain explanation which would remove all the evil consequences of that disaster. That cannot be the case. You cannot lose 1,600 men in a battle, you cannot evacuate a position won by the heroism of British troops, you cannot lose the fruits of their heroism, you cannot see the Army discouraged by
776
this unexpected failure, and expect to have no evil consequences. All you can do is to choose between such evil consequences as follow from defining and explaining the nature of the case which led to that disappointment and the evil consequences which follow if you withhold altogether from the public a reasoned account of these disasters and the causes which led to them given by the only man who, according to the hon. Member opposite, is in a position to judge of them. That is all that is in debate. There is no doubt as to the Government's responsibility in this matter; it is explicitly laid down in the Queen's Regulations that the Government is responsible. The passage reads—
"It will rest with the Secretary of State for War, acting upon the advice of the Commander-in-Chief, to determine what reports and despatches are or are not to be made public and the manner in which those to be published are to be made generally known."
There is no doubt about that; I accept that fully on behalf of the Government. How have we exercised that discretion? I say you cannot isolate the Spion Kop despatches and their publication from other despatches and the publication of other despatches. You can say that this was a novel case. It was novel in many of its features; but you cannot say it was so novel that we are to treat it as we have not treated all previous battles and all previous cases of publication in this war-. You cannot say it is so novel that you are to treat it as no such incident has ever been treated in the history of a hundred years, because if you rest so unusual an action on the plea of novelty there is always something novel in every difficulty which presents itself to man, and therefore the next general and the next Government who found themselves in doubt and difficulty would ride off' upon that precedent and would say:
"This is an exception; I mean to break through the Queen's Regulations; I mean to break through the tradition of a hundred years; I mean to break through all those usages of public life which prevail in this country." What have we done? Briefly, in the course of this war we have published ten despatches; we published seven in the London Gazette of 26th January, two in the Gazette of 16th March, and one in the Gazette of 17th April. In the Gazette of 26th January we published a despatch

777
from Sir Redvers Buller, dated 9th November, covering Sir George White's account of the operation which issued in the investment of Ladysmith; we published a despatch, dated 12th December, covering Lord Methuen's account of the engagements at Belmont and Enslin, and a despatch from Sir Redvers Buller, dated 21st December, covering Lord Methuen's account of the battle of Modder River. Sir Redvers Buller made no comment on any of these reports which he forwarded. We published a despatch, dated 22nd November, in which Sir Redvers Buller forwarded the report made by General Hildyard of the action at Willow Grange. In that case he did comment on the action favourably. We published a despatch of 28th December forwarding General Miles's account of the action at Zoutspans Drift. In this case Sir Redvers Buller did comment unfavourably—not, of course, to the extent of the censure or length of the criticism as in this last case, but he did animadvert in very pungent terms on the neglect of scouting on the part of English officers. In the same Gazette we published two despatches from Sir Redvers Buller on the action at Colenso, which he personally conducted, and of course there was no comment by him on his own despatch. In the Gazette of 16th March we published Lord Roberts's despatch covering Lord Methuen's account of the battle of Magersfontein without comment, and we published Lord Roberts's despatch covering General Gatacre's account of the battle of Stormberg with comments. In the Gazette, of 17th April, we published the Spion Kop despatches. Now, I would like the Committee to put themselves in the place of the Government, and to take the situation of the Government on 5th January, the date upon which the first telegram given to elucidate the action of the Government was despatched. All these ten actions, with the single exception of the action at Spion Kop, had then been fought, some of them a long time since, and yet we had received no despatch with respect of any except the earliest two — the despatch of 9th November, dealing with the operations before the investment of Ladysmith, and the despatch of November 22nd dealing with the action at Willow Grange. We were in that position that there seemed an unusual silence. As the facts became known, a great part of that was explained.
778
There were on their way at that time despatches dealing with five of these actions; and the first despatch of Lord Methuen dealing with the action at Magersfontein. We were, however, in the position of a Government who had received no formal intelligence of these actions, and that being so, we sent a telegram pointing out that it was usual and proper and right that formal despatches should be sent upon every action of that kind. Well, most of them were on their way. The next incident was that the first account given by Lord Methuen of the action at Magersfontein reached the Government early in February. Now, that account by Lord Methuen deviated more than some of the earlier despatches we had received from the prescribed form of despatch laid down in the Queen's Regulations. Pedantry is always offensive; it is never more so than when it is applied to matters which stirred our feelings and brought bereavement and sorrow to many homes, and I may be charged with pedantry if I ask the Committee to consider the Queen's Regulations on the subject of despatches; but I do not think I shall be justly charged, because these regulations do embody the ripe fruit of 100 years experience, and are founded upon the tradition of the Duke of Wellington and the generals who fought in the Crimea, and on common sense which can bear the changes of time. Those regulations say that a despatch containing a concise description of every action or every specific military operation, irrespective of its magnitude, will invariably be written by the senior officer actually present on the occasion. To enable him to do this, reports describing the action taken by their respective commands will be furnished to him by officers commanding divisions or brigades, and by I such other officers as he may specially call upon. These reports will not accompany the despatch, the senior officer being alone responsible for rendering the Secretary of State for War an account of the operation, and therefore the Report will invariably be written by the officer in chief command. That is based upon precedent—the precedent of the Duke of Wellington, who, time and again, in his! letters pointed out that the senior officer was the only person who could write a despatch for publication. And there is good reason for the regulation. The senior officer in actual command enjoys a

779
combination of two advantages which nobody else can enjoy. He is on the spot in chief command, and he sees all the reports and all the correspondence, and all the messages sent on the field of operations, and is therefore the only person who has all the evidence, and is able to form a judgment on that evidence in the light of his experience of the actual conditions which exist. That being so, I am prepared to defend this regulation that the report should be a proper, concise account given by the officer in senior command on the spot. If we take the alternative—to publish not only the report of the senior officer, but all the documents on which he has based his judgment, then I find that in publishing the despatches of Sir Charles Warren and Sir Redvers Buller we ought also to have published everything that was written by all the other officers. [HON. MEMBERS: No!] I am glad to hear that "No," because the whole charge that the Government is keeping something back is based upon their conforming with the Queen's Regulations.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: It is nothing of the kind.
MR. WYNDHAM: The hon. Member will bear with me. I think I may be allowed to state the case in my own way. The charge has been made that, as we wished to remove misconception, we ought to have made a clean breast of it and to have published the forty-five pages of printed matter which came back in connexion with the Spion Kop operations. [HON. MEMBERS: No, no!] Then I hope the charge will not be made that we have kept anything back.
MR. DILLON: You held back Lord Methuen's first despatch.
MR. WYNDHAM: I will deal with that. I have dealt with the Queen's Regulations and tried to defend the Government for supporting the Commander-in-Chief in his attempt to put the question of despatches on a proper basis. Now Lord Methuen's first account of Magersfontein was accompanied by all the subsidiary documents. The reports of his brigadiers and of other officers were put down there, and that put upon the Government the duty of selecting out of that collection of documents the one that
780
was the despatch. It was felt, and rightly felt, that it was proper to direct Lord Methuen's attention to the Queen's Regulations, and to ask him to do what is actually laid down in these regulations— that is, himself to send his own report and not to put in all the subsidiary documents. It may very likely be and probably was to save time that the despatch and the report were sent together, but in this case it was necessary to lay down very definitely what the form of the despatch ought to be. That is why, and that is the only reason why, the Government sent that telegram which appears in the second elucidatory note — namely, the telegram from Lord Wolseley, the gist of which has already been read to the House. That was the situation on 6th February. The Government accepted fully the responsibility for publication or non-publication. On 9th March we received the: Magersfontein despatch, the Stormberg despatch, and the Spion Kop despatch. The Spion Kop despatch fulfilled to the letter the conditions prescribed in the next paragraph of the Queen's Regulations. In that paragraph it is laid down that, when; the senior officer in command is present, but does not assume actual command, then one of two things is to happen—either he, which in the case of Spion Kop would be Sir R. Buller, is to write the single narrative account, or the officer in actual command, in this ease Sir C. Warren, is to write the account, which the senior officer, Sir R. Buller, is to accompany by a covering despatch, in which he is to express his own opinion of the manner in which the operations have been carried out. By that mail we received not only the Report of Sir C. Warren on the whole of the operations with regard to the taking and the evacuation of Spion Kop, but two covering despatches, from Sir R. Buller and Lord Roberts, and we received besides twenty considerable documents, making altogether forty-five pages of printed matter. What was the course to pursue? It will hardly be argued that the Commander-in-Chief is not to comment upon such despatches. Lord Roberts was clearly right, and he discharged his duty with courage and ability. What course, then, was open to the Government? There was one impossible course —namely, not to exercise the discretion vested in the Government, and to publish all these documents, many of which were not despatches, and were never intended

781
to be treated as despatches. Although it was quite clear that the two reports by Sir C. Warren and the covering despatches of Sir R. Buller and Lord Roberts were despatches, if nothing else was, my noble friend Lord Lansdowne suggested that, in order to take them out of this context clearly and show them to the world as they were, Sir R. Buller might with advantage pursue the alternative course laid down—namely, to write one definite, connected account of the whole situation. That seems to have excited a good deal of surprise; but for my part I think there is a good deal to be said for it. Although that and that only was intended for publication and not the accompanying reports from a number of other generals, still it was just as well that there should be no misconception between the Government at home and the generals abroad. I cannot for the life of me see that any presumption can be made against the Government for having said these are the five documents which clearly ought to be published, or if you do not publish them, there is only the other course— which is, that Sir R. Buller should write one connected narrative account of the whole. That is the whole story of these telegraphic communications—that and nothing else. Let not hon. Members think I intend to burke the question as to whether there should be any publication; what I am trying to do as a preliminary stage in my argument is to show that, if there was to be any publication, that was the proper publication; and that is why we considered it was only proper to advise the general officers in South Africa that we intended to publish the despatches, and point out that there was the alternative course. I dismiss, then, the case of publishing everything, and I come to the last charge—namely, that the Government ought to have published nothing. That is quite open to argument. But it would have been a very serious decision to take and one for which there is no precedent whatever. I quite understand what hon. Members mean when they say the course we did take is unprecedented. But I think we may say without vainglory that there are not many precedents in our history for a reverse in which 1,600 casualties are incurred and which ends abortively. You have to search history rather closely to find anything of the kind at all; but where anything of
782
the kind has happened the tendency has been to publish rather more than less. The only two occasions which are at all comparable to this occurred during the Afghan War of 1879 and 1880, the operations in which General Massey was engaged at the end of 1879, and those which resulted in the overwhelming disaster at Maiwand; and then there was no suppression, there was full publication and ample criticism, and even criticism on the ground of the publication being too meagre and unsatisfactory. So that the only precedents that exist of reverses are in favour of publication and not of suppression. To suggest that in such an important affair as that at Spion Kop the despatches could be covered over and left in the hope that they might be dropped, is contrary to all precedent. I do not rest myself on the Queen's Regulations, which may be thought pedantic. I do not rest myself even on precedent, although the precedents are all on my side; the case of the Government is, that because of the features of the case it was the right course to publish what they did—that, and nothing more. We are told that in publishing what has been published we have shaken the confidence of the troops who compose the army in Natal. That is not our view. Who is in the best position to decide what would tend to shake or confirm the confidence of the troops? In the opinion of the Government——
MR. DILLON: Sir Redvers Buller.
MR. WYNDHAM: Yes; Sir R. Buller sent home his despatch and said he did not wish a word of it to be altered.
MR. DILLON: He never said he wanted it published.
MR. WYNDHAM: If hon. Members who applaud, and justly applaud, the sentiment which actuated Sir R. Buller think that he made a show of great candour and magnanimity in the firm belief that nobody would ever know what he had written, I can only say that I will not associate myself with what I feel to be an utter and complete misconception of the typical characteristics of Sir R. Buller.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No one has said it or suggested it.
MR. WYNDHAM: But we must get this down to a point. Did Sir R. Buller's report on the Spion Kop operations tend to confirm or shake the confidence of his troops, or was the report of Field-Marshal Lord Roberts likely to do harm or good to the troops? That is the whole point, and I do not think it at all unreasonable to believe—in fact, I am persuaded—that both Sir R. Buller and Field-Marshal Lord Roberts intended these despatches for publication, and that they sent them home for publication in the firm belief that they would do good and not harm.
AN HON. MEMBER: Why?
MR. WYNDHAM: Why? I will tell the Committee why. Here is a large army, divided up into a great many different commands, which makes great efforts and which fails. Do you suppose that there was no discouragement, no recrimination, extending right down to the rank and file? Do you suppose that round the camp fires the men did not argue and say, "It was not the fault of our general, but yours?" Do you suppose that that army objects to a despatch which says the scheme was a good one, and that it ought to have succeeded? Does it pay a general who remains in command to leave it in doubt whether his strategy was altogether at fault? Does it do him harm to decide, as Lord Robert does, five points in his favour against one which is criticism, though not what I should call censure? We get into the habit of shortening for the purposes of debate our impressions of things which we have read, and we hear it said, You keep a general in important command who has been severely censured by the Commander-in-Chief. Is the censure severe? In the last paragraph Lord Roberts lays it down that the attempt described was well devised. He agrees with Sir Redvers Buller in thinking it ought to have succeeded. He attributes the failure to the difficulties of the ground and the commanding positions of the enemy. He attributes the failure in part to errors of judgment on the part of Sir Charles Warren, and in part to the fact that Colonel Thorneycroft evacuated the position. But he says as against those five points that the failure was also due to Sir Redvers Buller's disinclination to assert his authority and see that what he
784
thought best was done. Now, is it likely that the confidence of the troops will be shaken by their being told that their general's plan was good, that his judgment was right, but that he ought to have resumed command at an earlier moment? Is it not more likely that those troops will say, "Our General, Sir Redvers Buller was right. He was unlucky"? Is it not likely that the troops under Clery, Barton, Hildyard, Thorneycroft, and Coke will say, "Thank goodness it was not the fault of our man, he was all right"? Is it fair to leave 40,000 or 50,000 men in doubt and in a state of suspicion as to what the obscure and occult causes were that led to failure? The men under Sir Redvers Buller will follow him in the future as they followed him when he led them to victory at Ladysmith. I have exhausted all the arguments which are at my command, and, having quoted the censure upon Sir Charles Warren, I must be allowed to say a word about that general officer. I believe hon. Members will realise how distasteful it is to me, I will not say to pass any appreciation upon the merits or failures of officers, but even to quote them when they have been passed by those who are competent and in a position to criticise. To say that Sir Charles Warren failed in a large independent command is not to say, as some of the public seem to think, that he is not a good soldier or an able man. Are we to forget all his past services? Does it follow that he is not, perhaps, the very best man for performing some other task—and even some other military task? I would like to take this opportunity of pointing out to the Committee, and, if I may, to the public, how captious and arbitrary many of our judgments must seem to the officers who are serving in South Africa. We ask questions about Spion Kop and questions about Koorn Spruit. Nobody has asked whether there are despatches on the relief of Kimberley, on the relief of Lady-smith, on General French's operations about Colesberg, and all those days and weeks and months of endurance and heroism and professional ability displayed in all ranks—that, apparently, excites no curiosity in this country—(cries of "Oh!") —apparently, I mean, to the men who are out there. It is not because we are callous to their successes. There is in this country a passion for justice, and we wish to put the saddle, as we say, on the

785
right back when there has been any error or fault; but that passion for justice often carries us too far. It is out of our power to anticipate the work that shall be done on the day of judgment. We have not all the information at our hand. We read in the papers that General Hamilton has been fighting for seven days. Will anybody ever know in this country what officers did well in all ranks during each one of those seven days? Never. Take the case of two officers on all fours with them—who have shown great ability, courage, and zeal for years. In the opinion of some superior officer one of these is thought not to be quite fitted for a particular and greater task entrusted to him. That officer is removed, with all consideration for his feelings. He is given some other task which he can fitly perform. Not a word is said. Another officer with the same record and great ability has a failure. At once a hue and cry is raised, and any suggestion that he should be given other work that he would be quite fitted to do is scouted by the public and the press of this country. [Cries of "No, no!" and "Hear, hear!"] I say it is so. I say that charges are brought against officers for incompetence which are couched in such general language as to be understood in South Africa to mean that those officers are incompetent and careless men, who have not done good service to their country. That is what I have to say upon Sir Charles Warren. I apologise to the Committee for making that digression, but it has been in my heart to make it many days, for I know how these strictures in the press are felt by officers of every rank in South Africa. As to Sir Redvers Buller, I feel that to attempt an apology in his behalf would be the greatest insult to so great a man, who has deserved so well of his country. I have analysed, I think quite fairly, the sole paragraph which criticises his operations in the neighbourhood of Spion Kop, and I feel sure that the troops who follow him now and have followed him to victory will be glad to know that his strategy has been praised and approved by the Commander-in-Chief. That is all I need say, or ought to say, about this great man who has done so much for all of us. I have tried to show what the course of the Government has been. They decided a difficult matter in accordance with their deliberate conviction, on their
786
sole responsibility, though, no doubt, they were confirmed in the opinion at which they had arrived by the unmistakable indication of Lord Roberts's first intentions, which he subsequently reaffirmed in the course of his telegraphic correspondence. Whether we have judged rightly or wrongly in this difficult matter, it is for this Committee, it is, perhaps, for posterity, guided by the historian, ultimately to determine. But I am quite certain that Sir Redvers Buller —that man who in 1885 brought back and saved from destruction the column which failed to relieve Khartoum, and who did relieve Ladysmith, turning "the winter of our discontent" into an explosion of national rejoicing—I am sure he will never be erased from the admiration of his country.
MR. ASQUITH: The surprise, Sir, and, indeed, I think I may say the consternation, with which the publication of these despatches in the middle of the Easter recess was received by men of all classes and parties in this country will not, I am certain, be substantially diminished by the official apology which the Under Secretary has offered to-night. The position of the Government in this matter appeared to outsiders to be from the first manifestly and demonstrably untenable. But how untenable it was no one could realise until to-day, after the publication of the telegrams which were circulated this morning, and after witnessing the spectacle which we have witnessed during the last half-hour of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for War, whom we all know to be a most accomplished and, when his materials allow it, a most cogent speaker, losing himself—I hope I am not using disrespectful language — during a great part of his speech in a labyrinth of irrelevance, labouring points which have never been seriously in controversy, and finally taking refuge in the astounding proposition that the publication of these adverse comments and criticisms by the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief in South Africa is calculated to stimulate the confidence of the troops. There is one point, and I am sorry to say only one, in the hon. Gentleman's speech with which I find myself in complete and unqualified agreement. I refer to his frank acknowledgment that it is upon the shoulders of

787
the Government, and of the Government alone, that there rests the sole and undivided responsibility for this piece of administrative indiscretion. I wish I could say the same, that I could express anything like the same agreement with the hon. Gentleman's attempt—I cannot say to vindicate, but to excuse and apologise for the unhappy suggestion made by the Secretary of State to Sir Redvers Buller that he should withdraw the Report written by him at the time and upon the spot, and that after an interval of two months he should substitute for it some document which could be presented, I will not say with greater complacency, but at any rate with less uneasiness, by the War Office to the public. Sir Redvers Buller's refusal to entertain that suggestion has won universal commendation in this country outside the walls of the War Office, and I was astonished, I confess, to hear the use which the hon. Gentleman made of that refusal towards the close of his speech. Sir Redvers Buller said, and said most properly, "What I have written I have written; I am not going to rewrite it for you or anybody else." Did that in any way qualify or diminish the responsibility of the Government and the Government alone for the publication at the time and under the circumstances in which it was done? What is a despatch? The hon. Gentleman has read us a number of extracts from the Queen's Regulations on what is the function of a despatch, or what is supposed to be the function of a despatch. By everybody outside the War Office a despatch is intended to be a record of the fresh and vivid impression of the man who wrote it upon the operations in which he has been engaged. It is not intended to be a document produced after the lapse of weeks, or even months, when circumstances may have completely changed, when a new situation has developed itself which cannot fail to react upon the memory and judgment even of the most impartial man. It is not intended, I say, to be a document produced under those circumstances as a smooth and readable narrative that can be submitted to the public without fear of criticism or censure. I pass from that, which, after all, lies only on the fringe of the question, to the substantial questions raised by my hon. friend the Member for Oldham, and which the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary has left at this
788
moment completely unanswered. The question, let me remind him, is this— Why were these despatches published on the 16th April? The circumstances are very familiar to the Committee, but let me recall them in a couple of sentences. The operations described in the despatch took place towards the end of January. Reports from General Buller and General Warren and the covering despatch of Lord Roberts were written in the very early part of February. Those documents had been six weeks in the possession of the Government before they were published in the London Gazette. They were nineteen days—to be quite exact, from the 9th to the 28th March—in the possession of the Government before they ever addressed any inquiry to Lord Roberts on the subject. The hon. Gentleman has referred to previous despatches from other generals, and particularly Sir Redvers Buller himself, at earlier stages of the campaign. With the single exception of Lord Roberts's censure on General Gatacre, which was very speedily followed by General Gatacre's supersession and recall, there is nothing in point in any of the preceding despatches. A good deal might be said as to the expediency of publishing that despatch, and if it was not intended to be made the foundation of disciplinary action against General Gatacre the Government which published it are exposed to precisely the same censure, which we are asking the House to pass to-night. That explanation is impossible, and has no relation whatever in point of gravity and character to the matter now under consideration. Now, Sir, what were those despatches? Let me remind the House There were the two reports of the general who directed the operations and the general in supreme command, in which they took totally irreconcilable views both as to the wisdom of what was done or attempted to be done and as to the apportionment of the praise or blame among the officers concerned. Those two reports are enclosed in a covering despatch from the Commander-in-Chief, who censures, in the first place, a subordinate officer for assuming a responsibility which did not belong to him; in the second place, the general in immediate direction of the operations for incapacity in the discharge of the responbility undoubtedly cast upon him; and, in the third place, the general in supreme command for abnegating the responsibility

789
he ought to have assumed. That is, I think, a fair summary of Lord Roberts's despatch. Now, Sir, I need not say I am not going to discuss—I do not think the House of Commons is a fit place to discuss—the justice or wisdom of Lord Roberts's criticism. I can imagine no tribunal less qualified to deal with military questions than the House of Commons, and for the purposes of argument I will assume, and not merely from a controversial point of view, but from full belief and conviction, that the censures passed by Lord Roberts were well justified by the circumstances of the case. Why were they published? What object was served, or intended to be served, by the Government when, after six weeks of deliberation, they published these censures? To my mind—perhaps I have not a sufficiently elastic imagination—there are two grounds, and only two conceivable grounds, on which such publication has been or could be justified. The most obvious one is that it was intended to be a preliminary step to disciplinary action. I doubt very much whether, even from that point of view, the publication is warranted by practice or usage. I am not aware of any precedent, and the hon. Gentleman did not cite one; but, at any rate, it may well be that the Government, if they were going to take disciplinary action against the officers whose judgment was impugned by Lord Roberts, thought it necessary in order to remove misconception of an invidious character and to justify themselves in the eyes of the public, to show that they were acting on the deliberate and well-considered opinion of a man who so thoroughly enjoyed the confidence of the public as Lord Roberts. But this cannot be, and admittedly it is not so, for the only officer whose conduct was impugned by Lord Roberts who has been touched by the Government at all is Sir Charles Warren. The hon. Gentleman opposite spoke of a hue and cry having been raised against Sir Charles Warren. But who raised that hue and cry? It was raised by the publication of this despatch, which let the whole world know that in the deliberate opinion of Lord Roberts Sir Charles Warren had been guilty at a most critical time of a want of administrative capacity. That it was, and that alone, that raised the hue and cry. I agree with the hon. Member for Oldham that it is a little remarkable
790
that when Lord Roberts had singled out as the most notable defect in Sir Charles Warren's conduct of these operations a want of administrative capacity, he was at once put into an administrative post. It is not alleged by the hon. Gentleman that as regards the other officers concerned—Sir Redvers Buller and Colonel Thorneycroft —any action was then or is now contemplated of a similar kind. Well, then, I venture to say that, notwithstanding the paradoxical proposition with which the hon. Gentleman concluded his speech, whether there be precedent or not—I, for my part, do not believe there is any—for publishing the censure by a Commander-in-Chief on subordinate officers whom at the time you intended to retain in positions of responsibility in which they were criticised, no such precedent has been produced. But whether there be precedent or not, I say that it is flying in the face of common sense to deny that action of that kind must impair the prestige, weaken the authority, and lessen the reputation of those officers among the men over whom they are placed, and to that extent injure the public service of the country. If the transaction cannot be justified on that ground, is there any other ground? There is another, not one which would occur to me, but which has been adumbrated in the earlier apologies of the Ministers who have dealt with this question— namely, that it is part of the policy of taking the country into your confidence. I think Her Majesty's Government are indebted for that formula to the ingenious rhetoric of the President of the Board of Agriculture. At first hearing it has a fine democratic ring. It is only the development in another sphere of a principle laid down, I think, by no less an authority than the Prime Minister himself on an early night in the session. He was dealing then with what was called the new diplomacy. The new diplomacy, which accompanies the most delicate negotiations by a running commentary of public speech, is now to be supplemented, under the same auspices, by the new strategy, which, while your operations are still going on in the field, publishes not merely to your own fellow-countrymen but to the whole civilised world that can read the disagreeable things one general is saying of another. I venture to say that that is a form of confidence for which the country does not

791
ask. There have been other incidents in this very war in respect to which, so far as our present information goes—I speak subject to correction—that confidence has not been shown by the Government, at any rate with anything like the lavishness displayed on the present occasion. The hon. Gentleman has referred at considerable length to the battle of Magersfontein, and I listened very carefully to what he said. I gather from what he said that Lord Methuen, in the first instance, sent home a despatch which was not correct in form, and which did not comply entirely with the somewhat exacting requirements of the Queen's Regulations. It contained either too many documents or too few, and the paragraphs were not properly numbered. so it was sent back to him, and after the lapse of a considerable interval Lord Methuen got his despatch into shape, he dotted the "is" and put in the commas in their proper places, and it was returned to this country without any comment of any sort or kind from the Commander-in-Chief. I am not complaining in the least of the Government for not publishing more. Our complaint is that they have published too much; but if they are to go on the principle of taking the country into their confidence—in other words, of eliciting from officers in command information on those points as to which the public mind is anxious or embarrassed—I do not think there is any incident in this campaign which demands a larger exercise of that process of investigation than the battle of Magersfontein. I do not wish, of course, to enter into debate on that subject, but it would be affectation to pretend that as regards the conduct of that battle there is not in all parts of the country, and more particularly in that part of the country which I have the honour to represent, a feeling of painful and, I will venture to say, of not illegitimate curiosity, which hardly any other incident of the campaign has aroused. It is a very striking thing indeed that while we have this ample and lavish disclosure of the comments and censures passed by the Commander-in-Chief on the conduct of the operations at Spion Kop, neither his opinion upon the battle of Magersfontein nor that of Sir Redvers Buller, who was in supreme command at the time, appears to have been invited by the Government, and certainly no expression of opinion has been given
792
or published to the world. It was not asked for, and is not to be asked for now. I am not an advocate of the policy of confidence. I think that confidence in the sense in which it is used by the President of the Board of Agriculture is very much misplaced in this instance. But if you are to have confidence it must not be piecemeal. The curtain ought not to be raised and dropped in this fashion. The confidence ought to be thoroughgoing and to extend over the whole field of operations. Now, Sir, I have examined the only two hypotheses which anybody has yet ventured to put forward to justify the action of the Government, and I have shown as regards the one that the Government do not themselves suggest it, and as regards the other that it is disproved by their own conduct, and has not been practised in other cases. This is a very serious matter, not merely as regards the particular incident concerned, but also as regards the future conduct of the war and the general interests of the public service. There were people who used to say of democracy in the old days that its ignorance, its impatience of delay, and its restless desire for immediate results, rendered it incapable of bearing the strain of the long and large operations of a great campaign. It has not been so with our people to-day. It is not that their patience has not been severely tried; it is not that they have not had to watch one after another the most confident predictions of the most trusted experts falsified by events; it is not that they have not time after time had to see expectation fade into hope, and at certain moments hope itself almost taking the colour of despair. Through all those trying vicissitudes they have kept their head and kept their heart. They are entitled, therefore, to ask that the Government shall not fall behind them, and that it shall not by its action stimulate doubt, create suspicion, and destroy or impair the confidence of our troops who are maintaining the honour of the country in the field. I believe if the attitude of the country, their judgment upon this matter, and their advice to the Government could be expressed in a sentence it would be to this effect: Choose the best men you can, supply them with the best material you can get, give them a free hand, and until their task is done re-

793
serve alike your censures and your rewards.
SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD (Somersetshire, Wellington): There is no longer any misconception in regard to this matter either in the House or in the country. It is quite true that there was misconception, but it no longer exists. We understood that Government had a case; we know now that they have no case. The questions we have to consider this afternoon are practically two. The first question is as to the wisdom of the Government in publishing these despatches, and whether their publication was for the good of the country; and the second question is as to how far the Government were right or wrong in associating Lord Roberts and Sir Redvers Buller with those responsible for the publication of these despatches. I answer those questions emphatically in the negative. We have heard a good deal about the Queen's Regulations, but I would refer my hon. friend the Under Secretary for War to paragraph 410 of the Regulations, which distinctly lays down what the rule is upon this subject. Here we have a general officer commanding 30,000 British troops publicly censured in the face of his whole army, in the face of his own country, and in the face of the world. One of the very first essentials of success in war is that the troops should have confidence in their leader. Such a censure as that which has been published and passed upon Sir Redvers Buller is serious enough in times of peace, but the case is even worse in time of war. It not only shakes the confidence of the troops in Sir Redvers Buller, but it also tends to weaken and undermine the authority of Lord Roberts. While some of General Buller's troops may have lost confidence in him, a great many of them will remain absolutely devoted to their leader, and they will stick to him through thick and thin. But what will be their view in regard to the Field-Marshal commanding in South Africa. Therefore, the publication of these despatches must tend to undermine Lord Roberts' authority in that way over those troops who are attached to their general, and who believe that nothing Sir Redvers Buller does can be wrong, and that nothing has been wrong. In this way it will militate against the success of our arms in
794
South Africa. I am not saying for a moment that all despatches should be published, for it is obvious that there are many despatches which cannot be always made public, but what I do say is, that when despatches are published they should be a true account of the transactions. I do not say that the general officer commanding must never be censured, but I do say that when he is censured in a despatch, it should be treated as in the nature of a confidential document, and certainly should not be made public during the war. In regard to the referring of these despatches to Lord Roberts, I again desire to call my hon. friend's attention to Paragraph 2066, where he will find it stated that all despatches are to be published at the discretion of the Secretary of State for War acting on the advice of the Commander-in-Chief. There is nothing in this regulation about referring the question to the general in command, and the responsibility for the publication of despatches rests upon the Secretary of State for War and the Commander-in-Chief, and upon them alone. They have no business to refer this question to Lord Roberts, and this reference to Lord Roberts has given the impression to a great many people in this country that it was simply an endeavour on the part of the War Office to shift the responsibility on to the shoulders of the most popular general in this country. I think that was a most unwise thing to do, and it was done against the Queen's Regulations. Are we to understand that the military heads of the War Department are to be the only persons not bound by the Regulations of the Queen? I can only say that to mo this seems to be one more instance of that curious mixture of want of confidence in themselves on the one hand, and over assurance on the other, which seems to have fatally dogged the steps of the Government and to have characterised their action throughout the conduct of this war. When I say that the Government had no right to refer these despatches to Lord Roberts, it is obvious that it was not only wrong but also useless. Lord Roberts could not refuse to have the despatches published, because it might then have been said that he was afraid to say to a man's face what he had said behind his back. But if it was impossible for Lord Roberts to have refused, it was still more impossible for

795
Sir Redvers Buller to refuse. I offer no opinion as to Sir Redvers Buller's capacity as a soldier, but, at all events, I do know that he happens to be a gentleman. He was asked to rewrite a despatch which he had already sent home, and to look at the matter, not with regard to what had happened, but with regard to what had not happened. He was asked to rewrite—
MR. WYNDHAM: No, he was not.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: He was asked to suppress what happened.
SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD: He was asked to rewrite the despatch because what he had already sent home, in the opinion of the Government, was not fit for publication.
MR. WYNDHAM: My hon. and gallant friend will see that I cannot allow that statement to pass. Whether the decision of the Government was right or wrong, it was only this; that a number of reports having been sent, they were returned to the only person who could sum them up.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: The word used was "rewrite." The reply received was, "I do not like the idea of rewriting."
SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD: The word used was "rewrite," and I see no object in rewriting a despatch, unless there is something to be suppressed. At that time we were told that the Government were taking the country into their confidence.
MR. WYNDHAM: I do not think that the hon. and gallant Member wishes to be unfair. He has quoted the words used by Sir Redvers Buller. The term "rewrite" is used by Sir Redvers Buller, but that is the way it struck him. What was suggested to him was, "a full narrative of the operations."
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Yes, in accordance with instructions.
SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD: I shall still stick to my point. At all events the impression was conveyed to Sir Redvers Buller's mind that he had to rewrite the
796
despatch in substance and material. I do not wish to labour that point further, but it is a somewhat strange thing that by way of taking the country into their confidence the Government should be engaged at the same time in having their despatches rewritten. We all know this, that General Buller, as a man of honour, would be incapable of putting his hand to any document which was not true, and that he would cheerfully undergo the severest public censure rather than put his hand to a document which was contrary to the facts. I must say that we have had many things during this war to shake our confidence in the way it has been conducted by the Government. Nothing shakes the confidence of the public in the publication of these despatches more than the suggestion that those despatches should be rewritten. They should have been a resume of the original despatch from the general. What was the object of the publication of these despatches? My hon. friend did not toll us that. He not only failed to tell us what the object of their publication was, but he did not tell us why the responsibility was shared by Lord Roberts. What was the object of their publication? Would it tend to reassure the public mind by telling them that some of our best generals were incapable? Will it console the relatives of those who fell by that unfortunate operation at Spion Kop to read that the great loss of life which occurred there might have been avoided? Is it the opinion of the Government that Sir Redvers Buller has mismanaged the whole campaign? If the Government were right in publishing these despatches in order to censure General Buller, then I say that Sir Redvers Buller should have been superseded. I have not looked up the history of that unfortunate affair which has been alluded to by the hon. Member, but I think it will be found that in the cases mentioned the generals were superseded afterwards. My point now is that after publicly censuring a general commanding 30,000 men, the only logical thing to do is to supersede him. You have no right-to put a man in that unpleasant position and then keep him in command. I have only one more question to put. I should like to ask whether the Government have taken into consideration the reason why General Buller's operations failed. The obvious reason

797
of General Buller's failure is that Lady-smith was not properly defended. The responsibility for the prolonged operations and the great loss of life around Colenso rests with those who neglected to provide Ladysmith with heavy guns when the stores were sent there. My point is that if Ladysmith had been properly defended with big guns the Boers would never have invested it, and that the investment was to a large extent due to neglect in that direction. We put the question to the Government, and we want an answer. Who was the person or persons responsible for not having looked after the defences of Ladysmith? The public ought to know. If Sir Redvers Buller were responsible let us know, but if, on the other hand, some other person was responsible there, it is only fair to Sir Redvers Buller that we should know who was responsible. Something has been said about Magersfontein. It is not my place to defend Lord Methuen or anyone else. Lord Methuen, it is true, is an old friend and comrade of mine, but, on the other hand, General Wauchope was not only an old friend but a near relative.
THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think that any criticism of the operations at the battle of Magersfontein would be in order on this question. All that can be discussed now is the conduct of the Government in carrying out those operations or in publishing the despatches.
SIR A. ACLAND HOOD: I bow to your ruling, Sir, and all I will say in conclusion is that I very much regret the publication of these despatches. I think it has done no good and a great deal of harm, and that it has not been to the benefit of the country or to the interests of the Army. I look upon it as an ill-advised, ill-judged act which has met with general condemnation throughout the country.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I desire first of all to refer to the policy of the Government as far as I can understand it with reference to the concealment and the publication of despatches. I think that policy is perfectly apparent. The Government have concealed despatches when concealment was unwarranted, and have published despatches when publication was unworthy. It is a perfectly well-understood rule that so far as it is possible
798
and conducive to the public interest full and complete information should be given with reference to the operations of a war. That full information has not been given by the Government; on the contrary, it has been selfishly concealed. Now, as to the concealment of despatches, when information has been given at all it has been scanty and scrappy, and has been given in such a complex way that it is scarcely possible to understand its meaning. At other times it has been fragmentary and could scarcely be reconciled with sense. With reference to my first proposition, that the Government have concealed despatches, let me give a few illustrations. First of all, my hon. and gallant friend who immediately preceded me, who is well known for his great military capacity, and who, the House will recollect, was chosen by the Government at the commencement of the war to move the reply to the Queen's Speech, will agree with me that when the war and all the transactions connected with it come to be discussed, the question around which interest and attention will centre will be whether the Government were aware at the time when the war commenced that the forces in Natal and Cape Colony were utterly inadequate both for offence and defence. There are many incidents which show that they had not that knowledge. It is shown by the many despatches and documents which have been published, and also by the astonishing observation of Lord Wolseley that the Government went to war without any knowledge of the forces opposed to them. But there is one communication for which we have repeatedly asked —whether you call it a despatch or anything else—and which has not been given to us, and that is the communication which Sir William Butler made to the Government when he was Commander-in-Chief of the forces in South Africa, in which he told the Government their chances as regards the war, and in which he described the operations which should be carried out to ensure success. He was recalled and covered with obloquy, and that despatch which would have rehabilitated him has never been published. Last October he was made a scapegoat of, and he was called a traitor by a Salisbury-made peer, and yet you suppressed his despatch because it would have told against your operations and against your going into war wholly unprepared. Now

799
let me come to another matter. Let me take the campaign in Cape Colony which, in order that I may express myself properly, I will call the Methuen campaign. In that campaign no fewer than four great battles were fought—Belmont, Gras-pan, Modeler River, and Magersfontein. The object of that campaign was to relieve Kimberley, and the reason why Kimberley was to be relieved was that Mr. Rhodes, the author of the war, was there. Let us see how despatches were used as regards Mr. Rhodes. The Under Secretary for War has a very fine memory, but it erred to-day when he said that no questions had been asked him with reference to despatches from Kimberley. He forgot that I had asked him a few, and that despatches with reference to the relations between Mr. Rhodes and the officer commanding at Kimberley had not been given to the House, and that Mr. Rhodes was actually insulting the officer commanding at Kimberley while Scotch lads were dying at Magersfontein to secure his safety. On the 27th March* I asked the Under Secretary for War the following question—
"Whether, on 10th February, 1900, Major O'Meara, military censor, during the siege of Kimberley, sent a letter to the editor of the Diamond Fields Advertiser, a paper under the control of Mr. Rhodes, apprising the editor that he had on two occasions printed articles on the military situation injurious to the interests of the Army and the defence of the town, and had committed serious offences dealt with by the Army Act, and informing the editor that proofs of the Diamond Fields Advertiser must be submitted to the censor before publication; whether he is aware that, in consequence of this letter, the publication of the Diamond Fields Advertiser was suspended; whether, after the raising of the siege of Kimberley, Mr. Rhodes, in the presence of General French and of Colonel Kekewich, took on himself the responsibility of these articles, and ordered Colonel Kekewich out of his house when this interview took place; and what notice, if any, it is intended to take of this matter."
What was the answer of the hon. Gentleman? That he had "no official information," simply because of course he did not wish to have any. I see that Colonel Kekewich is being presented with a sword for his gallant services in Kimberley, and yet the Government allowed this distinguished officer to be insulted with impunity by Mr. Rhodes. Why? Because of the influence of Mr. Rhodes, for
* See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxxi., page 433.
800
whom every drop of blood in the Methuen campaign was shed. That is a very serious and scandalous exhibition of the suppression of despatches. The Under Secretary for War asked why we had never asked about the operations in Natal. I have asked a few questions with regard to them. General Buller in his despatch with reference to the battle of Colenso stated that he was unable to give any details with regard to the capture of the guns, because Colonel Long had been very seriously and probably fatally wounded, and that he had all the information. Colonel Long recovered, and I asked the Under Secretary for War* whether he would obtain his account of the loss of the guns, but the hon. Gentleman refused to give any information to the House or the country. I have shown that despatches were suppressed in reference to Kimberley and Colenso, and also the despatch of Sir William Butler. Now I come to the publication of despatches. The first publication which gave a shock to the moral sense of the people was of the despatches published in the Gazette on 16th March, which included Lord Methuen's account of Magersfontein and General Gatacre's account of the defeat at Stormberg, with the terrible censure of the Commander-in-Chief. Anyone reading the despatches would believe that they referred to one and the same transaction. Nothing of the kind. Stormberg was a different transaction altogether, and the despatch was sent at a different date. The despatch with reference to Magersfontein was sent when Lord Roberts was within a stone's-throw of Lord Methuen, and it must have been the combined despatch of both. Why were the two despatches published together? They were published in order that by the condemnation of General Gatacre public attention should be diverted from and not riveted on the astonishing silence with reference to Lord Methuen. There are two papers which do not often agree with anything I may venture to say. They are The Times and Birmingham Post, which I find are in remarkable accordance with my views regarding the publication of the Lord Methuen's despatch and the want of comment on it. Later, I shall show Lord Wolseley's connection with it. The
*See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxxi., page 937.

801
Times said that Lord Roberts had said nothing about Lord Methuen's despatch on Magersfontein, but that his silence was more significant than words. The Birmingham Post takes exactly the same view. As to why Lord Methuen was let off while General Gatacre was condemned, no answer has been given. In looking at the documents which have been published I find the astonishing fact that, according to the Government, a despatch is sometimes not a despatch. On 22nd March I asked the Under Secretary for War whether he had any explanation to offer regarding the interval which had elapsed—about two months- — between the battle of Magersfontein and the writing of the official despatch describing the battle by Lord Methuen. I also asked him whether such a despatch should not be written while the impression of the operations was vivid in the mind of the commander and immediately after the operations, and the hon. Gentleman gave the astounding answer that Lord Methuen's communication was different from a despatch, that it was informal, and that it was sent back to Lord Roberts to be forwarded to Lord Methuen for rectification.* How does that tally with the statements in the Parliamentary Paper with reference to Magersfontein? The document which I was twice assured was not considered a despatch is mentioned in the telegram from the Commander-in-Chief to Lord Roberts as a despatch. The telegram states:—
"You will, I feel sure, agree with me that Lord Methuen's despatch on the Magersfontein engagement could not be published as sent."
Again and again the hon. Gentleman talked about the Queen's Regulations and the number of paragraphs which should be in a despatch, and he stated to me on two occasions that there was no difference whatever as regards substance between the document published on 16th March as the Magersfontein despatch and the informal document originally sent by Lord Methuen. There is a difference, because the telegram from the Commander-in-Chief states that—
"there are passages in it inappropriate to such documents, and it also gives information of importance to the enemy."
I know that the hon. Gentleman would not willingly give misinformation, and
* See Volume last referred to, page 29.
802
the statement he made was probably furnished to him by some clerk in the War Office. He stated that there was no difference between the two documents to which I have referred, but it is now admitted that one contained statements which could not be published.
MR. WYNDHAM: The first communication sent by Lord Methuen was not considered to be a despatch, and for the reasons which I have already given to the hon. Member.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Why did the hon. Gentleman tell me that the difference between the suppressed despatch and the published despatch was in form and not in substance? In the informal document sent by Lord Methuen, who does not seem to know how to write a despatch, he must have referred to the incident between Colonel Gough and himself. Colonel Gough refused to obey orders on the field, and he has never been court-martialled. Was there any reference to that incident in Lord Methuen's communication? That is a most important matter. There has been suppression, and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has treated the House very fairly or very respectfully. He has given no explanation whatever regarding the reasons which induced him on the 23rd March to state that the published despatch was practically the same as the informal document;.
MR. WYNDHAM: The original communication was sent back because it was altogether out of form. The published despatch embodied nothing which was not in the other. The incident with reference to Colonel Gough was earlier, as he resigned his command before the battle of Magersfontein.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: That shows the great impropriety of not giving us proper information. The only information which we have been able to extract has been by way of question and answer. Take another instance. The Government endeavoured to put the responsibility for the publication of the despatches on Lord Roberts by asking him what he proposed regarding it. That was an attempt to put all the responsibility on Lord Roberta's shoulders, and was an unworthy and shameful evasion of duty on the part of the Government. Now I conic to the

803
association of Lord Wolseley with the Magersfontein despatch. When I asked whether Lord Methuen's despatch had been revised by Lord Roberts, the hon. Gentleman got virtuously indignant, and said that was impossible, hut the telegrams show that Lord Wolseley himself offered to revise the Magersfontein despatches, because Lord Wolseley stated—
"If he would like me to revise the despatch in question, I will do so; but as I should prefer not to undertake this responsibility, I suggest you should ask him to cancel this despatch and write another."
That is exactly what Lord Roberts asked Sir Redvers Buller to do, and what he declined to do. Did General Gatacre get any proposal from Lord Wolseley offering to write his despatch for him, and why was such a favour shown to Lord Methuen? Why was his despatch with reference to a great defeat to be rewritten by the Commander-in-Chief himself? Why was there no voice of censure with reference to it? Is it because Lord Methuen was ordered to save Mr. Rhodes at Kimberley, irrespective of bloodshed and at any cost, and that, therefore, there was to be no criticism with reference to him? The hon. and gallant Gentleman who preceded me voiced the general discontent and indignation at the suppression of these despatches. I received to-day a telegram from one of the most distinguished soldiers in the service, stating—
"You are justified in demanding information about the disaster at Magersfontein, where my own regiment was destroyed by a blunder.
I have also received a communication from one of the many sufferers by that battle——
SIR J. FERGUSSON: On a point of Order, Sir, may I ask whether it is in accordance with your riding with reference to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Mid-Somerset, that the hon. Gentleman should discuss the battle of Magersfontein?
THE CHAIRMAN: I understood that the hon. Member was asking for an investigation of the circumstances, or that some further light should be thrown upon them. In that he is perfectly in order. I understood that the hon. and gallant Member for Mid Somerset was going into a discussion on the operations, and the disputes alleged to have arisen between certain individuals. That I think would not be in order.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL; The right hon. Baronet is not doing his party a in-service in endeavouring to stifle debate on this matter. This discussion of course-is very awkward for the through thick and thin followers of the Government like the right hon. Baronet. When I was interrupted I was going to road an excerpt from a letter which I received from a Highland lady who lost her dear son through the incompetence of Lord Methuen at Magersfontein. She wrote hoping that a thorough inquiry would be made, so that some light might be thrown on the conduct of the leader of that most miserably mismanaged affair. When, she-said, they read Lord Roberts's strictures on other generals, something should surely be done to avenge the lives of their dear ones. All the officers from the front would welcome such an investigation, and why it had not been held she could not understand, unless it was through favouritism. That is how the relatives of the soldiers who died at Magersfontein regard the matter. Why have you censured Gatacre, Warren, and Buller when Methuen is allowed to escape? The country demands an account of this, and it must be furnished. There is one line in the despatch of the Secretary of State for War which casts great discredit on all the administration of this country — I mean the passage inviting emendations in a public document. I cannot imagine why any document should be cooked for publication. We are bound to investigate things when submitted to us, free from all public risk of harm being done. But here we have, under the hand and seal of Lord Lansdowne, who is in control of this war, an absolute direction or suggestion to a, general officer that he should in fact cook a despatch for public consumption. If such a suggestion was made by counsel to a bench of judges the court would consider the propriety of his being disbarred. I maintain that the suggestion is improper and dishonourable, and I will say nothing more on that subject. I ask again, who was the officer who was responsible for the loss of the convoy and guns at Koorn Spruit? The Under Secretary for War says he does not know. The Times, which hon. Gentlemen opposite so much admire, on the 12th April said—
"We have yet to learn the name of the escort officer, who presumably is the man really responsible for the surprise. Why has

805
it been held back, and why have we not been furnished with his explanations, if explanations he can give? If he cannot give them he would seem to be an excellent subject for stern but indispensable military justice."
The Times repeated its demand on the 30th April, but still there is no information. I do not repeat the name which rumour gives, because I do not know; but this I do know, that in former days the War Office was not above the suspicion of favouritism, and of being capable of screening men in high positions either in point of family or money. The hon. Gentleman has spoken of the Crimean War. Does he recollect in the time of that war that a very astonishing letter was published, written by the Secretary of State for War, the Duke of Newcastle, to Lord Raglan, in which he said, "Take care of the poor doves, whatever you do." Is Lord Methuen a case of a poor dove, seeing that he is to remain in his position? These are questions which must be asked, and I hope that nothing I have said has in the slightest degree offended personally the hon. the Under Secretary for War. I can assure him that although I am fighting this cause, I am doing so with the utmost respect for him personally, and with the greatest admiration for his ability. I never was more convinced, however, of the badness of the Government cause than by the speech of the hon. Gentleman. A Gentleman with a tithe of his abilities could not have made such a wretched defence, which was, in fact, no defence at all. I do not blame the hon. Gentleman; I blame his chiefs and the Government. I was delighted at the speech of the President of the Agricultural Board, who was the very first to take advantage of the unmuzzling order. He said the publication of the despatches was good policy. I think it was bad policy. Again, I say it is a most scandalous thing that a society favourite should be left in command of a large force of men, and that the Government, in order to protect themselves, should give up to the dissection of the "man in the street" hardworking officers who have risked their lives in an extremely bad cause.
MR. MACLEAN: I cannot understand the eagerness of the Government to take the public into their confidence in these despatches. The Government have shown no such anxiety in South Africa. An extremely severe censorship is established there, and the chief censor
806
(a noble Lord who is well known and much esteemed in the House) seems to have got all the correspondents into perfect working order. The consequence is that we get very little independent information indeed from South Africa, or from the correspondents, about the manner in which the war is carried on. It is said that the Government intend to remedy that state of things now by allowing the generals to criticise one another to the information of the public. I ask myself then, further, why was this particular time chosen for the publication of these despatches? What was the immediate hurry for the publication in the middle of the month of April? It could not be that the Government themselves thought that it was very important in the public interest that the despatches should be published at once, because they actually telegraphed to Lord Roberts to suggest that Sir Redvers Buller should re-write his despatch, which would have meant, if he had done so, a delay of another six weeks before the despatches were published. Lord Roberts himself fell into the same pan. He was of opinion, with Lord Lansdowne, that General Buller should be given an opportunity of rewriting his despatch. Therefore Lord Roberts was not at all anxious that his despatch should be published immediately. On the contrary, he seemed to have had very grave doubts about the matter. There is another reason why the publication of the despatches at that particular time was inopportune, and that is that by the middle of April the whole of the operations in Natal for the relief of Ladysmith had been successfully completed. The recollection of the misfortunes suffered by General Buller at Colenso and at Spion Kop had been wiped out by the success of his splendid final advance to Ladysmith and the relief of that place. That was known to the British public at the time. Their anxiety had been relieved, and they were not at all anxious, so far as one can judge, that recriminations over the incidents of the Natal campaign should be published to the whole world. The Government must have known at the same time that despatches were then on their way to this country dealing with the relief of Ladysmith, and taking into account the operations in Natal as a whole, and enabling the public to form a complete judgment on the whole of that campaign. Why, then, did not the

807
Government wait until the receipt of those despatches—probably a few weeks longer—and then publish them all at once? Then the despatch of Lord Roberts applauding the splendid services of General Buller in relieving Ladysmith would have been published as an antidote to his censure on what had taken place at Spion Kop. They did not choose to give even that small amount of time to the General whom they had censured. I do not think the British public agree at all with the step they have taken. The English are a generous people. They are always ready to forget mistakes. We have an example of this in the way in which they have treated Sir George White. There was hardly a mistake which Sir George White had not committed before he was locked up with his force at Ladysmith, but the British public have raised him to the rank of a hero on account of his stubborn resistance in the siege of Ladysmith. The British public know that the mistakes made in the early part of the war were due to our national temperament, which nothing, it seems, can cure. Our troops were put in a difficult position, and the men supposed, in our over-confident way, that when a red-coat appeared on the scene the enemy would clear out of the way. Now, the British public speak well of Sir George White, and no doubt they would have taken the same course with Sir Redvers Buller, and exalted that eminent general to the position of a hero, if the Government had been content to wait the publication of all the despatches together. But they were too impatient, and in this unhappy business their conduct has been nothing less than an unpardonable act of indiscretion.
MR. LABOUCHERE: I really felt a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for War. I have a great admiration for his way of speaking, but he had such a bad case that he was obliged to fall back on the old trick of the rhetorician, a parade of the Queen's Regulations. I do not intend to discuss the issue before the House in regard to the publication of these despatches. I do not wish to say much on that matter, but the hon. Gentleman said that the object of Her Majesty's Government was to make a clean breast
808
of everything, and to take the public into their confidence. But publishing despatches, according to the Queen's Regulations, of one general or another is always a question of expediency and of the interests of the country. I cannot believe for a moment that you really increase the confidence of the soldiers in their generals by blaming these for their operations in war. If the Government had been ready to withdraw Sir Redvers Buller from his high command, then I could have understood the publication of the despatches. The despatches were published in a most deliberate manner. As my right hon. friend has pointed out, days and weeks and months were passing when the Government were calmly considering whether or not they would publish these despatches and the correspondence with Lord Roberts, and after that calm consideration they came to the decision that they would publish them. I think I have a right to say that in making a clean breast of it the Government have not acted fairly to the officers in command. What is the case of Lord Methuen? I will only say this, that certainly the conduct of the commander at Magersfontein does not compare favourably with the conduct of Sir Redvers Buller in taking Ladysmith; and yet we have got Lord Methuen's despatch, but with no report from Lord Roberts on the subject. As I understand, Lord Methuen's first despatch was sent by Sir Redvers Buller without any report. It was then sent back to Lord Methuen, who was called upon to make alterations upon it, and he sent it on to Lord Roberts so altered, and Lord Roberts himself forwarded it to the War Office without any comment or report upon it. Again, why should we not get a statement as to the officer who commanded the convoy at Koorn Spruit? My hon. friend behind me asked several times for the name of the officer. There has been time for letters to be received from the Cape. There is time at any moment to send a telegram to South Africa asking the name of the officer; but the Government, for some reason, I do not know what, and I do not pretend to ask, have absolutely declined to give the name of that officer, or rather to ask for the name of that officer. I admit that there is a difference of opinion as to the publication of the despatches, but there can be no difference of opinion as to the real charge which is

809
being made by hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, and by some Gentlemen on the other side of the House against Her Majesty's Government, and that charge is that they deliberately undertook to cook the despatches to be presented to the British public. They did not intend to make a clean breast of it, but to deceive the public. I observe in the telegrams that we have before us to-day a proposal is made to Lord Roberts that the despatches should be edited at home. We have the first of these despatches which it was proposed to publish, but that does not cover the word "edited." I should like to ask the Under Secretary for War—is the despatch we now have from Sir Redvers Buller and Lord Roberts the despatch sent over by Lord Roberts and Sir Redvers Buller?
MR. WYNDHAM: Yes.
MR. LABOUCHERE: Ah! it is verbatim; then I can only say the word "edited" is wrongly used. When the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War goes on to say that he proposes to send back the despatch to Sir Redvers Buller in order that it should be put into a form in accordance with the Queen's Regulations, he asks the House to credit a great deal. The Minister for War suggests the alternative—
"That we should treat your despatch of 13th February and all its enclosures as confidential, and that Buller should send through you a full narrative of the operations. This you could forward to me with any observations you desire to make for publication."
Now, Sir Redvers Buller was then engaged in most important military operations, and would it not have been absurd to ask him to alter his despatch under these circumstances? It was obvious that he was to write another despatch to tell the same story in a different way. Everybody knows, though you tell a story in much the same way, it can be so done as to convey an entirely different impression. But Lord Roberts having made his observations on the first despatch, can anyone suppose that his observations on the second, had it been written, would have been identical with those published? That is the way in which Sir Redvers Buller himself understood it. Because, what were his words —words which equally do honour and credit to him? He said—
"I do not at all like the idea of rewriting a despatch for publication. I much prefer to
810
leave it in the hands of the Commander-in Chief, and let him select for publication what ever he thinks proper."
He, in point of fact, would have no hand in this cooking and jerrymandering of the despatches. He accepted the blame imposed upon him; he was ready to bear that blame, and was not willing to deceive the British public. The hon. Gentleman made a good deal of the point that the mode in which the despatches were sent was not in accordance with the Queen s regulations. He complained that the despatch of Sir Redvers Buller contained reports of his subordinates that it ought not to have contained. But the Secretary of State for War telegraphed to Sir Redvers Buller—
"We should have for presentation, as soon as can conveniently be managed, despatches from you covering reports from your generals as to each of the engagements which have taken place."
Now, that was blowing hot and cold. No person in this world can read these despatches without coming to the conclusion that there was a determination to deceive the British public in regard to what took place at Ladysmith. [An HON. MEMBER: No!] Some one said "No"; but I believe if there was a ballot at the present moment on the Government benches, the Government would not have ten Members voting in their favour. We know what party discipline is. Some Gentlemen have spoken, and they see or feel that the Government I have got into a thorough mess, and they say it is the business of good party men to vote solidly with the Government when it is in the wrong, and therefore I do not think we shall have their vote. I do not believe that the House realises what has been done. Take the case of a company, the directors of which have a report submitted to them from an engineer. The directors think that the engineer's report would not benefit the company, and it is suggested to the engineer that he should take back his report and alter it. The term "alter" is not used, we all understand that; but a fresh engineer's report is obtained, and that is laid before a meeting of the shareholders, and the unfortunate shareholders are humbugged and fooled, just as the Government in- tended the British public to be humbugged and fooled. For my part, I do consider that it is the duty of the House, under these circumstances, to express

811
strongly and clearly Its opinion that what has been done is not to the honour and credit of the nation. We, who have at heart as much as the Government the honour and good name of the country, think it our duty to register our protest against this most monstrous proposal made to Sir Redvers Buller, and which Sir Redvers Buller, as an honourable man, refused to carry out.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): Whatever merits or demerits the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down may have as an orator, he certainly goes straight to the point, without mincing matters, and I wish the House had been fuller during his speech, because had Members been present they would have learnt from him that the question that we have to vote upon is not whether it is wise or unwise on the part of the House to discuss the Secretary of State and his action under very difficult circumstances, but the question which is before us is, according to the hon. Member, the honour or dishonour of a great public servant and of the Government of which he is a Member. [HON. MEMBERS: No, no!] Hon. Gentlemen who say "No, no" have not had the advantage which I had of listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Northampton.
MR. LABOUCHERE: I was not speaking of the honour or dishonour of a particular Minister. I was speaking about the honour or dishonour of the country in the hands of Her Majesty's Government, and I said that I considered that the Government have gravely compromised the country's honour.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I quite see. The hon. Gentleman's speech is, after all, only the culmination of a series of attacks which have been made ever since these despatches were published; attacks not consistent with each other, not based upon knowledge, or, in many cases, upon common sense, but showing most extraordinary ingenuity in discovering the basest and the meanest and most farfetched and extraordinary motives for the course which the Secretary of State for War and the Government have pursued in the publication of these despatches. One hypothesis has been that this is an elaborate device of Lord Roberts's enemies to discredit Lord
812
Roberts. [HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!] I say that is one hypothesis. [An HON. MEMBER: Who said that?] I never suggested that anybody had said it in this House. [An HON. MEMBER: Who said it out of the House?] I never suggested that anyone said it in the House. What I said was that since these despatches were published, and published when the House was not sitting, there has been extraordinary ingenuity in attributing all the meanest and basest motives for the action of the Government, and one of the motives discovered by some of the extreme critics was the motive I have just mentioned. Another motive which is as absurd, as far-fetched, and as calumnious as the one I have referred to, and which has, I believe, found an echo in this House, is that the Government have drawn an invidious distinction between the general whom I suppose we must be thought to dislike and the general whom it is thought that we favour—a distinction between the case of Lord Methuen and the case of Sir Redvers Buller. It is assumed with regard to one of these generals that we have suppressed information. It is said that we have suppressed information with regard to Lord Methuen, and that we have published information with regard to General Buller. Another accusation is that there was some sinister design, as I understood it, to prepare the public mind, in some ungenerous spirit, for the dismissal of Sir Redvers Buller from the responsible office which he holds. I confess that I think this line of attack is very unworthy of the critics of the Government, whether inside or outside this House. Whether we have been right or wrong, at all events our policy is susceptible of a simple and direct explanation, and that explanation is nothing more elaborate than this, that we have done, in the case of the despatches with regard to Spion Kop, precisely what we have done with regard to the despatches which have hitherto reached us from the General Commanding-in-Chief in South Africa. It is said that these despatches differ from their predecessors because they convey blame. But previous despatches that we have published conveyed blame. The despatches with regard to General Gatacre conveyed blame. "But," it is said, "General Gatacre has been dismissed; and so far as blame has been cast upon

813
General Warren, he has been removed to a different sphere of activity." Let me remind the House that neither General Gatacre nor General Warren was relieved of his command—the word "dismissal" slipped from me just now and is quite a wrong expression—immediately after the publication of those despatches nor in consequence of the actions on which those despatches Adversely commented. General Warren remained in his position in General Buller's army until after the relief of Ladysmith—until, in fact, the important Military operations which the army of Natal has hitherto been called upon to perform were completed. As for General Gatacre, it is well known that, long after the publication of the despatch in which severe comment was made upon his action in the direction of his forces, he was entrusted by the responsible Commander-in-Chief in South Africa with very important commands. That does not necessarily show that you ought to publish despatches commenting hostilely on a general, but it does show conclusively that in publishing the Spion Kop despatch we have followed exactly the precedent set by ourselves, consistently followed from the very beginning of this war, and a practice which, so far as I know, until the publication of these last despatches, has never called forth either in the House or in the press one hostile criticism or comment. That, I think, is i very simple explanation of the policy of the Government, which might have occurred to some of its critics, even those least disposed to judge fairly of our actions. It is said, "You cannot publish a despatch of this sort without so fatally injuring the prestige of the general commented upon as seriously to interfere with the effective conduct of military operations under his command." Is that a fact? Is it a fact that either the criticisms which were passed upon Generals Warren or Gatacre or those passed on General Buller were of a character to discredit them with their troops or to prevent their troops from following them into action? And especially do I ask this question with the more confidence in connection with the criticisms passed upon General Buller. I described them as criticisms. That word is inaccurate. The proper word is criticism. There was one criticism, and only one criticism, passed on General Buller, which was that he was
814
not present in command of the operations winch he had himself skilfully devised. [Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN handed the First Lord of the Treasury a copy of the despatch.] That is really what it comes to. [Opposition cries of "No!" and "Head!"] The words are as follows—
"Whatever faults Sir Charles Warren may have committed, the failure must also be ascribed to the disinclination of the officer in supreme command to assert his authority and see that what he thought best was done."
Which, I assume, means very much what I have just said, which was, that General Buller, having devised a series of skilful operations, did not assert his authority in carrying those operations to a successful conclusion. That is the one criticism passed on General Buller, and the only one; and I confess it is a surprise to me to learn that soldiers have so false an idea of the difficulties of the art of war as to suppose that one error of judgment of that kind is to discredit a general in their eyes. I presume that every Member in this House has seen letters from the front commenting with that happy and irresponsible freedom in which officers and privates alike indulge in their letters to their friends, upon the conduct of their superior officers. I do not say whether those comments are well or ill advised, or whether it is proper or improper that they should be made. At all events, they go to show, what we do not require much proof to convince us of—namely, that a soldier is not necessarily blindfold, is not necessarily a fool, but that he does exercise his judgment upon his superior officer, and that that judgment, so exercised, is very often far more severe than the very moderate and modest criticism passed by Lord Roberts upon General Buller. Is it seriously to be believed that the soldiers who are thus in the habit of criticising the operations of their superiors are suddenly going to discover that these superiors are incompetent because the head of them, skilful in devising a plan of campaign, did not, on one particular occasion, exercise his authority as much as he might have done? I think that is a fantastic notion, and one to which I am rather surprised that my hon. and gallant friend the Member for the Wellington Division should have given currency. Observe my hon. and gallant friend's inconsistency. He went

815
away from the question of Spion Kop, and said there was a much move serious disaster for which we desire to know on whom the responsibility rests. That disaster is the entanglement of Lady-smith. "Let us, at any rate, know," he says, "who is responsible for that. If it be this man or that man, let us know his name. If it is General Buller, let us know it. If it was not General Buller, let us know who it was." My hon. and gallant friend is in the extraordinary position of thinking it a grave want of discretion on the part of the Government to publish a criticism with regard to the conduct of Spion Kop, while at the same time he is panting to have some similar revelation—it may be with regard to General Buller, according to my hon. and gallant friend himself— which he apparently does not think would do General Buller or anybody else any harm at all.
SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD: I cannot allow the right hon. Gentleman to put that construction on my words. What I asked was why the Government had published this particular dispatch—whether it was because they were dissatisfied with General Bullers general conduct of the campaign, and, if they had published it on that account, would they inquire who was the man mainly responsible for the task set General Buller, so that the burden should be placed on the right shoulders.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Does my hon. and gallant friend think I misrepresented him? He has just repeated what I endeavoured to say, and his explanation seems to me to leave the matter exactly where it was before. We are told that we have meanly and culpably sheltered ourselves behind the authority of Lord Roberts—that we have, in order to shelter ourselves from public criticism, invoked the authority, the popularity, and the great name of that most distinguished general. What nonsense that is! The telegrams asking Lord Roberts about the publication of this despatch were not in order to shelter us from the consequence of that publication. They were intended to guide us as to whether it was wise or not wise to publish the despatch. If, after publishing the despatch, we had gone to Lord Roberts and said, "Do give us an opinion saying that it is right," that would have been sheltering ourselves
816
behind him. That would have been going to him and asking him to get us out of a difficulty we had got into. To ask the Commander-in-Chief in South Africa whether a despatch which he himself had written, for which he himself was responsible, could, with advantage to the army over which he has command, be made public—surely that is a most-reasonable course, and if we had not adopted it, how blameworthy we should have been! Supposing we had not consulted Lord Roberts in this matter, then, indeed, we should have been open to the criticism that we had interfered with the efficiency of Lord Roberts's army by not having given the man in command of that army the opportunity of having a say in the matter. And be it noticed that those who tell us that it is very unfair to throw on a general in South Africa the responsibility of determining what publication of news can be made in England forget that responsibility rests with Lord Roberts as regards the far more important question of censorship. Lord Roberts is now responsible from day to day for what is published with regard to the war. Through the censors, who are his subordinate officers and who are bound to carry out his policy, he does that which hon. Members opposite think is so far beyond his province that it was mean and cowardly on our part to ask him to do it in the case of these despatches. I should like to ask our critics—our numerous critics —what alternative they would suggest to the course we have pursued. Hon. Gentlemen object to our action in publishing these despatches. Would they make that a universal rule with regard to all despatches, or are we to select from the despatches sent us those we think it desirable to publish? And if we are to make such a selection, are we to act upon the principle that only those despatches are to be published which give praise? —or, if despatches which give censure are to be published, is the general blamed to be dismissed from his command before the despatch is made public? There are two other alternatives. Are we to give instructions to the Commander-in-Chief in South Africa that he is to write only despatches conveying praise — I am putting these various suggestions as they occur—or are we to write to him not to give praise or blame in his despatches, but to furnish a bare naked narrative

817
of events? If you will not have any of these alternatives, only two courses remain. One is that we should publish no despatches at all, and the other is that we should ourselves undertake the operation of editing them.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: YOU are bound to do that.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I defy anyone to find any other alternative beyond these I have mentioned. I think the only one that can be contemplated as possible is that we should absolutely refuse to publish any despatches at all. To select those despatches which only praise would be most invidious, and, indeed, most absurd. To give instructions that no praise or blame was to be administered in the despatches would be to deprive these documents of half their value. To cut out of the despatches all the blame and leave only the praise would be to cast upon us the duty of tampering with them or cooking them; the thing for which we have been attacked to-night. And I think that is the last accusation of which we should be seriously regarded as having been guilty. We may have been guilty of indiscretion in our candour we may have given too freely to the public information in which the public is legitimately interested. But since the inception of the military operations down to the present moment I should have thought that the last accusation that could be honestly brought against us is that we published only what is agreeable; that we attempted to blink the public eye or to dull the edge of public criticism by any selection of the materials at our disposal. I would earnestly ask the House whether as the result of the criticisms passed upon us to-night no further despatches are to be published. [Opposition cries of "No, no!"] I understand that hon. Gentlemen repudiate that conclusion. I hear indignant cries of "No, no," but if we are to continue the policy of publication, are we to make a selection, and if that is to be suggested is it to be a selection of praise or blame? [A VOICE: Exercise discretion.] Yes; exercise discretion. How simple the phrase, and how easily it comes from the mouths of those who have never exercised discretion either in their criticisms or their demands in the dealing with and the publication of dispatches! The problem cannot be solved by a word of that kind. I do not
818
know whether the Secretary of State would tolerate the responsibility of editing these despatches.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: He offered to do it.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: He made no general offer of the kind. But if my noble friend did undertake the responsibility of editing despatches—I do not know that he will — would not hon. Gentlemen opposite come down to the House and say, "Have you published the whole of the despatch? Has anything been omitted, and, if so, what? Was General So and So's conduct commented on," and so on, and the very Gentlemen who now seem to think that that was the proper course to have pursued are those who have spent three hours to-night in attacking us for what they call garbling or cooking the despatches. I really must repudiate in the most earnest manner of which I am capable the kind of accusation which has been freely hurled against my noble friend the Secretary of State for War in the course of this debate. I entirely acquit the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment, who made his first speech —a speech which I hope will not be his last by many in this House—of having said a single word for which his conscience need prick him in the least; and although the night hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary made a severe attack upon the Government, I do not think anything fell from him in the nature of a reflection on the credit of Lord Lansdowne or the Government, whatever the right hon. Gentleman might have thought of our discretion. But I cannot say the same of other speakers in the debate, and I especially complain of that kind of accusation which was made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Wellington Division in reference to what occurs in the telegrams as to the re-writing of the despatch. My hon. and gallant friend said he did not know much about General Buller's qualifications as a soldier, but that he did know that General Buller was a gentleman, and that therefore he would not give way to the suggestion that he should re-write his despatch. If General Buller was a gentleman for not giving way to the suggestion that he should rewrite his despatch, then those who had suggested, that he should re-write his despatch must have been guilty of con-

819
duct which was unworthy of gentlemen. In that accusation my noble friend is not alone primarily concerned, nor his military advisers, nor the Cabinet, but Lord Roberts himself. It is shocking to think that in this House such accusations should be made against gentlemen of the highest character; but as they have been made, I do not think any language of which I, at all events, am master is too strong to repudiate them. Sir, if there is anybody in the House still capable of reading with a fair and open mind the series of telegrams published this morning, he will see that no accusation could be more scandalous and unjust. There is no suggestion from the beginning to the end that General Buller was to modify the substance of his despatch in any way, or that he was to say in the new despatch something different to that which he had said in the old despatch. The communication was one regarding the form of the despatch and not regarding its substance. I do not think I have ever been more pained in my long experience of this House than by the fact that such accusations as have been made to-night could be made and listened to in an assembly of gentlemen. The governing telegram is the first of the series, and if anybody will read that he will see that what I have said is absolutely true—that the suggestion of Lord Lansdowne had reference only to the form of the despatch. My noble friend in his telegram to Lord Roberts said—
"I suggest as an alternative that we should treat your despatch of the 13th February and all its enclosures as confidential, and that Buller should send through you a full narrative of the operations. This you could forward to me with any observations you desired to make for publication."
There never was a suggestion cither by Lord Lansdowne, or his military advisers, or his colleagues in the Government that any change in the substance should be made by General Buller in his despatch.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: The right hon. Gentleman will see that that observation of the Secretary of State is governed by the telegram of General Buller of the 6th February last.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, no. The hon. Gentleman has quite misapprehended the question. The question was whether or not certain despatches should be published. I think I have shown that the position is one of very great difficulty,
820
and I hope the House will not complain of my hon. friend the Under Secretary of State for War if, after what has passed to-night, he declines to either publish despatches or answer any questions about despatches. The course of this debate has carried the question far beyond the mere question of a wise or unwise use of a very difficult discretion in regard to the publication of war despatches on the part of the Under Secretary for War, his military advisers, or the Government. The last speech that was made and other speeches were an attack, not upon the wisdom or unwisdom of the Government, but upon their honour and their credit; and we confidently look to that party which we know believes in our honour and our credit to show that, in their view at all events, any such accusation has no foundation.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNEKMAN: The case of the Government in this matter seemed doubtful yesterday. As my hon. and gallant friend opposite said, it was made worse to-day by the publication of the telegrams. With all his skill and charm the Under Secretary for War did not better the case in the speech which he delivered to the House, and now the Leader of the House, with all his dialectical powers, powers which he possesses beyond most men, but which have been brought to a pitch of perfection by training on his part in the best of all schools, that of the Irish Secretaryship—those dialectical powers, which enable him so often to make a poor case seem a good one, and the power, which he also possesses in an unusual degree, of at the close of a debate of this sort sweeping up the enthusiasm of his followers behind him and carrying them on a wave of enthusiasm—a wave which sometimes perhaps does not allow them to see very clearly what is at issue—all these powers of the right hon. Gentlemen have failed him on this occasion. At the last moment all that he could do was to make the narrowest and straightest appeal to their mere party fidelity. He practically said, "Whatever the arguments may be, whatever the views held by individual Members may be, I must throw myself upon the fidelity of my friends who wish to see the Government's reputation maintained." All the right hon. Gentleman's arguments were of a hypothetical and unpractical kind. I

821
have one practical question to put which I think disposes of that. All the right hon. Gentleman said was, "What are we to do? What would you do? Would you publish all the despatches? Would you publish none of the despatches? Would you garble the despatches? What would you do?" I can tell him what they ought to have done. They ought to have done whatever was done in the previous campaigns in which this country has been engaged. This is not the first time that this country has been at war. Can the right hon. Gentleman or the Under Secretary point to a single precedent in the Peninsular War, in the Crimean War, in the Afghan War, or in any other war that can be named, of that being done which they have done on this occasion? I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are so short of Executive Government powers that they cannot exercise a reasonable discretion in such matters. One instance which the Under Secretary gave I was sorry to hear him give— I mean Maiwand. Maiwand was a terrible disaster. I regretted to hear the hon. Gentleman compare Spion Kop to Maiwand. At Maiwand there was one of the greatest calamities which ever befell the British Army. The hon. Gentleman said we had to look back for a disaster. He said, "We will see what has been done in the case of a disaster," and the only one he could find was Maiwand. Spion Kop was not a disaster in the sense that Maiwand was. What was done in the case of Maiwand? The two general officers concerned were immediately superseded, and before any despatch was published at all. Maiwand does not justify the proceeding of the Government in any particular. The Government plead that they wish to take the public into their confidence, that they want to be perfectly frank and open before the world. What we want to know is, not only where is the precedent for this publication, but why was it done in the way it was done? We have not had all the despatches we might have had. There has been no despatch published giving an official account of the whole defence of Ladysmith.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: We have not suppressed any despatch.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not say you have suppressed
822
any, but you have withheld them. Has there been any account published of the attack on Paardeberg or Cronje's camp before the surrender of the Boers, upon which occasion there was a greater loss of life, or, at any rate, as great a loss of life as in any other single engagement dining the war?
MR. WYDHAM: We have not had those despatches yet. The argument I used was that there was no precedent for not publishing the formal despatches sent home by the general officer in command. I believe there is none.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Quite so, at the proper time. If this despatch was to be published at all, L agree with what was said by my hon. friend the Member for Cardiff. This operation was one part of a great series of operations. General Buller was engaged in relieving Ladysmith. He made one attempt, and it failed. He made a second attempt, and it failed. He made a third attempt, and it succeeded. When he had succeeded the Field-Marshal, Lord Roberts, very properly and necessarily expressed his admiration at the manner in which Sir Redvers Buller had performed the great task committed to him. If this despatch had been published in the course of a series of despatches describing all the operations, any little observation which the Field - Marshal might have passed upon the general policy would have been covered in the eyes of the world and of the. men serving under General Buller by the praise bestowed upon him for the general operations when they were concluded. That is how a wise and prudent Government can exercise what, we call discretion. If the Government had acted with that discretion, there would have been little blame attached to them. But they have committed this grave fault — they have departed from the ordinary, the immemorial practice in the history of the Army; they have published this formal despatch reflecting upon the conduct of officers in high command, and calculated, therefore, to depreciate the authority of those officers. The right hon. Gentleman speaks of the camp gossip that comes home in private letters from soldiers and from officers to their families and others, and he actually puts these tittle-tattle stories on the same footing as the formal and solemn and pronounced

823
opinions of the officer commanding in chief. The right hon. Gentleman was hard put to it for an argument when he used that. No, Sir; I believe that this debate will have done a great deal of good if it even induces the Government to look a little round them before they take a step of this sort again. I am still left in doubt as to whose brilliant idea it was to publish these despatches, and I do not mean to try to penetrate the mystery. We know that the Government have handsomely allowed that the responsibility belongs to the Government, by which I suppose is meant the Cabinet. I do not suppose the Cabinet was there, for the despatches were published during the Easter holidays. Was the Cabinet Committee of National Defence called in for this purpose? We should really like to know some of these things, but I suppose we must leave our curiosity unsatisfied. At all events, someone had this brilliant idea. I believe that from the moment the despatches were published in the papers to this day the Government, and certainly their friends behind them, have never done anything but repent and deplore the publication. The defence set up for them to-night is utterly insufficient. The criticism that has been passed upon them tonight has not been passed upon them for any party purpose, nor has it come from any party motive. The right hon. Gentleman began his observations by referring to motives which he had apparently picked up in some newspapers. We are
not responsible for what may appear in newspapers, most of which, I think, support the policy of the Government. There are many on this side of the House who have disapproved of the policy of Her Majesty's Government in South Africa, and there are others who have more or less approved of it, but we have all been alike in this—the light hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have never had any difficulty put in their way by us in prosecuting the war. We have never demanded a scapegoat, we have never singled out either officer or civilian for condemnation. I am proud to think that this debate has proceeded without any attempt to enter upon the question of the conduct of the generals, or upon the excellence or the deficiency of their tactics and their strategy. The House has shown its usual good sense in declining altogether to enter upon a task for which it is quite unfitted. The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have no reason to complain either of the House of Commons or especially of any of the hon. Members on this side of the House; and we shall now record our votes, as we must, in condemnation of the conduct of the Government, not from any desire to interfere with their discretion, but to convey to them in the only way open to us a lesson as to the manner in which they should exercise their discretion.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 116; Noes, 215. (Division List No. 109.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

Joicey, Sir James

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Dewar, Arthur

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt. Hn Sir U

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

Dillon, John

Kearley, Hudson E.

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Doogan, P. C.

Kinloch, Sir J. Geo. Smyth

Baker, Sir John

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Kitson, Sir James

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Dunn, Sir William

Labouchere, Henry

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Ellis, John Edward

Leese, Sir J. V. (Accrington)

Birrell, Augustine

Evans, Sir E. H. (South'ton)

Leng, Sir John

Broadhurst, Henry

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Lloyd-George, David

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Fenwick. Charles

Lyell, Sir Leonard

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Macaleese, Daniel

Burns, John

Goddard, Daniel Ford

MacDonnell, Dr M A (Queen's C)

Burt, Thomas

Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Caldwell, James

Gurdon, Sir Wm. Brampton

M'Dermott, Patrick

Cameron, Sir Chas. (Glasgow)

Haldane, Richard Burdon

M'Ghee, Richard

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Harwood, George

M'Kenna, Reginald

Causton, Richard Knight

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

Cawley, Frederick

Hazell, Walter

Maddison, Fred.

Channing, Francis Allston

Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

Mather, William

Crilly, Daniel

Holland, William Henry

Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

Crombie, John William

Horniman, Frederick John

Molloy, Bernard Charles

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

Jacoby, James Alfred

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

Daly, James

Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez E.

Morley, Rt. Hn. J. (Montrose)

Moss, Samuel

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Moulton, John Fletcher

Roberts, John H. (Denbighsh.)

Tennant, Harold John

Norton, Capt. Ceil William

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Robson, William Snowdon

Ure, Alexander

O'Malley, William

Runciman, Walter

Wallace, Robert

Palmer, George W. (Reading)

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Paulton, James Mellor

Schwann, Charles E.

Wason, Eugene

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

Scott, Chas. Prestwick (Leigh

Weir, James Galloway

Perks, Robert William

Shaw, Chas. Edw. (Stafford)

Whiteley, George (Stockport)

Philipps, John Wynford

Sinclair, Capt., John (Forfarsh.)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Pilkington, Sir G.A.(Lane SW

Souttar, Robinson

Wilson, J.H. (Middlesbrough)

Priestley, Briggs

Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

Reid, Sir Robert Threshie

Steadman. William Charles

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Richardson, J. (Durham, S. E.

Strachey, Edward

Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. M'Arthur.

Rickett, J. Compton

Stuart, James (Shoreditch)

NOES.

Aird, John

Faber, George Denison

Keswick, William

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Fardell, Sir T. George

Kimber, Henry

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Knowles, Lees

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Fergusson, Rt. Hn Sir. J (Manc'r)

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Arrol, Sir William

Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

Lawrence, Sir E Durning-(Corn)

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Finch, George H.

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

Finlay, Sir Hubert Bannatyne

Lecky, Rt. Hon. W. E. H.

Baillie, James E. B. (Inverness)

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Baud, John George Alexander

Fisher, William Hayes

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Balcarres, Lord

Fison, Frederick William

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Baldwin, Alfred

FitzWygram, General Sir F.

Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

Balfour, Rt. Hon. N.J.(Manch'r)

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool

Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W.(Leeds)

Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ.)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Banbury, Frederick George

Fry, Lewis

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Barry, Rt. Hn A. H. Smith- (Hunts

Galloway, William Johnson

Lowe, Francis William

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol)

Garfit, William

Lowles, John

Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

Gedge, Sydney

Lowther, Rt. Hon. J. (Kent)

Bhownaggrce, Sir. M. M.

Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lon.)

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Biddulph, Michael

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Blakiston-Houston, John

Gilliat, John Saunders

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Bolitho, Thomas Bedford

Godson, Sir A. Frederick

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Bond, Edward

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Maclure, Sir John William

Boulnois, Edmund

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

M'Killop, James

Brassey, Albert

Goschen, Rt. Hn G. J (St. George's)

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Brown, Alexander H.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

Brymer, William Ernest

Graham, Henry Robert

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Bullard, Sir Harry

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Butcher, John George

Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'ry)

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.)

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Morgan, Hn. F. (Monmouthsh.

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire)

Gunter, Colonel

Morrison, Walter

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)

Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.

Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)

Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r)

Hanson, Sir Reginald

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Heath, James

Nicholson, William Graham

Coddington, Sir William

Helder, Augustus

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Henderson, Alexander

Penn, John

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Hermon-Hodge, R. Trotter

Percy, Earl

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Columb, Sir John Charles Ready

Hoare, Edw. B. (Hampstead)

Pilkington, R. (Lancs. Newton)

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Plunkett, Rt. Hn Horace Curzon

Cotton-Jodrell, Col. Edw. T. D.

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Houston, R. P.

Pretyman, Ernest George

Curzon, Viscount

Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle

Purvis, Robert

Denny, Colonel

Hughes, Colonel Edwin

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

Rankin, Sir James

Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Remnant, James Farquharson

Donkin, Richard Sim

Jenkins, Sir John Jones

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

Doughty, George

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Johnstone, Hey Wood (Sussex)

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Dyke, Rt. Hon Sir William Hart

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

Robinson, Brooke

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Kenyon, James

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

826

827

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Round, James

Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Stanley, Sir Henry M. (Lambeth)

Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm)

Rutherford, john

Stephens, Henry Charles

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M. Taggart

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Sandon, Viscount

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos Myles

Strauss, Arthur

Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R.(Bath)

Savory, Sir Joseph

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Scoble, Sir. Andrew Richard

Talbot, Rt. Hn. T. G. (Oxf'd Univ.)

Wrightson, Thomas

Seely, Charles Hilton

Thornton, Percy M.

Wyndham, George

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Tollemache, Henry James

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Sidebottom, William (Derbysh.)

Vincent, Col. Sir CEH (Sheffield)

Younger, William

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.)

Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.)

Resolution agreed to.

Original Question again proposed.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
1. £1,165,083 to complete the sum for Inland Revenue.
MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE (Sussex, Horsham) moved to reduce the Vote by £50. He moved this reduction from no spirit of hostility, but simply to draw attention to the necessity for forming new tax districts, and of increasing the number of surveyors of taxes, a need that had been recognised by the Secretary of the Treasury as far back as November, 1898. Out of twenty-five new districts which were sanctioned at that time, nine only had been created. He knew of his own knowledge that the right hon. Gentleman had looked into this matter, and that he fully recognised the present need. He desired to strengthen the hands of his right hon. friend in developing the reform of which he himself acknowledged the necessity. One of the greatest, objections to the system of administration which had unhappily prevailed for years past in this Department was that there was no preparation or training to qualify officers to till the places of those growing old or taking new districts. There were no qualified persons ready to take the places of the existing surveyors or to act in the new tax districts, as they were called. The right hon. Gentleman had informed him that this was largely owing to the system which had grown up, and which he could not help thinking was very greatly against the public interest. As there were no trained assistants, the surveyors had to pick up assistants where they could, and these men were liable to dismissal at a week's notice, and had no
828
claim to pension. These were the men chosen to assist such a responsible official as the surveyor of taxes; and the hon. Member asked the Committee to express the opinion that this was not the right system upon which to work, and that proper clerical assistance should be provided under proper conditions. During recent years the work of these officials had increased to an enormous degree, but the number of surveyors of taxes had been but very slightly increased. A few figures would prove this to the Committee. The increase of work falling on the shoulders of these men since 1870 was partly normal and partly abnormal. The year 1870 was a, very fair one for purposes of comparison, because before then there was a certain amount of assessed taxes also collected by the surveyors of Inland Revenue, and when those taxes were transferred to another branch there was necessarily a diminution in the number of surveyors, as it was supposed there would be less work. The taxable income with which these officials were concerned increased between 1876 and 1890 from £453,000,000 to £753,000,000, or 66 per cent., and the number of assessments from 9,000,000 to 13,000,000. Another cause of increased work was the growth in the number of claims for repayment, which had gone up from 100,000 to 300,000. As the number of persons of small means who invested their savings in various public funds increased, so the claims for repayment multiplied, because the income tax upon that class of investment was collected at the source, and therefore if a person's income was below the taxable minimum a claim for repayment had to be made. These claims cast considerable work upon the surveyors, as they had to satisfy themselves that the claimants were en-

829
titled to the repayment, and that their incomes were below the exempted amount. Moreover, these claims were likely to be considerably increased in number this year, as many people who would not trouble to put in claims when the income tax was eightpence in the pound would do so now the tax was a shilling. In addition to these normal causes of increase, the legislation of the last ten or twenty years had greatly increased the work of those men. In regard to the inhabited house duty, instead of there being two rates, there were now six, besides a special rate for lodging houses, and the surveyor had to go into all those and satisfy himself by comparison with the rate-books and other figures that the right amount of duty was being paid. This affected nearly 1,500,000 assessments, and as each assessment might have from one to seven different rates the Committee could realise the enormous increase of work involved. There was also the great increase arising from the change in the amount of abatements in successive income tax legislation, and another important addition was the burden of calculating the reductions under the Finance Act of 1894. There were 5,000,000 assessments affected by that Act, and the amount of the reductions represented by those assessments had risen from £45,000,000 to £157,000,000. Another and a very important branch of work which had increased was the examination of the accounts of joint stock companies. The increase in number between 1884 and 1897 was from 8,700 to over 30,000, each one of which meant about half an hour's work if the surveyor was satisfied, while, if he was not satisfied, there would be a considerable amount of correspondence, and very likely personal interviews. To cope with this enormous increase of work there had been only nineteen additional surveyors appointed, the number being 245 in 1897, as against 226 in 1870. The result was great dissatisfaction on the part of the surveyors of taxes, and that feeling had been intensified by another cause. The right hon. Gentleman had done his best to secure the formation of new districts, but the men could not be found to man them, and therefore it had been necessary to retain the services of men who were entitled to pensions, and who, under the retirement minute, should have been retired, thus making the way clear for the promotion of their juniors.
830
The hon. Member hoped some means would be found of removing this obvious injustice.
Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present (Mr. GIBSON BOWLES, Lynn Regis). House counted, and forty Members being found present.
MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE (resuming): If I have not entirely lost the thread of my argument owing to the intervention of the hon. Member for King's Lynn, I think I was calling attention to the dissatisfaction which was felt by the surveyors of income tax in regard to the hardship of having their promotion checked by the practical suspension of the retirement order. Their promotion has been very largely checked at the present time on account of the suspension of the retirement order, which has prevented the promotion of a number of qualified persons to fill the places of those who should retire. I simply mention this matter in order to strengthen the hands of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Treasury in dealing with these men, in order that he may realise that they have a substantial cause of complaint. I think they have good reason to complain of overwork, and of the large increase of work which has been thrown upon them without any increase of payment, and with the additional hardship of their promotion being checked. I do not think I need apologise for calling the attention of the Committee to this question, because it is one which affects not only the interests of the public service— and we have heard the expression that the State should be a model employer— it is not upon those grounds alone that I call the attention of the Committee to this subject, but it is because these men are responsible for the very delicate work of assessing and gathering in a very large amount of the public revenue. Upon their capacity and ability, upon having proper time to discharge their duties and having intellectual capacities which are not affected by the drudgery and the strain of too much work thrown upon their shoulders, depends the successful ingathering of the revenue of this country. A large amount of taxable wealth is never assessed, and escapes taxation simply because the men who have the duty to look into this matter have not got the time or the business tact to do it. It is with the view of strengthening the hands

831
of the right hon. Gentleman that I have brought forward this motion. There is always something which hinders necessary reforms being carried out in the position of the public servants, and I hope the Committee will strengthen the hands of those who are anxious to meet the just, true, and right grievances of these surveyors of taxes.
MR. BROADHURST: I am glad that my hon. friend on the opposite side of the House has again brought forward this subject. Some three or four years ago I had some interview's with the Secretary of the Treasury on this very question, and since then I believe something has been done to lighten the burden of these surveyors of taxes. In the whole Civil Service I do not think there is a body of men more justly entitled to consideration or to some increased assistance than they. In many branches the numbers and location of members of the Civil Service admit of combination, and they are thus able to force the attention of the House to their grievances. But in the case of surveyors of taxes their numbers and location are entirely insufficient to enable them to adopt that means for asserting their claims to the consideration of the State. For many years past I have had personal experience, both as Income Tax Commissioner and as Commissioner of the Land Tax, of the work these men are called upon to do. It is not only enormous in volume, but involves the necessity of considerable learning, great skill, and keen intelligence. I do not know whether the right hon. the Secretary to the Treasury has had experience in sitting in these courts. [Mr. HANBURY: No.] I only wish he had, for I am sure that he cannot realise the importance and value of these men without practical experience. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that these surveyors of taxes have to construe new rating Acts and other Acts relating to Inland Revenue, and they have to advise the Commissioners as to what is the law. Then in regard to appeals, where the skill of the surveyor is most brought under the notice of the Commissioners, they must not only be lawyers but first-rate cross-examiners. Unless a surveyor of taxes is a good cross-examiner he cannot bring out from persons the most they have to pay as income tax. I have heard the very best form of cross-examination
832
conducted by surveyors. In many cases many persons are charged with income tax who are obviously not liable, and unable to pay, and I have seen the surveyors get at the fact in a few moments, aided by the Commissioners, with their local knowledge. I think the Secretary to the Treasury should see that something is done to improve the condition of their office assistants. This is a sore grievance. A surveyor of taxes engages the first person he meets in the street—office boys and young men from eighteen to twenty-five years of age, at all sorts of salaries, ranging from 10s. to 40s. per week. Now, when a young man spends five years in an office of surveyor of taxes, he becomes of personal value to the business houses in the neighbourhood, and by an offer of increase of wages these probably take him away just at the time when he is becoming of real value to the surveyor. There ought to be some arrangement made whereby at any rate the higher grade of clerks should be retained in the service, although the surveyors themselves come and go Then, and I am speaking here from personal experience, it is a serious matter that a lad going into a surveyor's office at fourteen or fifteen years of age, and remaining there ten or twelve years, and in the course of time obtaining a knowledge of the secret position of a large number of tradesmen within his area, should go out of the office with all that secret information in his possession, under no obligation whatever, other than moral, to keep it within his own breast. That is unfair to the taxpayers, and if we could keep these young men permanently the surveyor's life would be more tolerable than it now is. I do not know any class of Civil servants who have done less to bring pressure on Members of Parliament to better their position than these men. I may say I have not heard a word from any surveyor of taxes for the last three or four years. At the time I last brought their case before the House it is perfectly true a surveyor of taxes did draw my attention to it, otherwise I would not have known the position of the clerks. But from that moment till now I have had no communication with any surveyor I make this appeal to the Secretary to the Treasury entirely on my own initiative, believing as I do that in appealing for better conditions for these men I am discharging a real public service in the

833
interests of the revenue as well as of the taxpayers, and asking for something which a large body of men are well entitled to receive at the hands of the Treasury. I know that the Secretary to the Treasury has good feelings towards all hard-worked public servants, and I leave it in his hands to make himself acquainted with the facts, and to do his duty thereon.
MR. CALDWELL: As a rule I am not in sympathy with any organisation of Civil servants whose object is to get increased emoluments. I am in exactly the same position as the hon. Member for Leicester. No one has spoken to me on the subject, and I express my view wholly from a public standpoint, and without any pressure from anyone. There are twenty-six surveyors of taxes in Scotland, and 298 for the whole United Kingdom. I quite endorse all that has been said in regard to the technical knowledge required on their part. They must acquaint themselves with everything relating to the necessary deductions for income tax. The claims for repayment of income tax have increased of late from 100,000 to 300,000, owing to the amount of income entitled to abatement having been increased. Obviously these surveyors have to do important work in checking claims for repayment of income tax, and while the amount of work has increased 300 per cent., the number of surveyors has not increased at all. Now, if you have not got a sufficient or a qualified staff, the inevitable result must be that claims for abatement will be passed superficially without that examination being given to them which is necessary for the protection of the revenue. Again, look at the inconvenience to those people who are desirous of having their abatement claims returned within a reasonable time. Anyone who knows anything about income tax returns is aware that there are a great many complaints about the length of time and the forms of investigation necessary in connection with these claims. In fact, I know that there are parties who do not claim abatement when they might, because of the delay and inquisition imposed upon them. That arises in large measure from the circumstance that the surveyor cannot really give the time to go into every account that he ought to give, and
834
is so overburdened with work that claims lie as arrears in his hand, and in order to dispose of them he passes deductions which need not, if due inquiry were made, be conceded, and the revenue suffers in consequence.
MR. HEDDERWICK: I beg to call attention to the fact that there are not forty Members present.
THE CHAIRMAN: I have satisfied myself quite recently that there are more than forty Members within the precincts of the House.
MR. CALDWELL: I am convinced that in the long run there would be an immense saving to the Treasury, and of worry to the public, were the condition of the surveyors of taxes improved. Under the Finance Act, there has been an enormous increase of work. The deductions which have to be considered have increased from 45 to 157 millions, and yet there has been no increase of staff. I do not consider it necessary to labour this matter more than to back up the appeal to the Treasury for sympathy for this particular class of Civil servants. If anything was proposed that was unreasonable, in asking for an increase of salary without a corresponding public benefit, it would not be favourably received, at any rate on this side of the House; but I am satisfied that even on this side of the House the opinion is that the claims of these men should be considered. There is a great deal to be said about the training of men from the lower grades to the position of surveyor. A great deal of knowledge in regard to the affairs of business men is obtained by clerks in surveyors' offices, and it is important that the work should be done in secrecy. It is only by a system of promotion and permanent employment, practical training, and experience that you can get efficient surveyors. You cannot do it by merely passing an examination in Acts of Parliament. It is a very remarkable thing, which shows clearly the necessity of increasing the number of surveyors, that we have to keep surveyors on who, on account of age, should have retired. The age clause is not merely in the interest of the men who are to retire, but in the interest of those who are to come after them. No doubt there are many

835
cases where surveyors have to continue in office a little longer if you are to get experienced men to follow them up; and there are cases where a man who has reached the age of retiring will be more competent to perform the duties than the man who will succeed him. In the interest of having a sufficiently and efficiently trained staff, equal to the requirements of the work, which has so enormously increased of late years, this should be looked upon as a branch of the Civil Service where the men are expected to go on from the lower grades up to the higher in the usual course of promotion. I venture to say the more efficiently the work is done the better it will be in the public interest. There is no doubt whatever that, so far as certain duties are concerned, they can get through their work perfunctorily without being called in question. A surveyor is practically the master of the situation so far as deductions are concerned, and when you consider that in these men's hands there is the disposal of large sums of the public revenue, there should be a trained staff to deal with that revenue. It is not increased salary that is wanted so much as a sufficient number on the staff, and that the training should begin at an early age in the office of the surveyors.
MR. WEIRsaid he desired to call attention to the position of surveyors of Inland Revenue in Scotland, and especially to the case of the surveyor for Inverness-shire. That gentleman received a salary of £600 a year, and he not only undertook the duties of surveyor of taxes in the county of Inverness-shire, but also the duties of registrar of voters in Ross and Cromarty, and various duties in those three counties. It was physically impossible for him to attend to those duties, which necessitated his traversing hundreds of miles, satisfactorily. In consequence of this state of things there were many people in the remoter parts of the district of which he was the surveyor who were improperly assessed, and many who were not assessed at all. He understood that the present surveyor was a gentleman advanced in years, and might soon be on the pension list, and he urged the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury to look into the matter, and
836
when a change took place to make some difference in the new appointment.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY, Preston): It is satisfactory, I think, to be able to discuss the claims of these civil servants upon their merits alone. So far as I can ascertain, these gentlemen have neither sent circulars to hon. Members, nor have they brought any pressure of any kind to bear upon the House. The number of surveyors is not large, and they certainly could not be in better hands than that of the hon. Member who has advocated their cause in a temperate speech full of arguments and facts, and which fully brought out all the grievances of those whose claims he has voiced. He has advanced facts to which I entirely agree. It cannot be denied that the work of surveyors of taxes has increased largely in bulk and delicacy, and I do not think that there is anybody at the Treasury who has not a kindly feeling towards this deserving class of men. I told my hon. friend in answer to one or two questions that we have to recognise the fact that the present surveyors are overworked, and there was a necessity to create a certain number of new districts. We decided that there should be twenty-five, but that is by no means a magic number, and if when they are created we find it necessary to create still further new districts, we shall create them. Although we have created twenty-five new districts, we have not appointed for those assistant surveyors, and that is the complaint against us. That complaint is true to a certain extent, for we have tilled up nine only. The reason for that is that, owing to the short tenure of office of most of the assistant surveyors, we have not sufficient assistant surveyors whom we could promote. My hon. friend drew from that the moral that we ought to be educating and preparing men to take the place of assistant surveyors, so that when we created new districts we should not be short of really qualified surveyors. He suggested that we should recruit men from the clerks to the surveyors. I consulted the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue as to how far that was possible, and I quite agree with my hon. friend that we ought not to be again in the position in which we now are. We recognise that certain surveyors are overworked, but at the same time we have not a sufficient number of

837
men qualified to take that position. My hon. friend on the opposite side drew attention to the loss of promotion that follows owing to the fact that we are obliged to keep a number of surveyors who have passed the age of sixty, because we have not others qualified to occupy the posts. A proposal on the subject has been submitted by the Inland Revenue Department within the last few days, but we have not definitely decided upon it, and it would be wrong for me to forecast our decision, but I will consider the proposals brought forward by the hon. Gentleman with the fullest determination to do justice and increase the promotion of these men. With regard to the case of Inverness, I will look into that and sec how that stands. With regard to the clerks to the surveyors, the objection raised to the present system is that these men acquire considerable knowledge of the incomes of the persons residing in their particular districts, they are merely personal clerks and they are not entitled to pensions, and I think with regard to them there has been some exaggeration. I am afraid that even at Somerset House there is not that accurate knowledge of incomes that is desirable in the interest of the Exchequer, and the information of a surveyor's clerk would be for the most part of a very vague and general description. But it is said that they exercise very responsible duties, and that we ought to have them in the permanent Civil Service. I am afraid that, though we might gain some advantage by pursuing that course, we should sacrifice those which we have at the present moment. I very much doubt whether the class of clerks sent down to the locality would do their work as well as these men do. In the first place I do not know that we should get good men to go and settle down in these small towns, but you have at the present moment men living in the locality who readily undertake this class of work, and are perfectly willing to remain in the locality so that they year by year become more acquainted with the work in the district. These are considerable advantages, which more than outweigh any which would follow my hon. friend's suggestion. I think there is something in what he said, that they ought not to receive a fixed salary, but as their knowledge and usefulness increase so also ought their rate of pay. I do not know whether it is
838
generally known, but that is the rule at the present moment of the Inland Revenue Department. I quite admit that these men do very useful work, and, whilst their salaries were raised by the Treasury two or three years ago, I do not think they are so fully paid as their merits deserve, and I hope to be able to adjust their claim in that respect. With regard to the clerks to surveyors, the Board consider that in a considerable number of cases it is only fair and reasonable to raise the salaries of these men, and I will look into the whole case myself, and if I find that there is a good case made out, I shall have no hesitation in increasing their salaries.
MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONEexpressed his belief that the surveyors would be thoroughly satisfied with the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, and he thanked him for the sympathetic tone of his answer.
SIR CHARLES CAMERONwas very glad to hear it was proposed to increase the districts and surveyors employed in England. He pointed out that in Scotland these gentlemen received increased pay and promotion in proportion to the success with which they supplied the screw to the income-tax payer. The result was that in Scotland the income tax was collected to a far greater proportioned extent than in England.
2. £5,243,605, to complete the sum for Post Office.
MR. WEIRcalled attention to the overcrowding which took place in many post offices. Many post offices were shockingly overcrowded, packed full of employees, ventilation defective and the sanitary arrangements unsatisfactory. A condition of things prevailed in these offices which would not be permitted by the Home Office in factories and workshops. The result was that much suffering was entailed upon the employees, many of whom died every year from phthisis. He urged that there should be some system of inspection of the rooms in which the employees were

839
engaged, especially in the country post offices. The Government had done much to increase the postal facilities in the remote districts of Scotland, but there were still many things requiring attention. He asked that in these districts the postmen should be allowed to carry postage stamps, post cards, and postal orders for small amounts, which they could sell to the public. This would save poor people a journey of perhaps many miles to a post office. He also asked that pillar-boxes should be placed in these remote parts. He also asked that the postman should be allowed to receive registered letters on his round. Many of the people living in the remoter parts of the Highlands of Scotland went every summer to the East Coast to take part in the fishing, and those who went would naturally desire to send home a little money to their families, and ought to have greater facilities for doing so. There was also, he noticed, an item of £14,000 derived from void postal orders, and from money orders £3,000; could not some means be arranged by which the unfortunate public might get back this money, to which the Government could not possibly have a right?
MR. CALDWELLthought a great deal might be said in favour of the rural postman being allowed to supply postage stamps. In many country districts a man had to go two or three miles to post a letter, whereas, if a stamp could be purchased from the postman, he would collect the letters in the usual way. He was certain the matter had only to be mentioned in order to receive the immediate attention of the Treasury.
SIR CAMERON GULL (Devonshire, Barnstaple)said there were just two points he would like to call attention to as regarded the collection and delivery of letters in the more remote country districts. The usual custom was to take the mail for a large country area to the central town of that area, and there sort the letters and send them out to the various villages. That caused considerable delay, and the question he wanted to ask was whether the Post Office could not create several more railway sorting offices. The district he had in his mind in putting that question was one where letters were delayed sometimes two hours, and were only delivered
840
after the farmers had gone to market, and so caused a great deal of inconvenience. There was another point, as regards late letter-boxes on mail trains. This was a question to which he had previously called attention, and after agitating nine months he had succeeded in getting one late letter-box put on one short line; he was now asking for one on another line, but up to the present this had been refused, the reasons given being unintelligible. He had been told that there was nobody to look after a letter-box if placed upon the train, but he had pointed out that nobody looked after the various pillar-boxes in the country, and one would have thought that if a letter-box was padlocked on to a train it would be equally safe. Such a box in such a position would be a great boon to many districts and a great convenience to the country generally.
MR. HANBURY: Several questions have been put to me, and I will take them in their order. With regard to overcrowding post offices, to a great extent I agree with the hon. Member. I do not think any Government Department ought to have its buildings overcrowded or in an insanitary condition, and I shall be prepared to see the principle of inspection carried out to the extent suggested. I do not think Government buildings should be under the direct inspection of the local authorities, because, after all, local authorities would like to take every opportunity of dropping on to the Government; but there ought to be somebody appointed, perhaps by the Home Office, to inspect Government offices in order that they may conform with the Factories Act on sanitary matters. The hon. Member next referred to the question of halfpenny postcards, and said he thought they ought to be sold at their face value, and, as usual, brought forward the case of the poor man. But the poor man does not use the postcard so much as the other classes, and if we throw in the card as well as the stamp for the halfpenny, the next thing we shall be asked to do is to supply a sheet of paper and a stamped envelope for a penny. Then with regard to pillar boxes in the Highlands, it is not only the Highlands, but the Lowlands also that feel the necessity for pillar-boxes, and I think it is in the interest of the post offices to have these pillar-boxes in the road through which the mail runs,

841
and any influence that I have with the Post Office I shall be glad to use in order to increase the number of pillar-boxes. As a matter of fact, in my own parish I have been trying for years to do the same thing, though not always with success. With regard to the distribution of stamps it is, no doubt, a great hardship to the farmer to have to go two or three miles to the post office to post his letters, and I do not see why a postman should not carry stamps. It would be no great extra burden on the postman, and I think an arrangement could be made so that stamps could be purchased from him. Another point which was raised, I gathered, referred to the amount of unclaimed postal orders, etc., which, no doubt, do bring in considerable revenue. I am told these amounts are never paid into the Exchequer until they have been four or five years in arrear, and when a postal order has been so long unpaid I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer is fairly entitled to the reversion. A point was raised by my hon. friend below the gangway with regard to letterboxes on mail trains; so far as I know the Post Office has lately begun to post letters on mail trains, but the hon. Member suggests that letters should be posted on boxes attached to nearly every train. There is no objection whatever to allowing letters to be posted on those trains on which there is a man carried to sort them, but what we cannot do is to allow a box to be attached to a train which has no servant to attend to it. The answer to the contention that it would take care of itself like a pillar-box is that a pillar-box is stationary, and that a train moves, and if there was nobody on the train to sort the letters so posted, they would be carried to the terminus, and be delayed to a greater extent than if posted in the ordinary way. Another point is the posting of letters in villages. If a letter was posted in a village nine miles from the head post office at seven o'clock in the morning, and the postman passed that village at eight o'clock, he used not to be allowed to take that letter on. It was left there until the afternoon, when it was taken to the head office. That arrangement was perfectly ridiculous, and it has been altered within the last two or three months. There is one other reform which I hope will be carried out. I think a great deal might be done by posting letters on mail
842
carts. There is no reason whatever why a man who wanted to post a letter should not meet the mail cart, and the postman deal with that letter. Having dealt with all the questions before me, I may assure hon. Members that during the last few years there has been an earnest desire on the part of the Post Office to meet the public wishes. These are really small reforms, but they are no doubt reforms which would confer a great boon on people living in remote districts.
MR. WEIRhoped the right hon. Gentleman would not allow himself to be influenced by the remarks of the Lord Advocate, who, if he were a crofter with an income of some £20 or £25 a year and a family of ten or twelve children, would not talk such arrant nonsense as ordering stamps in advance.
SIR BRAMPTON GURD0Nsaid every Member of the House would acknowledge that the halfpenny open envelope circular was an intolerable nuisance. There were many thousands of people who came down to their breakfasts with fear and trembling at the number of these documents with which they would have to deal. He was told that one gentleman on opening one of them had discovered a letter properly directed and stamped inside. Every one was grateful for all improvements, but that concession had been a step in the wrong direction.
MR. CALDWELLdesired to call attention to the amount charged for conveying parcels to men on active service in South Africa, which was 9d. a pound. He thought, having regard to the present circumstances and the class of men who had gone out to serve their country, it would be convenient to make a special rate for these parcels. No one would send things that were not necessary, and it was well known that soldiers' letters were conveyed at ordinary postage.
MR. WILLIAM MOORE, who was indistinctly heard, was understood to complain of the delay in the postal arrangements in his constituency; he regretted not being able to give the particulars at the moment, but great delay took place in the delivery of letters in great towns in the North of Ireland,

843
including Derry. A great deal of the delay he understood was due to the London and North-Western Railway Company, which carried the mails from London, and which was under no penalties in regard to keeping time. He urged this matter on the attention of the Post Office. He submitted that, in a case where no penalty could be imposed against the railway company, there ought to be all the more care in carrying out the contract. He was quite sure that the Financial Secretary, who understood the grievance from which the people of the North of Ireland suffered, would attend to it, and endeavour to put the matter in order.
SIR MARK STEWARTsaid the great difficulty in this matter was the very small subsidy allowed to the railway company for carrying the mails. But a great deal of the blame was due to the arrangements at the junction at Carlisle of the Midland and Lon-don and North-Western Railway Companies, the one company having to wait on the other. Something might be done there to save half an hour.
MR. HANBURY: On the subject referred to by the hon. Member for Mid Lanark, the Post Office undertook to communicate both with the War Office and the Post Offices in South Africa. Of course, we have not complete control over the colonial post, because the proceeds are divided between the Post Office at home and the Post Offices in South Africa, either the Natal or the Cape Town Post Office.
Resolutions to be reported.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £563,015, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, for the Expenses of the Post Office Packet Service."
MR. WEIR: I am extremely sorry to be again compelled to call attention to the very unsatisfactory service between Kyle of Lochalsh and Stornoway. I should
844
not be doing justice to my constituents if I did not refer to this matter. I have occasion sometimes to travel over the seventy or eighty miles of stormy sea between these places, and I do not wish to sail in a tub forty years old. It is, of course, almost impossible for a boat of that age to keep up to time. The right hon. Gentleman will tell us that she got now machinery a few years ago; but how about the ship itself? I am not an expert, but I doubt the soundness or safety of a ship forty years old. I have to ask that the right hon. Gentleman will take this matter into serious consideration, with the view of having a better-steamer provided for the conveyance of passengers and mails to and from Stornoway. If the contractor is entitled to a larger subsidy, we should provide it in order to get a safer boat.
MR. CALDWELL: I presume this is the same boat I travelled with from Stornoway to Strome Ferry some years ago. I remember that at that time it was considered rather a doubtful boat. I remember that the engineer of the Highland Railway awaited my arrival on the mainland. The boat was very late, and, knowing the condition of the vessel, he certainly thought the boat was at the bottom of the sea. That was the opinion in this district eleven years ago. When I crossed it was not by any moans an extra storm. If that is the boat on the service I must say it is very unfair to the people of that part of the Highlands that the vessel should receive anything like a subsidy from the Post Office. The contractors put on this service a rickety boat which in the case of any other company would have been taken off long ago. I hope the matter will be considered very seriously by the Post Office. Some years ago when the Estimates were submitted I think a complaint was made of the condition of this very boat and service, and some promise of reform was made. Obviously nothing will be done until the Post Office takes some particular step. I hope this matter will receive the best consideration of the Treasury and the Post Office.
MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: It is about time we had a new boat on this route. The sum of £3,000 is paid as a subsidy for this vessel. If she has been forty years in the trade I should

845
think that the vessel has been a perfect Klondyke to the owners, and they could well afford to purchase a more modern vessel. I think £3,000 ample, because a considerable amount of revenue is derived from the passengers and cargo this boat carries. I think it is a positively unsafe thing to have a vessel like this in this trade. The hull of the vessel will be pretty well worn out, and I should not be surprised if some day a calamity befalls the vessel. In that case my hon. friend will be able to charge the Post Office with the full responsibility for the loss of life, because session after session he has called the attention of the Postmaster General to this matter. I am quite certain if the Post Office would only move in it the owner would get a new and more modern boat—one that would do justice to the passengers and increase the trade between the island and the mainland. I want to have a few words with the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the mails to the Orient. I find that the sum of £415,000 is paid annually for the mails between Asia and Australia and the United Kingdom, whereas the amount paid for the conveyance of the mails between England and America is only £241,000. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would do something with regard to the manner in which the P. and O. Company deal with their employees. It has been admitted by the President of the Board of Trade that the P. and O. Company do not comply with the Merchant Shipping Act in providing seamen with proper accommodation. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can do anything in the matter. I believe it is in the power of the Post Office to give the contracts out to any companies competent to no the work, and I am certain that there are many companies which could do the work equally as well as the P. and O. Company. There is the Orient Line running to New Zealand—a very good line. They pay their workmen the best wages, give the best food, and the very best accommodation. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he could not see his way clear to give a larger part of the mail contract to the Orient Company. They employ Britishers and do well by the men. Such a company ought to be well supported by the Government. I would like to ask that the conveyance of the mails to Australia should be taken
846
away entirely from the P. and O. Company, because they will not comply with the law, sweating the workmen and pinching them of their accommodation. I say such a company has no right to have any consideration at the hands of the Government. I know that the right hon. Gentleman takes a broad view of these matters. He does not support what may be called sweating firms, and I hope he will be able to give us an answer to-night that he will be able to place the contracts with good firms and leave the sweaters on one side.
MR. HANBURY: The question of this boat has been raised by the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty. I believe that for years when the Post Office Estimates have been under consideration this question has been gone into, and the boat has been criticised or questions have been asked. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lanark is a bad sailor or not, or whether that remark applies to the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty. It is rather late for the hon. Member for Mid Lanark to over-estimate the dangers of a passage by this boat.
MR. CALDWELL: I did not complain myself of the voyage. I only stated the opinion of those who knew the locality, and who knew the boat. I was quite unconscious of danger.
MR. WEIR: What I complained of was the rotten hull of the vessel that I have to go on board of—not that I fear the terrors of the sea. It is the old rotten tub that I object to sail in.
MR. HANBURY: I am afraid the two hon. Members are in conflict with each other. I understand that the hon. Member opposite rather enjoyed the voyage. He has no objection to the boat as regards his own comfort. He was so pleased with the boat, so far as I understand, that he is unable to say anything against it. He had to call in the prophets, who thought it could not run more than a few months. I think the mere fact that it has gone on twelve years since then has shown them to be false prophets. I do not say for a moment that it is a vessel of the strictest modern type. I understand that it is some twenty-five years old, and not, as has been stated in exag-

847
geration, forty years old. During all this time it has been passing through these seas. There have been a few occasions on which this boat has been late, but there has been no loss of life or of mails during the whole twenty-five years. Occasionally no doubt the boat has been late in arriving at Stornoway, and hon. Members have put question after question on this matter. In a great number of cases the delay was due not to the boat being unable to make the passage in time, but to the late arrival of the train on the other side. After all, it is the carriage of mails which is the main object for which the subsidy is spent. If the hon. Member can assure me that he does suffer inconvenience I will represent the whole matter to the Post Office, but I understand that he repudiates with scorn the suggestion of that. I think the hon. Member has not made out his case that this service should be dispensed with, and a new one put in its place.
MR. WEIR: I make this appeal on behalf of the 30,000 people in the island of Lewis. It is not for myself at all. Really, I am not at all satisfied with the
way the matter has been treated. It has: been treated too lightly. The mails may not have been lost, but what about the time? The boat has been late many times. It has never gone to the bottom yet, but it has only to go to the bottom once. We do not want to jeopardise the lives of passengers and crew, or the safety of the mails. I beg to move that the Vote be reduced £100.
Motion made, and Question proposed— "That Item A (Contracts for Conveyance of Mails), be reduced by £100, in respect of the service between Kyle of Lochalsh and Stornoway."—(Mr. Weir.)
MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: The right hon. Gentleman has not given an answer on the question of the Australian mails.
THE CHAIRMAN: That cannot come up on this Vote, which refers to mails in the United Kingdom.
Question put—
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 49; Noes, 140. (Division List No. 110.)

AYES.

Asher, Alexander

Harwood, George

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

Hogan, James Francis

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Holland, William Henry

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Broadhurst, Henry

Horniman, Frederick John

Runciman, Walter

Burt, Thomas

Joicey, Sir James

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Caldwell, James

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

Shaw, Chas. Edw. (Stafford)

Cameron, Robert (Durham)

Macaleese, Daniel

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Causton, Richard Knight

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Steadman, William Charles

Channing, Francis Allston

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Daly, James

M'Dermott, Patrick

Tanner, Charles Kearns

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

M'Ghee, Richard

Ure, Alexander

Dewar, Arthur

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Dillon, John

Maddison, Fred.

Wilson, John (Govan)

Doogan, P. C.

Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

Fenwick, Charles

Moss, Samuel

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.Weir and Mr. Havelock Wilson.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

Philipps, John Wynford

NOES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

Balcarres, Lord

Bullard, Sir Harry

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg'w)

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r.)

Carlile, William Walter

Cox, Irwin E. Bainbridge

Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds)

Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

Curzon, Viscount

Banbury, Frederick George

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)

Denny, Colonel

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol)

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford East)

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Bethell, Commander

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Chamberlain, J. Austen (W'rc'r)

Doughty, George

Blakiston-Houston, John

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Bond, Edward

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Jackson, Rt. Hon. W. Lawies

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Faber, George Denison

Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

Richardson, J. (Durham, S. E.)

Fardell, Sir T. George

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir Matthew W.

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Jenkins, Sir John Jones

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

Finch, George H.

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

Lawrence, Sir K. Durning-(Corn)

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Fisher, William Hayes

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Rutherford, John

Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

Lock wood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Sandon, Viscount

Slower, Ernest

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

Foster, Sir M. (London Univ.)

Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool)

Sidebottom, William (Derbysh.)

Fry, Lewis

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Galloway, William Johnson

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Gedge, Sydney

Lowe, Francis William

Smith, Abel H. (Chrishchurch)

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Smith, James P. (Lanarks.)

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Gilliat, John Saunders

Maclure, Sir John William

Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St. George's)

Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

Strauss, Arthur

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Milward, Colonel Victor

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Monckton, Edward Philip

Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton)

Graham, Henry Robert

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Morgan, Hon. F. (Monm'thsh.)

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford)

Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)

Gull, Sir Cameron

Mount, William George

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Gunter, Colonel

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)

Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute)

Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)

Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Wyndham, George

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Parkes, Ebenezer

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Heath, James

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Helder, Augustus

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

Plunkett, Rt. Hn. Horace Curzon

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Howard, Joseph

Purvis, Robert

Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle

Rankin, Sir James

Resolution agreed to.

Original Question again proposed.
AN HON. MEMBERasked whether the Secretary to the Treasury was satisfied with the rapidity with which the vessels of the Castle and Union lines, which were now amalgamated, ran to the islands of St. Helena and Ascension. The hon. Gentleman's experience, having travelled by these lines on three different occasions to South Africa, was that the vessels ran well within their powers. It, therefore, seemed that if the Post Office put a little pressure on the company, a more rapid delivery of the mails could be secured. It was to the interest of the company that the vessels should run at a lower speed, because of the smaller consumption of fuel, but it was to the interest of the public that greater rapidity in the delivery of the mails should be secured.
SIR BRAMPTON GURDONasked whether the Secretary to the Treasury could give the financial results of the establishment of the colonial penny postage. If the system did not pay its expenses it was not fair that the British taxpayers as a whole should have to pay
850
what was really a tax for the benefit of colonial business correspondence.
MR. WOLFFasked the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether anything had been done in the direction of obtaining a more rapid delivery of mails between the North of England and the North of Ireland, and whether, considering the immense amount of correspondence and parcels from the North of England, something could not be done to secure a more regular delivery than had hitherto been enjoyed.
MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: With regard to the suggestion that the speed of the boats between this country and Africa should be increased, it must be borne in mind that if that is done more coal will be consumed, and consequently there will be harder work for the men. I trust if anything is done in that direction the right hon. Gentleman will see that there is a larger number of men employed to do the work. I hope also that the right hon. Gentleman will make some

851
answer with regard to the P. and O. contract for carrying mails.
MR. HANBURY: I do not know that my hon. friend the Member for East Belfast complains of the mail service as a whole, because he knows that the service to Belfast has recently been accelerated. As I understand, he complains of the service which connects the North of Ireland with the North of England and the South of Scotland. I know that representations were recently made by the Post Office, and I will make inquiries about the matter. With regard to the question of the possibility of greater speed on the vessels of the Castle line, it is a new point to me, and I will find out what the pace of the vessels is. Then the hon. Member below the gangway has spoken with regard to the P. and O. Company's contract. We have a contract with the Company, and by that contract we must abide. I do not know that we are concerned as to whether they carry lascars or not. The company have got to obey the law whatever the law may be. The hon. Member says that, under the law, whatever it is, the lascar is entitled to exactly the same accommodation on board the boats as the English seaman is, and he goes further and says that the President of the Board of Trade agrees with him in that respect. If that be so, I do not quite understand how it is a vessel can go on carrying lascars with less space than is allowed to English seamen. I think the hon. Gentleman must have made some mistake in his law, and that it is not exactly as he represents. I am bound to say that, apart from any question of the law, my sympathies are not entirely with the hon. Gentleman, because I cannot help having the feeling that the hon. Gentleman by the use of the law is rather trying to drive out the lascars, and I do not quite see why these men, who are British subjects like ourselves, should be driven out of British vessels. It appears to me that the hon. Gentleman, under the plea of breaking of the law, is trying to make it impossible for these lascars to be employed in the P. and O. Company's steamers. But that is not my matter. We have a contract with the P. and O. Company with some years to run, and as long as they do not break the law we have no right to interfere with them.
MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: The right hon. Gentleman has entirely misunderstood the point I wish to make. I was not urging in any way that the lascars should not be employed on the boats. I have never done that. What I have said is this—that the law says that seamen employed on British ships shall have 72 cubic feet of space. That is what the law says. I do not care whether he is a lascar or a Britisher, he has a right to that 72 feet of space.
MR. WOLFF: Nobody objects to him having it.
MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: If no one objects to it I want to know why the men do not have it. I say that the President of the Board of Trade has admitted in this House more than once that the P. and O. Company are not complying with the law; they are breaking the law, and there is a penalty of £25 for every offence they commit. I have urged the President of the Board of Trade to put the law into force. He has not done so, and he will not do so—I do not know for what reason—so now I come to the Post Office. They have a right to make contracts. The right hon. Gentleman says that these contracts having been made for a number of years we have got to abide by them. I say in answer to that that there is a resolution passed in this House in 1891, which says that in all Government contracts there shall be a clause to say that the contractors must give fair conditions to their employees. I say that if the P. and O. Company are not providing proper accommodation for their lascar seamen, they are not doing fairly by the men. The right hon. Gentleman says that I want to use this as a side issue upon which to drive the lascars out of the employ of the P. and O. Company. I do not want to do anything of the kind. I say that in our interest, in the interest of the people of this country, it is necessary that every man who is employed on board ship shall have the proper accommodation to which he is entitled by law. I have observed for some time past a considerable number of cases of outbreak of cholera on board ships. These are entirely due to the fact that the men do not get proper accommodation. I say that that is a very serious matter when those vessels are coming into English ports. We may have an outbreak of

853
cholera in London shortly in consequence of the manner in which this large and wealthy company treat the lascar seamen. They are getting close upon half a million of money a year out of the pockets of the taxpayers of this country, and I say it is a scandal and a disgrace to the P. and O. Company that they should carry on in this way. The right hon. Gentleman says it is not helping the British seamen. I want to show why it will help the British seamen. We have been contending that we should have increased accommodation for British seamen. If we were to succeed in doing that, while lascars were allowed to be given less accommodation, it would encourage other shipowners to go in for lascars, and by-and-by there would be no British seamen employed on British ships at all, so that this is a matter of considerable importance to British seamen and to the community at large. I fail to understand why this attitude should be taken up by a Conservative Government, who say that the natives of India are our fellow - countrymen, and ought to have equal rights with Britishers. I say, if that is so, give them equal laws or an equal application of the law. There is no reason why they should be robbed of what they are entitled to have simply because they are poor unfortunate natives.
MR. MADDISON: I am very sorry the right hon. Gentleman has given such a very unsympathetic reply upon this point. I was a little surprised at the cheers which came from the other side when the employment of lascar seamen was mentioned. It must be a very interesting thing to the working men of this country to know how very anxious Members opposite are that lascar seamen should be employed on these vessels. For my part, I do not agree with my hon. friend if his intention is to exclude lascars because they are lascars. We have recently had a decision of the Law Officers of the Crown upon this question of the lascars, but for some reason the President of the Board of Trade was advised not to prosecute the P. and O. Company. Surely when the right hon. Gentleman says he does not wish British subjects, because they are lascars, to be excluded from these vessels, he must see that that must carry with it the requirement that these British sub-
854
jects should have equal space allowed them, as in the case of all other British subjects. I am astounded that while hon. Members opposite spent a great part of their electioneering time in advocating measures for the exclusion of aliens, a course which they said was for the benefit of English working men, my hon. friend can get no remedy from the Board of Trade or sympathy from the Post Office in regard to this matter. One thing that is clear is that there is a deliberate intention, design, and purpose of encouraging wherever possible these shipping companies which give employment to lascar seamen to the exclusion of British seamen. While I quite understand that the right hon. Gentleman could not all at once revoke this contract, yet if he had had any sympathy with the very fair contention raised by my hon. friend he would have given a very different reply. The real truth is that the present Government, while professing to help British workmen, and while getting votes by the thousand on the cry of "England for the English," have done their level best, and very successfully, to make England just not for the English. I regret very much that the right hon. Gentleman did not hold out the slightest hope that he would make any inquiry into this matter. The P. and O. Company have such influence with Her Majesty's Government that, no matter what the demand may be, and no matter from which quarter it comes, there is always one reply, and that is a defence of the company at any cost. I know nothing about the Orient Line, but at any rate the Government is not dependent upon the P. and O. Company. It is an incontrovertible fact that the P. and O. Company stand amongst the worst employers of seamen, and yet it is to that Company that the Government give all the support they possibly can.
CAPTAIN PHILLPOTTS: I may claim to have had some experience of British merchant seamen, and also of lascars. As regards the British merchant seamen I will say that there is no class to equal them as long as they are kept clear of the paid agitator.
THE CHAIRMAN: I do not see how this can be relevant to the Vote under discussion.
CAPTAIN PHILLPOTTS: Of course I bow to your ruling, Sir. I merely wished to say that lascars are substitutes on board the mail steamers only because they are less subject to the influences of these agitators.
THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order
MR. JOHN WILSON: I am neither a seaman nor a director of the P. and O. Company, but I am a paid agitator, and I feel honoured in being one. The question before the Committee, however, is not that of the paid agitator, or of the British seamen, or of the lascars; it is the question of carrying out the law of the country. It has been made clear that the President of the Board of Trade and the representative of the sailors are agreed that the P. and O. Company are not carrying out the law of the land. Seeing that the company receives subsidies to the amount of nearly half a million sterling per annum, would it not be competent, if the company are breaking the law, for the Government to say, "You must either carry out the law or else lose the subsidies?" I am a trade union secretary, but I have never tried to induce a man to break the law, and if any employers of labour wish this company to continue doing so let them stand up boldly and say so. I ask the Government not to pay a company to carry out bad conditions. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough has not asked that lascars should not be employed. This company can employ any man, black or white, but a British ship being British territory the British law must be carried out. Would it not be as well if, when these questions between labour and capital, between employers and employed, are being discussed, the terms "paid agitator" and "the tyranny of the masters" were left out of account altogether, and the questions discussed on their merits? I do not think a more reasonable demand than that of the hon. Gentleman behind me has ever been put forward in this House. If he is wrong, he is wrong; if he is right, the Government ought to see that this company do not get money for breaking the law of the land.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: As I gather from the observations of my hon. friend, what happens is this —On the boats of this particular company preference is given to lascar sailors and firemen instead of British sailors and firemen. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite thinks that is a desirable state of things, and the reason he thinks it is desirable is that lascar seamen and firemen are less amenable to the influences of the paid agitators than the British sailor. I will put the matter in rather plainer English. What the hon. and gallant Gentleman really means to say is that lascar seamen and firemen are employed because, owing to many circumstances, lascar seamen and firemen are satisfied with a great deal less wage and less comfort than British sailors and firemen. The lascar sailor is satisfied with 26s. a month, but the British sailor requires £4 10s. a month. I can understand the owner of a steamship and the chairman of a great company like the P. and O. preferring lascars to British sailors, but I cannot understand a British sailor and a patriot like the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite proclaiming that it is better on the whole for the country that the British sailor should be deprived of his employment with the connivance and patronage of Her Majesty's Government because lascar labour is cheaper. Why should a company which is largely subsidised and kept in existence by the revenues and taxes of this country be allowed to exclude a British sailor, who costs £4 10s. a month, in order to employ a lascar because he only wants 26s. a month? I cannot understand the hon. and gallant Gentleman supporting this idea unless he belongs to those cosmopolitan employers of labour who think they should under all circumstances employ the cheapest labour obtainable. But is there not a much larger question to be considered in this matter than the particular wage paid by a particular company? The maritime population is one of the great sources of the strength of this country, and in cases of emergency and national danger it is to this population that the country will have to look for its defence. I ask the Secretary of the Treasury, is it right that the encouragement and assistance of the Government should be given to exclude

857
the British sailor, upon whom you have to rely in the end, from one of the great shipping companies of this country, which is now being done with the connivance of Her Majesty's Government? The Government cannot get rid of responsibility in this matter. I have nothing to say against the company in its other capacities, but the P. and O. Company would not be able to carry on its business if it had not the support of the Government, and I think that support ought to be given only upon terms which are of advantage to the nation at large. I ask, is it to the advantage of the country at large that lascar sailors should be allowed to be employed upon terms and conditions which exclude British sailors? My hon. friend the Member for Middlesbrough has asked many questions upon this subject, and perhaps I have not given sufficient attention to the answers which the President of the Board of Trade has given. Therefore I accept what my hon. friend has stated upon this subject, and I understand him to say that one of the reasons why lascars are employed is that the P. and O. Company are able to violate the law with regard to lascars, which they could not do if they employed British seamen. I see the President of the Board of Trade in his place, and I should like him to give me his attention. The question we are discussing is the employment of lascar sailors, and my hon. friend has made the statement that the President of the Board of Trade has acknowledged that the P. and O. Company have violated the law with regard to the amount of accommodation to be given on board their vessels. I ask the Committee to carefully consider this question. Here we have a company violating the law with regard to the accommodation given to sailors, and violating it because a particular class of sailors are cheaper than another class of sailors, and the class of sailors favoured are lascars, and those injured by the law not being obeyed are men of our own kith and kin. This is a patriotic Government, and I should have thought they would look with some concern upon the exclusion by one of the great shipping companies of this country of that great resource and final body to which in an emergency you have to look, namely, the native-bred sailors of this land. The Secretary of the Treasury says he is bound to fulfil
858
his contracts, but the P. and O. Company are bound to observe the law, and therefore the violation of the law should mean the abrogation of the contract by the Government.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.): Certainly not.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that if he made a contract, and the contractor turned out to be fraudulent and guilty of illegalities, that he could not put an end to such contract?
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: We have made a contract with the P. and O. Company upon certain terms, and there are provisions in that contract which are binding on both sides. As long as the company fulfil the terms of that contract we are bound to pay them what we have undertaken. The question which the hon. Gentleman has been discussing as to whether they violate the law in their treatment of lascar seamen has nothing to do with this point. The hon. Member may be right or he may be wrong, but even if he is right in assuming that they do break the law, that would not justify the Government in abrogating the contract.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I desire to ask——
THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! If I allow the hon. Member for Dundee to intervene in the middle of a speech, I shall be obliged to allow other Members to do the same.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I shall be quite willing to give way to anyone who wishes to elucidate this matter. The point we are now discussing is a very serious question, and I hope hon. Gentlemen do not think I am speaking from a party point of view, because I am not. I will not argue with the right hon. Gentleman, but I will take the question

859
apart from the ground of technicality and legality. Is the Government entitled to abrogate its rights of prosecuting a company for a violation of the law? [Ministerial laughter.] I do not understand the laughter of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Is the Government entitled to suspend the operation of the law with regard to a company which is violating the law in reference to the accommodation it provides for sailors, and at the same time to continue giving to that company its life-blood in the shape of its patronage by this contract for the supply of mails? That is the question we have to consider. I do not think hon. Members opposite would laugh if they were addressing their constituencies upon the cry of foreign as against British labour. Here is this Government, consisting of true-born British statesmen, actually bribing and subsidising a company which is violating the law, the result of which is to give lascar labour a tremendous advantage over those poor unfortunate men who have the disadvantage of having been born Englishmen, Irishmen, and perhaps some of them are Welshmen. These men have had the misfortune to have been born in this island, and because of that, and the fact that they have the manhood to assert their rights of demanding good wages and proper accommodation, they are excluded from the service of this great company, which gets an enormous subsidy from this great and patriotic Government. I seem to have excited the wrath of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and more especially the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Torquay, who thinks that a lascar sailor should be employed because he does not utilise the services of the paid agitator, and is satisfied with 26s. a month, when the unfortunate Briton, with the assistance of the paid agitator, demands £4 10s. a month. I would like to hear from the President of the Board of Trade some defence of his suspension of activity against this great company, which is violating the law for the protection of the lives of sailors. I understand also that these lascars, when emergencies arise, are not the best class of sailors, and that when you are face to face with a fire or a storm, these lascars are, after all, a very poor protection for the lives of the persons on board these vessels. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will
860
enlighten us upon this question, as well as upon the subject of paid agitators.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: A few minutes ago when I was called to order I had no intention of intervening in this debate, but I simply rose to put a question to elucidate the real meaning of the reply given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He told us what were the conditions under which the Government contracted with the shipping company. I understood him to say that so long as certain conditions were observed the fact that the company failed to obey the law of the land would be no justification for the Government deciding to put an end to the contract. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether that is a considered statement. I wish to know whether this is the state of things existing, that among the conditions which he makes with the shipping company there is not the implied condition that the shipping company shall obey the law of the land. If that is not the case, I should like to know whether he makes his statement upon the authority of the Law Officers of the Crown, who, I presume, must be consulted upon the question; and I wish to know, if it really is the case that this contract is such that it is not necessary that the law of the land should lie obeyed, why is it that the Government do not put this condition in among the other conditions of the contract? These are all questions the importance of which is increased by the experience we have had in this and preceding sessions of Parliament. We have never been allowed to have the information we desire upon this matter. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has intervened to tell us what, in his opinion, the conditions of the con-tract are. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will supplement his answer with a further statement.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Whether the P. and O. Company have broken the law in regard to their treatment of lascar seamen is a matter upon which I express no opinion. That has nothing to do with the terms of the contract for the conveyance of mails, which we are bound to fulfil. I am convinced that no court of

861
law would justify us in refusing to pay; for certain services so long as those services have been duly rendered.
MR. WILLIAM M'ARTHUR: I wish to say one word on behalf of the unhappy lascar seamen. I do not prefer the lascar to the British sailor, hut I do desire to point out that, the lascar is just as much a British subject and entitled to the protection of the British law as the British sailor is. For that reason I feel a considerable amount of sympathy with the speech of my hon. friend behind me. I have no sympathy with the argument of one hon. Member, who spoke in a direction which tended to the exclusion of lascars altogether from British ships. I have a great deal of sympathy with the arguments of hon. Members who are not arguing for the purpose of excluding the lascar, but who argue that the lascar has just as much right to have the law maintained in his favour as the British sailor. If the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Treasury will forgive me, I wish to say that I think he has treated this matter a little cavalierly. A very serious statement was made by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, and it was that the law was broken as against the lascars by one of our great steamship companies. I am bound to say myself, knowing what I do about the companies, that I very much doubt whether that statement is correct. But it is a statement made by a Member of this House, and it deserves more serious treatment than that which it has received to-night. When we are dealing with the case of an alleged unfair treatment of those who are the subjects of the British Crown, and who are entitled to all the protection of the British law, it should not be allowed to go forth that this House is unmindful of the welfare of those subject races, or that it affords them less protection than any other subjects of our own blood. The point I am trying to make is that I do hope the two right hon. Gentlemen opposite will make a detailed and serious inquiry into this charge which has been made, without for one moment lending themselves to the agitation in favour of
862
the exclusion of native seamen as against British seamen, for the native seaman is a British citizen, and has just as much right to be employed as the native-born Englishman.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,): With regard to the question of the hon. Member who has just sat down, I may say that the Law Officers of the Crown have been consulted with regard to this matter, and their advice is that the English Merchant Shipping Act applies to the P. and O. Company's steamers. They also say that while it is perfectly competent for the Board of Trade or anyone else to prosecute, the Board of Trade, before prosecuting, ought to take into consideration the whole circumstances of the case, which are very shortly these. There are two Acts of Parliament, and one of them is the Indian Act. It was, for a long time doubtful whether it was under the provisions of the Indian Act that the matter ought to be dealt with. There are two modes by which a company transgressing the law can be penalised. One is by the disallowance of crew space in calculating gross tonnage, and the other is by prosecution. As hon. Gentlemen who are familiar with this subject know, the space occupied by the crews in ships is deducted from the gross tonnage for the purpose of the payment of all dues, but that reduction is not made unless the Board of Trade are satisfied that the amount of space provided by the law is given to the seamen on board. We have always, for a long time past, put in force the law in regard to the disallowance of crew space, so that the P. and O. Company, or any other company which does not allow space similar to that which ought to be allowed to British seamen, does not get this allowance, and therefore has to pay excess on tonnage wherever their vessels go. So far as that goes, the P. and O. steamers are penalised. It is only in some of their steamers that they do not give the proper space, for in many of their steamers ample space is given, although in some it is not

863
given, and the allegation is that if they are compelled to give the legal amount of space which is laid down in the Act for British seamen, it means that lascars cannot be employed at all. That is exactly what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough desires.
MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I never said so.
MR. RITCHIE: I beg the hon. Member's pardon, but he has made that statement.
MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I never said it.
MR. RITCHIE: The hon. Member has acknowledged that it was so, but I do not wish to pursue this point. Lascars are British subjects, quite as much as the hon. Gentleman himself, and we have received no petition from the lascars, asking for this law to be put in force. If the P. and O. Company are compelled to provide this space it will mean the exclusion of the lascars from this employment, which, I think, would be a very great misfortune. We have been advised by the Law Officers of the Crown that we have a right to take all the circumstances of the case into consideration before prosecuting.
It being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee also report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

LAND REGISTRY (NEW BUILDINGS) [ADVANCES].
Resolution reported:—
"That it is expedient to authorise the issue, out of the Consolidated Fund, of such sums, not exceeding in the whole £265,000, as may be required for the purposes of any Act of the present session for the acquisition of property for building a new Land Registry Office and other Public Offices in London, and to authorise the Treasury, for the purpose of providing for the issue and repayment of such sums, to borrow money by means of Terminable Annuities for a period not exceeding fifty years, such Annuities to be paid out of moneys to be provided by Parliament for the service of the Commissioners of Works, and if those sums are insufficient, out of the Consolidated Fund."
Adjourned at Five minutes after Twelve of the clock till Monday next.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  CITY AND SOUTH LONDON RAILWAY BILL.
    CHESHIRE LINES COMMITTEE BILL.
    Reported without amendment.
  FALKIRK CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
    GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
    Reported with Amendments.
  MORECAMBE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (GAS) BILL [H.L.]
    AIRDRIE AND COATBRIDGE TRAMWAYS BILL.
    Read 2a, and committed: The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
    GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY BILL.
    Standing Order No. 93 considered (according to order), and dispensed with, with respect to a petition of the Wood Green Urban District Council: Leave given to present the said petition.
EXETER CORPORATION BILL.
  HAMILTON, MOTHERWELL, AND WISHAW TRAMWAYS BILL.
    LONDON AND SOUTH-WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
    Brought from the Commons; Read 1a, and referred to Examiners.
GLASGOW AND SOUTH-WESTERN RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]

    CALEDONIAN RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
    MUIRKIRK, MAUCHLINE, AND DALMELLINGTON RAILWAYS (ABANDONMENT) BILL H. L.].
    MOTHERWELL AND BELLSHILL RAILWAY BILL [H.L.].
    GLASGOW BUILDING REGULATIONS BILL [H.L.].
    GLASGOW DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.].
    Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee
    706
    for the consideration of the said Bills viz.:—

    V. Powerscourt,

    L. Digby,

    L. Herries (chairman),

    L. Wandsworth,

    L. Farquhar;

    agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on Thursday next at Eleven o'clock; and all petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bills.

    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
    Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 68.)
    GAS AND WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL [H.L.]
    Read 2a (according to order).
WHITECHAPEL AND BOW RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  MARGATE CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]

    MARGATE PIER AND HARBOUR BILL [H.L.]
    RAMSGATE CORPORATION IMPROVEMENTS BILL [H.L.].
    WESTGATE AND BIRCHINGTON WATER BILL [H.L.].
    SOUTH-EASTERN AND LONDON, CHATHAM, AND DOVER RAILWAYS BILL [H.L.].
    SOUTH-EASTERN RAILWAY BILL [H.L.].
    FOLKESTONE, SANDGATE, AND HYTHE TRAMROADS BILL [H.L.].
    Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills, viz.:—

    L. De Mauley,

    L. Wrottesley,

    L. Brougham and Vaux (chairman),

    L. Glenesk,

    L. Cranworth;

    agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on Wednesday next, at Eleven o'clock, and all petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to

    707
    be heard by counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bills.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ROYAL OBSERVATORY (EDINBURGH).
  Tenth Annual Report of the Astronomer Royal for Scotland.
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION (PROCEEDINGS).
  Return for the month of January, 1900.

  AFRICA, No. 4 (1900).
  Uganda Railway Bill, 1900.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  LUNACY (SCOTLAND).
  General rules made by the Glasgow District Lunacy Board for the management of the Glasgow District Asylums at Woodilee and Gartloch.

  NAVAL PRISON RULES.
  Regulations for naval prisons, revised to bring them into agreement with the principles governing the rules for local prisons, dated 21st April, 1899.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

BRITISH MUSEUM BILL [H.L.]
  POLICE RESERVISTS (ALLOWANCES) BILL.
    ELECTORAL DISABILITIES (MILITARY SERVICE) BILL.
    House in Committee (according to order): Bills reported without Amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.

    LICENSING COMMISSION'S REPORT— PROPOSED LEGISATION.
    THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: My Lords, I understand that it will be in accordance with the general wish of the House, as well as that of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War, if I postpone the Resolution of which I have given notice—namely, "To move to resolve, That it is desir-
    708
    able that legislative effect be given to such of the recommendations contained in the Final Report of the Royal Commission on Liquor Licensing Laws as are common to the 'Majority Report' and the 'Minority Report' of the Commissioners. "I would ask permission to postpone it till Tuesday next.
    Motion, by leave of the House, postponed.

    SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—PUBLICATION OF SPION KOP DESPATCHES.
    THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: My Lords, in calling the attention of your Lordships' House to the publication of the Spion Kop despatches I shall not waste time by any discursive remarks—for so, I think, they must of necessity be—upon the justice or otherwise of the criticisms passed by Lord Roberts in his covering despatch on the military operations. This is not the time, the occasion, or the place to form any opinion on matters upon which military experts are so entirely at variance. For instance, Sir Redvers Buller, in his despatch, says—
    "It is admitted by all that Colonel Thorneycroft acted with the greatest gallantry throughout the day, and really saved the situation."
    On the other hand, Lord Roberts says, in his covering despatch—
    "Whatever faults Sir Charles Warren may have committed, the failure must also be ascribed to the unwarrantable and needless assumption of responsibility by a subordinate officer."
    I feel that we have no right, we have no claim, to pronounce any opinion upon Lord Roberts's criticisms of distinguished officers acting in the field; but I am anxious this afternoon to ascertain some reasonable motive or object which has induced the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War to publish these criticisms. They have aroused a depth and strength of feeling which I think it is difficult to exaggerate, and which, I fear, will not soon pass away. The personal controversies of a bitter kind which the publication of these despatches has excited are very much to be regretted but in the course of any remarks I may make to your Lordships I shall decline to be drawn into the vortex of personal animosity and recrimination. I look upon this question as a public and not a

    709
    personal one, and as such, and such alone, I shall endeavour to treat it. My charge against the noble Marquess is that he has transgressed the rules of honourable tradition by publishing in those despatches confidential reports of a privileged character, compiled in the discharge of official duty, intended solely for the information of the superior authority in the public interest, and accepted in that character by the officers reported upon as well as by the officers reporting. Before I proceed any further I must make some allusion to the extraordinary attempt which has been made by the noble Marquess to shuffle the responsibility of the publication of these despatches on to the shoulders of Lord Roberts. The Paper which has been placed in your Lordships' hands this morning appears to me—and I have now been in Parliament for over twenty years—to be the most extraordinary piece of Parliamentary literature that has ever been presented. This Paper, I take it, is the brief of the noble Marquess: and I am bound to say that, having regard to the character of the despatches the noble Marquess felt he could publish, one cannot help feeling some curiosity as to what there is behind which he felt he could not publish. This extraordinary piece of Parliamentary literature, if I may so describe it, very much tells its own tale. All communications from the Commander-in-Chief to the Secretary of State for War are prima facie privileged, but the noble Marquess is very nervous to assume this responsibility. He telegraphs to Lord Roberts, and uses these words —
    "I do not feel justified in thus editing the papers unless you concur, and you may perhaps think well to refer to Buller. I suggest, as an alternative, that we should treat your despatch of 13th February and all its enclosures as confidential, and that Buller should send through you a full narrative of the operations. This you could forward to me with any observations you desire to make for publication."
    That, my Lords, in my opinion, seems to point to this, that Sir Redvers Buller was invited to re-write his despatch; that inasmuch as the account which he had originally given to Lord Roberts had received from Lord Roberts adverse criticism, an opportunity—a temptation —was offered to him to re-write his despatch and, as it were, to whitewash himself, changing his account so that Lord Roberts might be able to pronounce a different opinion in his covering despatch. It is certainly a
    710
    serious matter that confidential communications should be published at all, but it is far more serious, to my mind, in the public interest that the Secretary of State for War should, so to speak, invite despatches to be made to order so that they may be palmed oft' upon the public as genuine expressions of opinion by responsible officers. Sir Redvers Buller declined to take part in any such proceeding. He said —
    "I do not at all like the idea of re-writing a despatch for publication. I much prefer to leave it in the hands of the Commander-in-Chief, and let him select for publication whatever he thinks proper."
    We know what followed. The Secretary of State for War telegraphed to Lord Roberts asking him whether he should publish the despatches as they now stand, and Lord Roberts simply replied that he agreed to their publication. Lord Roberts had nothing to be ashamed of in the despatches he had written, and it must not for one moment be supposed that because Lord Roberts acquiesced in their publication it can be urged that he approved of that course. I am certainly surprised that the noble Marquess should have taken the unusual course of endeavouring to shuffle the responsibility for the publication of these despatches on to Lord Roberts. Of course, my Lords, the temptation was a very great one. Lord Roberts has performed great public-services. He is a man who has the confidence of the public. He is trusted by the public. The noble Marquess has vainly endeavoured to obtain some share of either, but having obtained neither, it is obviously a great temptation to him to throw on Lord Roberta's broad shoulders the odium of publishing these despatches. I maintain that Lord Roberts was perfectly within his right in communicating his views with absolute frankness to the Secretary of State for War, but in such a document free speech would not be tolerated and would not be tolerable unless treated confidentially. I should like to ask whether it is not wise to let the Commander-in-Chief feel that he can express himself freely? If he does not feel this, how is it possible for him to write as frankly as he ought to? In fact, he ought to feel that his communications would be considered privileged, not as a matter of argument, but as a matter of course. I do not think that the noble Marquess the Prime Minister can—I do

    711
    not know that he will attempt to—shuffle off upon any other man's shoulders Ministerial responsibility. I should like to remind your Lordships that the Conservative party turned out the Administration of Lord Rosebery upon the Cordite Vote, and they turned them out in opposition to military advice. That advice was rejected with scorn. A controversy arose in the House of Commons a day or two afterwards as to the precise character of the military advice, and the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. Balfour) declined to accept the plea of military advice, and maintained what I think we in this House generally accept to be sound —namely, the doctrine of absolute Cabinet responsibility.* I should not have dwelt on these facts if it had not been that my right hon. friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs stated not long ago in another place that all that had been done in the war had been "solely dictated by military advice, and military advice alone." I decline, my Lords, to admit that the responsibility for the publication of these despatches can be thrown on anyone but the Secretary of State for War and Her Majesty's Government. Having endeavoured to show that the Secretary of State and Her Majesty's Government are responsible, I must, with the permission of your Lordships, quote that portion of Lord Roberta's despatch which seems to me singularly unfortunate in publication. Lord Roberts says—
    "The attempt to relieve Ladysmith described in these despatches was well devised. That it failed may in some measure be due to the difficulties of the ground, and the commanding positions held by the enemy probably also to errors of judgment and want of administrative capacity on the part of Sir Charles Warren; but whatever fault Sir Charles Warren may have committed, the failure must also be ascribed to the disinclination of the officer in supreme command to assert his authority and see that what he thought best was done, and also to the unwarrantable and needless assumption of responsibility by a subordinate officer."
    You published a despatch reflecting on Sir Charles Warren for a want of judgment and administrative capacity, but I have recently seen that you have appointed him Governor of an enormous territory in West Griqualand. It does
    *Refer to The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. xxxvi., page 1385. (Speech of Mr. A. J. Balfour, 31st August, 1895.)
    712
    not seem to me that it was necessary to make that appointment ridiculous. You could have appointed Sir Charles Warren to this position without publishing these words in this despatch. Then as to Sir Redvers Buller, upon him you pronounce a sort of public censure. You imply that he has neither the power nor the capacity to assert his own authority. I cannot conceive any language, if published, more detrimental to discipline, and, if you publish it to the world as you have done, more unjustifiable, unless, as you have not done, you recall him from his command. You exercise a severe censorship over press criticism in South Africa. The Durban Review has been suppressed for publishing an article on the Spion Kop operation. In that article nobody was attacked, and the reverse there was only attributed to bad generalship. Yet what the press—the irresponsible press—in South Africa is not permitted to do, and what the respectable press in this country had, acting under a great sense of self-control, refrained in the best interests of the country from doing, the noble Marquess does without any compunction at all. It is very difficult to fathom the mental process by which the Secretary of State decided to publish these despatches, and I trust we shall have some enlightenment in this matter. We know that it took him about six weeks to make up his mind; and I cannot help feeling that it is very much to be regretted, as he devoted so much time to consideration, that he did not find time to review his own merits, his own services to the public. He might have remembered his own past. The noble Marquess has been Viceroy of India, and he might have recollected the extent to which the government of India is carried on by means of informal communications between the Secretary of State and the Viceroy. He might have remembered how in cases of difficulty this affords to the Viceroy the most convenient moans of retracing his steps without loss of prestige. The noble Marquess is no doubt conscious—we are all conscious—of the importance of maintaining the authority and the prestige of the Viceroy in the face of our Indian fellow-subjects; but if it is important to maintain the prestige of the Viceroy of India it is equally important, perhaps oven more urgent, to maintain the

    713
    prestige of commanding officers in the field. But, my Lords, before the noble Marquess assumed this very unusual, and I have no doubt very disgreeable, role of candid and unsparing critic of brave and distinguished men, who, under great difficulties, and, I think I may say, personal hardship, are upholding the interests of the Crown, it might perhaps have been well, it might perhaps have been advisable, if the noble Marquess had considered whether the generosity and forbearance which is due to them is not ten times more needed by him and his Administration. There is no necessity to deal with this subject in any party spirit, for I cannot conceive that any member of any party in this House wishes to do more than to assist the Government to wipe up its own mess; and a sad mess it is! We learned during last autumn that "serious preparation for war" is a repudiated doctrine of the present Government. We were told that they did not dare, with their enormous majority in the House of Commons of between 140 and 150, to take the proper steps to provide against eventualities on account of possible misrepresentation in the constituencies, and we know that the most ordinary precautions were neglected. Not one gun of position nor any garrison artillery or siege artillery were sent out to Natal, and hardly any engineers to complete the entrenchments. On.3rd October you telegraphed to the Australian Governors to refuse mounted men. Then followed that terrible loss of life and waste of bravery, because we could not follow up our victories on account of not having mounted men. Then on 16th December, after the War Office had discovered what competent soldiers like Sir William Butler and Colonel Spence had told them all along, you telegraphed "Mounted men preferred." I now turn to the situation as it exists to-day. The wreck of Lord Roberta's victorious army, that army which relieved Kimberley, which captured Cronje at Paardeburg, and which has occupied the capital of the Orange Free State, has for weeks lain scattered around Bloemfontein paralysed for want of horses and transport, for against the statement, of which my right hon. friend the Under Secretary of State for War was made the mouthpiece in the House of Commons, you have the plain statement of Mr. Prevost Battersby, who
    714
    telegraphs from Lord Roberta's headquarters—
    "Mr. Wyndham's reply disconnecting delay with lack of horses caused some surprise."
    And Lord Valentia, who certainly is not supposed to be in any way unfriendly to Her Majesty's Government, in a letter published in The Times of 2nd May, and dated 28th March, says—
    "We are in a quiescent state waiting for the general advance, which, I fear, will not be for some weeks, as the cavalry want remounting. Many of the men want reclothing, and vast stores have to find their way up to Bloemfontein."
    I have not yet discovered, and I doubt if any other noble Lord has perpetrated the discovery, that any person outside official circles even professes the smallest confidence in the War Office and the noble Marquess. Although the provocation has been far greater than was the case in the Crimean War, when the Duke of Newcastle was driven from office, I am glad to say there has existed in this country a right and proper feeling not to look out for scapegoats. There has existed, despite a very real and very acute provocation, a worthy English feeling— a feeling which I wish the noble Marquess himself would share—of self-respect, that we should control ourselves, our feelings, and our criticisms in the eyes of the world. Because the noble Marquess has thought fit to publish these despatches, I should be the last person to press, as strict justice might demand, that he should also publish all the despatches that tell against himself or against some favoured officers who are responsible for blunders at Magersfontein, Reddersburg, Karee Siding, at Koorn Spruit, and, alas, I fear at many other places. I hope this may never create a precedent, and that it will be the first and the last discreditable incident of this kind. Before I sit down I will quote to your Lordships the words of a great authority in reference to a disregard of orders by General Crauford at Torres Vedras. You will find published in the Supplementary Despatches of the Duke of Wellington a despatch which he then, as Viscount Wellington, addressed to the right hon. W. W. Pole, and in which he made use of those words—
    "Although I shall be hanged for them, you may be very certain that not only I have had nothing to do with, but had positively forbidden the foolish affairs in which Crauford

    715
    involved his outposts…. You will say, if this be the case, why not accuse Crauford? I answer, because, if I am to be hanged for it, I cannot accuse a man who I believe has meant well, and whose error is one of judgment and not of intention; and indeed I must add that …that is not the way in which any, much less a British army, can be commanded."
    My Lords, these are the words of a great man, a great commander, a great gentleman; and, coming from the Duke of Wellington, with his simple sense of duty and his hatred of self-advertisement, they speak to us to-day with a peculiar force and a special emphasis. If this miserable war has brought sorrow, distress and death into many homes, both rich and poor, it has at least united all classes of Englishmen in one common bond of sacrifice; it has evoked a noble, a splendid public spirit; but that public spirit, which no Minister and no Ministry can destroy, may be chilled, and may even for a time be suppressed, if those who are in authority fail in courage and in loyalty.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, when, as in the present instance, I find that many people hold views opposed to my own, I always begin by assuming that there must be a good deal to be said for their side of the case. I own that when I listened to the speech of the noble Lord who has just sat down, I began to think that my case must, after all, be an even stronger one than I had supposed, for before he had occupied the attention of the House for more than a few minutes he left Spion Kop and the publication of the despatches far behind and diverted himself with an attack in force upon the War Office and upon the Minister who is responsible for its affairs. The noble Lord reproduced a number of, I was going to say, venerable charges which have been made and met in and out of this House. He again told your Lordships the old story of how the War Office had refused mounted men when offered to them by the colonies. That statement was fully answered in another place, and, I believe, in a manner entirely satisfactory to those to whom the explanation was addressed. Let me say again that we never laid it down that we did not want mounted men from the colonies. What happened was this. We were offered, in the case of one of the colonies, a choice I am speaking from memory—between artillery, cavalry, and infantry, and an
    716
    answer was sent, perhaps not worded with that minute care which would have been desirable (but we were working then under very great pressure) in which a preference was expressed for infantry rather than cavalry or artillery. I need not tell your Lordships that that had nothing whatever to do with mounted infantry, which is a very different thing from cavalry. But the strongest proof I can give of the accuracy of my statement is this, that amongst the first offers which we accepted from the colonies, and which we had actually accepted at the time that the telegram was sent, were the offers of mounted infantry from some of the great colonies. It is therefore idle to say that we had set our face against accepting the services of mounted infantry from the colonies. Then the noble Lord went on to speak of what he was pleased to call "the wreck" of Lord Roberts's army at Bloemfontein. I cannot help thinking that that "wreck" is showing, and is likely to show, seaworthy qualities which may rather astonish the enemy. It comes to this, that the noble Lord imagines that after Lord Roberts had marched across country, under immense difficulties, from a point on the line to Kimberley, to Bloemfontein, he was to find at Bloemfontein, the capital of the enemy's country, reserves of stores and supplies of horses sufficient to enable him to proceed at once with his advance. Lord Roberts had to depend, and is depending at this moment, upon a single line of railway—a narrow gauge line of railway—broken in many places and running through a hostile country. The line had to be repaired, and it is a matter of common knowledge that whatever quantities of stores and of remounts might have been collected at the base—and I shall be prepared, if your Lordships choose to interrogate me on the subject, to show that there were immense quantities of stores and large numbers of horses at the base—a considerable time was bound to elapse before it was physically possible for the necessary supplies and the necessary animals to reach their destination at Bloemfontein. I will not pursue these matters | further. If the noble Lord cares to bring them before your Lordships' House, and will put a notice on the Paper, I shall be ready to meet him whenever he pleases. To-night, I take it, our business is to discuss the subject of which he has

    717
    given notice—namely, the publication of these despatches. In a speech to which the noble Lord could not, I think, expect me to listen with much approval, I did hear one sentence with which I venture to express my entire concurrence. The noble Lord suggested that this was not a proper occasion upon which to discuss the con-duct of the generals engaged in this campaign, and I shall certainly avoid doing so. I must add this observation—that I do not differ from the noble Lord when he tells the House that it should be the object of the military authorities, so far as possible, to avoid any action, any word, and the publication of any document which are likely to impair the authority of generals in responsible positions in the field. It will be my endeavour to show to your Lordships that, if in the present case documents which might be supposed to have such an effect were published, it was because in our opinion no other course was open to us than that which we actually pursued. I wish, in the first place, to state to the House briefly what is so to speak the law with regard to the publication of documents of this kind. It is to be found in the Queen's Regulations, from which I read the following extract—
    "A despatch containing a concise description of every action or other specific military operation, irrespective of its magnitude, will invariably be written by the senior officer actually present on the occasion. To enable him to do this, reports describing the action taken by their respective commands will be furnished to him by officers commanding divisions or brigades, and by such other officers us he may specially call upon. These reports will not accompany the despatch, the senior officer being alone responsible for rendering to the Secretary of State for War an account of the operations."
    Then follows a regulation to the effect that, in certain cases, where the senior general is not himself present, the report may be written by the general who has been in actual command. And, finally, it is laid down that—
    "It will rest with the Secretary of State for War, acting upon the advice of the Commander-in-Chief, to determine what reports or despatches are or are not to be made public, and the manner in which those to be published are to be made generally known."
    Your Lordships will observe that it is laid down that in the case of each operation there is to be a concise descriptive despatch, that save in a very limited number of cases no subsidiary documents
    718
    are to be sent home with that despatch, and that publication is optional with the Secretary of State in consultation with the Commander-in-Chief. The noble Lord told us that despatches of this kind were prima facie confidential and that they were privileged; and he drew an analogy between these despatches and the private letters which pass between the Viceroy of India and the Secretary of State for India. A more misleading analogy was never laid before your Lordships' House. I have had the honour of corresponding privately with the noble Earl on the Front Opposition bench when he was Secretary of State for India, and I was Viceroy; and we know perfectly well that that correspondence is a private correspondence which is pursued altogether outside official lines, and one that runs, so to speak, parallel with the regular and official correspondence of the Viceroy with the India Office. I therefore put altogether on one side the misleading analogy of the noble Lord. But, if we are to consider whether these military despatches are prima facie privileged and confidential or not, it is desirable that we should have before our minds what has been the usual practice with regard to the publication of such papers. I have made some inquiries into the matter, and, so far as I am able to ascertain, I believe I am right in saying that the general rule is to publish these papers; that prima facie they are regarded as fit for publication, and I think there are good reasons for so regarding them. In the first place, these despatches are the means which are used for calling attention to meritorious services rendered in the field by individual officers. Noble Lords who have been familiar with the Army are perfectly aware that mention in despatches is a very much prized military honour; and I certainly believe that, if we were suddenly to determine that the publication of these despatches was to cease, there would be a well-founded feeling of dissatisfaction in the Army at finding that its officers were shut out from a kind of recognition which has, until now, been generally accorded to them. That is one reason for publicity as a general rule. Another reason is that the public desire intensely to be supplied with authentic information about these engagements. Information, of course, it-obtains in abundance from other sources, but I believe I am right in saying that

    719
    what is desired is an authoritative and thoroughly trustworthy account of these military operations, which the people of this country watch with such intense interest. I may be asked, if it be true that it is customary to publish despatches of this sort, whether it is usual to publish them when they contain censure upon officers engaged in the operations described. I have found at least three recent cases which occurred during the Afghan War, when despatches containing distinct censures upon the generals in command were published. I will not trouble your Lordships by referring to those cases unless it is desired.
    THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: When was it?
    THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: All the cases occurred in 1880, during the Afghan War. I will not mention the names of the generals who were censured.
    THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Were the despatches published?
    THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Yes.
    THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Were they published whilst the operations were still going on?
    THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Yes; they appear to have been published almost immediately after the operations they described.
    THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: May I ask what became of the generals?
    THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I was coming to that. In those three cases other employment was found for the generals. But what I am endeavouring to establish is that the practice is to publish these despatches whether they do or not contain censure. Whether the publication of the censure should be followed by the recall of the general censured seems to me to be a matter with regard to which you cannot possibly lay down a rule. It must depend upon the extent and character of the censure. I now come to the present campaign. Since it began we have published with regularity despatches descriptive of each of the engagements and operations which have
    720
    occurred. We have published eight such despatches. I find that in two of these there was censure of officers in comparatively subordinate positions, and in the case of one—the despatch describing the action at Stormberg—there was a censure of the conduct of the general officer in command, Sir William Gatacre; and, so far as I am aware, the publication of that despatch was not complained of or criticised, although Parliament was sitting at the time. I have endeavoured to show that, so far from these despatches being prima facie not fit for publication, the case is the other way. Prima facie they are fit for publication, and I think the onus lies on those who tell us that, instead of publishing them, we ought to have suppressed them. I now want to say a word as to the form of these despatches. I have explained to your Lordships what is laid down in the Queen's Regulations as to the form these despatches should take. As we receive them they do not always conform to what is laid down in the Queen's Regulations. I do not say that by way of complaint of the generals who write the despatches. I think a general who is called upon in the middle of arduous military operations to sit down and write despatches is very much to be commiserated. I suspect there are many generals who would sooner fight a battle than write a description of it, particularly if they have in their minds that what they write is to be criticised and examined with the minute care and solicitude which has been exhibited in the present case. But the Spion Kop despatches certainly did not reach us in a shape at all corresponding with what is laid down in the Queen's Regulations. They covered altogether some forty-five pages of print, and I think I am right in saying they contained altogether twenty different documents of one sort or another, many of them being clearly of such a kind that their inclusion in a despatch would not be in accordance with the Queen's Regulations—documents the nature of which showed clearly that they ought not properly to be regarded as forming part of the despatch and that they were probably not so regarded by those who had written them or sent them home. That was the position in which we found ourselves, and we had to decide what we should do. The alternatives open to us were limited

    721
    in number. We might have published nothing at all; and I gather that is a course which would have found favour in many quarters. But if we had done that it would have been a new departure of a very abrupt kind. We should have been affirming a new principle —the principle that we might publish so long as a despatch contained nothing but praise, but that the moment we received a despatch containing blame that despatch was to be held back from publication. I strongly suspect that if we had taken that line the public would have endeavoured to insist upon publication; and I doubt extremely whether we should have been able to offer a successful resistance. Why, my Lords, that action at Spion Kop cost us over 1,600 casualties. I doubt whether there was any engagement in the campaign which aroused a deeper public interest than the battle of Spion Kop, and do your Lordships think that it would have been possible for us, if asked whether there were any despatches about that engagement, to have said that we had such despatches, but that we intended to keep them to ourselves, or that that answer would have been accepted as sufficient and satisfactory by the public? I doubt it extremely. We should have been exposed to a very well known ordeal in public life—the ordeal of question and answer. We should have been asked whether there were despatches, and we should have had to answer "Yes." We should have been asked whether they contained such and such statements. If we said "No," we should next have been asked whether they contained such and such another statement. In that way admissions would have been wormed out of us; and it is my belief that in the end—what with being shelled in Parliament and sniped at by the press —we should have been compelled to make a clean breast of it and to lay the Papers upon the Table of the House of Commons. But, supposing we had resisted successfully the demand for publication, do your Lordships think the result would have been to screen the generals responsible from blame? Why, it was a matter of notoriety that there was mismanagement at Spion Kop. The newspapers were full of it. It was impossible for anyone to read the graphic accounts sent home by the correspondents of the different journals of this city with-
    722
    out having it brought home to him that there had been blundering at Spion Kop. But there is another thing with which we had to reckon. In these days news comes from the front not only in the messages of the special correspondents, but in private letters—private letters, written and intended, no doubt, by those who write them to be confidential and reserved for the eyes of those to whom they are addressed, but which, we all know, are not always treated as confidential by those who receive them. I say with confidence that there was such an impression in men's minds as to the management of the Spion Kop operations that if we had held back the despatches the impression created would have been more damaging to the generals concerned than the publication of the Papers which we have laid on the Table of the House. Well, we, at any rate, came to the conclusion that it was impossible to altogether hold back these documents. What other course was open to us? There was another alternative, about which a good deal was said by the noble Lord The noble Lord called attention to the telegrams which your Lordships have seen, and he accused me, on the strength of those telegrams, of having desired to shuffle off my responsibility upon Lord Roberts. He accused mo of having encouraged Lord Roberts or Sir Redvers Buller to palm off garbled documents upon the public, and he made many other equally considerate and agreeable charges against me. I have no desire to divest myself of the responsibility which belongs to me in this matter, but I say that if I had taken the step of publishing Lord Roberts's despatch without telling him what I was going to do I would have been guilty of a great want of courtesy and, I think, of a great want of loyalty to Lord Roberts. The suggestion made to Lord Roberts was not that garbled documents should be substituted for the original papers—nothing of the kind. If your Lordships will allow me, I will road the actual words that were used, and you will see how groundless that accusation is. Being aware, as I was, of the objection which would be entertained in many quarters to the publication of some of these papers, I suggested, as an alternative, not that Lord Roberta's despatch of 13th February should be cancelled or made away with, but that it should be treated, with its enclosures, as

    723
    confidential—a very different thing and I suggested that we should be supplied to publication with that simple, concise descriptive account of the battle of Spion Kop which appears to be contemplated by the Queen's Regulations, which I read to your Lordships at the beginning of this discussion. I claim that that was a legitimate, a perfectly honourable and harmless suggestion to make. I made it, I confess, with a certain amount of hesitation, because I knew that it lent itself to the kind of misrepresentation in which the noble Lord has not scrupled to indulge so liberally to-night: but I thought it due both to Lord Roberts and Sir Redvers Buller that they should have this opportunity of enabling us to do what I understand the noble Lord himself wishes us to do—that is, to reserve from the public gaze those documents which, possibly, wore calculated to injure the reputation of two of the generals in charge of operations in the field. That course was objected to by Sir Redvers Buller, and from the moment I became aware that that was the case I unhesitatingly withdrew the proposal. Well, there remained, so it seems to me, one course, and one course only, open to us—namely, that we should select and publish the essential papers, doing so, as far as possible, in accordance with the spirit of the Queen's Regulations. With regard to that course, and following the Queen's Regulations, I. made it my business to take the advice of the Commander-in-Chief at home, and I found that in his opinion, as in mine, publication to this extent was inevitable. Lord Roberts was aware of what was intended. Sir Redvers Buller had placed himself in Lord Wolseley's hands, and there seemed one course only open to us, the course which we actually adopted. That was our crime—my crime—and I honestly believe that five out of six of those who now so glibly criticise my conduct would have committed the same crime if they had been sitting in my chair. Just one word as to the alleged disastrous results of this publication. As regards the public, the public wanted to know the truth, and the truth was given them. They know how Lord Roberts apportions the blame for the miscarriage which occurred; they know that neither Lord Roberts nor the military authorities in this country desire to hush up the truth. Then as to the effect of the publication on the Army. The doctrine which appears to find favour
    724
    with the noble Lord is that whenever a general is censured, or, at any rate, whenever the censure of a general is published, that general must necessarily be recalled. I do not in the least accept that doctrine.
    THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I am very sorry to interrupt the noble Marquess. That is not what I said, nor what would naturally follow from what I did say.
    THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: At any rate, if he did not say it, the writers of many of the articles which have inspired his speech have been using that language. Now, what was the censure passed by Lord Roberts on Sir Redvers Buller? I must say, in the first place, that it is not so much, to my mind, the publication of the censure that obliges you to recall an incompetent general officer; it is the fact that he has been censured for incompetence. Whether you publish the censure or not, if the general is incompetent you ought not to leave him in charge of the lives of the men and the reputation of the Army. But what was the censure upon Sir Redvers Buller? Did Lord Roberts say that he considered him unfit to lead an army, or that he had lost the confidence of his troops? Nothing of the kind. Lord Roberta's censure is contained in a very short and very pregnant sentence at the end of his despatch. He begins by distinctly expressing a favourable opinion of Sir Redvers Buller's plan of operations. He goes out of his way to say that, as far as the conception of the plan goes, Sir Redvers Buller had shown himself not an incompetent, but a competent general, and then he says—
    "That it [the plan] failed may, in some measure, be due to the difficulties of the ground and the commanding positions held by the enemy "
    —no censure in that—
    "probably also to errors of judgment and want of administrative capacity on the part of Sir Charles Warren. But whatever faults Sir: Charles Warren may have committed, the failure must also be ascribed "
    —not to Sir Redvers Buller's bad strategy, incompetence, or ignorance of his profession, but—
    "to the disinclination of the officer in supreme command to assert his authority and see that what he thought best was done."
    That is the whole of the censure upon Sir

    725
    Redvers Buller. The censure amounts to this: Sir Redvers Buller trusted too much to his subordinates and did not take measures to satisfy himself that his orders were being carried out. That strikes me as a very mild reproof indeed. And, more than that, Lord Roberts himself, by his own conduct, showed conclusively that he had not withdrawn his confidence from Sir Redvers Buller, because Lord Roberts left Sir Redvers Buller in charge of a large army. He entrusted to him the charge of the most critical and difficult operation of the campaign, an operation which Sir Redvers Buller has brought to a successful conclusion, upon which he has been complimented, and for which he has been thanked by Lord Roberts himself. I say, therefore, the censure was not a censure of the kind which rendered it in the least necessary for Lord Roberts or any-body else to remove the officer to whom the censure was addressed. I ought, perhaps, to say one word before I sit down with regard to a part of the case which was only lightly touched upon by the noble Lord who introduced this subject—I mean the action of the military authorities and of Her Majesty's Government in regard to Lord Methuen's despatches. For a considerable time what I may call the great Methuen myth obtained possession of the public mind. Every- one was convinced—I do not know why —that we had, somewhere in our pigeonholes, a despatch from Lord Roberts censuring Lord Methuen, and that we suppressed that despatch. Let me repeat that we suppressed nothing, because there was nothing to suppress. I have heard the question asked, why was it that if Lord Roberts commented, as he did, upon Sir Redvers Buller's Spion Kop despatch there were no comments upon Lord Methuen's Magersfontein despatch. I can only otter to your Lordships a conjecture, but I think it is a plausible one. The Magersfontein despatch was originally sent home by Lord Methuen on 13th December last. It was forwarded under cover of a despatch by Sir Redvers Buller—a mere formal despatch, without any comments at all. Your Lordships have seen from these telegrams that exception was taken, and I think rightly taken, by the Commander- in-Chief to the form of Lord Methuen's despatch, and he was asked to rewrite it. In that case there was a substitution of one document for another.
    726
    No substitution was proposed by mo in these telegrams in the other case. Lord Roberts arrived in South Africa on 10th January, and he forwarded Lord Methuen's second despatch on 15tl February, also without comment. I presume that as Sir Redvers Buller, then Commander-in-Chief, had not thought it proper to make any comments, in the same way Lord Roberts thought comment superfluous. At any rate, in his case it was merely a formal transmission of documents, and no comments were made. I think I have noticed most of the points to which the noble Lord opposite drew attention. I can only sum up what have to say by telling your Lordships that I certainly realised, perhaps not so strongly as some of your Lordships do, but I certainly did realise, that there were objections to the publishing of these despatches, but I thought there were stronger objections still to suppressing them, and that feeling of mine was greatly strengthened by the advice received from the Commander-in-Chief at the head of the British Army in this country. I hope if other noble Lords are going to address the House that they will be good enough to tell us not only what we have done amiss, but what they would have done if they had been in our shoes. Until someone can show me that there was any other solution of the difficulty than that which we adopted, I shall venture to maintain, and I do maintain, that we were neither thoughtless nor perverse in publishing these Papers, and that we took, under extremely difficult circumstances, a course which we are able not only to defend but to justify.
    THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I shall carefully observe the rule very properly laid down by the noble Marquess at the commencement of his speech, and shall in no way depart from the actual subject we have to discuss— namely, the publication of the despatches. It seems to me that in all cases of the publication of official documents there is one principle, and one principle only, which must guide those who are responsible for publication, and that is, what is best for the public service. It is no excuse whatever to say that if you refuse to publish documents you may be attacked —it is your duty to meet attack. The Government of the day have upon them the care, the interests, arid the honour of

    727
    the nation, and they have to take the course which they think is for the best without reference to any attack which may be made upon them. The noble Marquess told us perfectly fairly at the close of his speech that he acted on that principle. In examining this matter by that principle I confess that I feel great regret that certain despatches in this case were published. My reason is this. I quite agree that comment must be made in communications to the Government at home with regard to the conduct of those who have the onerous duty of commanding our Army in the field, but, on the other hand, it is for the Government to judge whether in any given case it is in the interest of the public service, and in the interest of those who have to conduct difficult and important operations, that the publication should be made. In the present case I do not think that publication was justifiable. The noble Marquess referred to the Army regulations—permit me to say that I do not think that touches this question in the smallest degree. He read what the regulation was. Apparently it is a plain, judicious, and proper regulation, but it is a regulation directing in what form and manner the reports of important operations are to be made, and by whom, and it in no way touches the question whether or not such despatches should be published. The responsibility for that rests absolutely and entirely with the Government of the day. The noble Marquess took, as I thought, in one particular, a rather singular view, because he said he did not see that the censure passed by Lord Roberts upon Sir Redvers Buller was a severe one. Well, that is a matter of opinion. I can only speak for myself; I am not a soldier, but I should have felt it very severely if I had been made the subject of that censure. I am disposed to look a little to the opinion of the man in the street. Most people can apprehend what is censure and what is not, and it has been a very widespread opinion indeed, which has nothing whatever to do with party politics, that this censure was severe. I do not like to express an opinion upon any of the military matters which are in question; that is not my duty; but what I feel is this, that it is a very serious thing indeed to continue the services of a general in command of a very important part of the force, in a difficult war, after you have, in
    728
    the face of the whole public, inflicted upon him a censure. I do not think my opinion is worth much, but still it agrees with the opinion of the noble Marquess, and I am the more ready, therefore, to state it; as far as I can judge, if I can imagine myself responsible for determining whether Sir Redvers Buller should continue in command, my opinion is that he ought to be so continued, notwithstanding the censure. Various reasons would have led me to that conclusion, and I do not wish to say one single word in disparagement of Sir Redvers Buller, or of any other of the gallant officers engaged in this war. It seems to me that when you have a man in the position of Sir Redvers Buller, commanding a large force and occupying a position of great responsibility, you are bound to shelter him from the consequences of publishing such censure, which, say what you will, must diminish his authority and the confidence of those over whom he is placed. It is impossible that it should not be so. It is human nature that your confidence in the man who is to lead you must be diminished when you see him censured by high authority capable, no doubt, of forming a just judgment. What I say is, that it is not in the interests of the public service that that should take place. I have the honour of Sir Redvers Buller's friendship, but I look at this matter simply and solely as a question whether it is or is not in the interests of the public service, and I have not the smallest doubt that it is not. If you are about to recall a general and you wish to inform the public of the grounds upon which the recall is to take place, no doubt it would be a very proper thing to publish the despatches. Then comes the general question. It is said, when you have got a despatch what are you to do? It may contain things which you wish were not there, and which you would rather not publish; but you are afraid, forsooth, that the public would censure you if they did not get all the information they want. The public are perfectly right in desiring to get the utmost possible amount of information, and I think it is both the duty and the interest of the Government to give them all the information they can afford, but that information must be subject to the condition that the public service will not be injured by giving it. The press and the

    729
    public opinion of this country would have said that the Government must have had good reason for not publishing such and such information, and that it was their duty, in the interests of the nation, and of the war now going on, and of those who have to conduct that war, not to question their responsibility. Those are the grounds on which I regret the publication of these despatches. I do not think the noble Marquess has really given a plain and complete answer to the accusations which have been made. He asks me to say in what way I would have dealt with the despatches. I am not the responsible Minister, nor have I been at the War Office, but I have been a good deal at other offices, and I have always considered that I was not only justified but bound to withhold information if I thought that the public service required that it should not be published. If I had been attacked in Parliament I should have given one answer, and one, answer only. I should have said:—" The very fact that I have withheld the information precludes me from entering into a discussion of it. I stand upon one principle, which I have a right to stand upon as a responsible Minister, to the best of my belief concurred in by my colleagues—the publication of this information would not be for the benefit of the public service, and therefore I decline entirely to discuss the subject, and must entirely rest upon whether those who hear me have confidence in me, and in the Government to which I belong." That is the whole case I have to make against the Government in this particular matter. Being sure, as I am, that the noble Marquess wished to exercise a wise and sound discretion, whatever my opinion may be worth, I lament that I have come to the conclusion that that sound and wise discretion was not exercised on this occasion.
    THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, it appeal's that the discussion is to fall to the ground, and is to be a mere matter of question and answer between the noble Earl, Lord Portsmouth, and the noble Marquess, the Secretary of State for War; and, as no Minister shows any tendency to answer the very mild and the very moderate, but, in my opinion, the absolutely unanswerable comments of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, I step into the gap
    730
    rather than that the discussion should fall to the ground. And I must honestly I say that I step into the gap with very great reluctance. I feel that reluctance because the thing is done, the dirty linen is washed in public: no amount of discussion in this House can undo that melancholy fact. Much as we deplore it, there is no speaker in this House so eloquent that he can do away with the fact of the publication of those despatches. Before I proceed any further I wish to ask one question of my noble friend the Secretary for War. A statement, more or less authoritative, has appeared in the newspapers to the effect that since the publication of these despatches Sir Redvers Buller has tendered his resignation, and that it has been refused. Would he tell me whether that is true or not?
    THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: We have no knowledge of such resignation.
    THE EARL OF ROSEBERYThat is very satisfactory. But in any case it would have been difficult for Sir Redvers Buller to have tendered his resignation when opposed to the enemy in the field. That is a cruel position in which to put that eminent general. What is the history of this business? The despatches were received some six, seven, or eight weeks ago; in spite of the burning curiosity which my noble friend attributes to the public to know their contents, they were not produced, and I am not aware that in either House of Parliament a single question was asked for their production. Then, after they were written, there came those stirring incidents in the war in South Africa when, owing to the exertions of Lord Roberts and Sir Redvers Buller, we were extricated from a position which the Prime Minister himself declared in this House to be full of peril, and not free from humiliation.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): It was the other way about. I said, "Full of humiliation, and not free from danger."*
    THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I give the noble Marquess the option of the
    * See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxviii., page 33.

    731
    very agreeable alternatives he attributes to himself. Then came the glorious campaign in which Lord Roberts and Sir Redvers Buller saved not only the honour of British arms, but almost the security of the Government itself. What was their reward? In a time of profound calm, when no one asked for the publication of the despatches, when the country had given an ungrudging and complete confidence in the Government—not always warranted, but still ungrudging and complete—the War Office sets itself to think how it may reward these eminent services. It begins a telegraphic communication with the Commander-in-Chief to find out what in his opinion should be published. Now let us consider for a moment what this question of suppression, as to which my noble friend took so high a line, absolutely means. We know from the correspondence that the original Magersfontein despatch has been suppressed. We know that no opinion has been expressed on that despatch by the Commander-in-Chief, and I infer also from the remarks of the Secretary for War that his opinion has not been invited on the subject of that despatch. That throws a somewhat lurid light on the proceedings of the War Office with regard to these particular despatches. They looked about for some laurel wreath which they might put on the head of Sir Redvers Buller after he had relieved Ladysmith; but, after a time in which the nation was seized with an absolute delirium of joy at the news of his operations, the War Office began a telegraphic correspondence with the Commander-in-Chief, and asked him what, in his opinion, should be published. They had a high and holy objection to suppress, but they intended to suppress a very considerable portion, in any ease, of what had been sent over. At any rate, after bandying words and telegrams for some weeks they obtained a cold assent from Lord Roberts, who, in effect, could say nothing else, to the publication of his despatches. He could say nothing else, for two reasons. Lord Roberts is not a man to say, "I shrink from the publicity of what I have deliberately written," and there was a still stronger reason why Lord Roberts was unable to take any other line. It is that Sir Redvers Buller had refused to take this line; and, therefore, in these circumstances, Lord Roberts and Sir Redvers Buller, the latter having
    732
    been invited in the meantime to revise his despatch and send it in a more agreeable form to the War Office authorities——
    THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Not to revise the despatch, but to allow us to treat the original despatch as a confidential document, and to give a mere narrative to the public.
    THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Not to revise the despatch, but to rewrite it; and where is the casuistry, except in the bosoms of Her Majesty's Government, which thinks it preferable to entirely rewrite a despatch than to revise or alter it? These were the desperate straits to which the War Office and the Commander-in-Chief in South Africa were put in order to meet the desire of the War Office to publish these despatches; and, as it were, after suggesting numerous alternatives to the unhappy Lord Roberts and the even less happy Sir Redvers Buller, the War Office at last determined to publish everything that was damaging, everything that was critical, everything that was censorious, to satisfy a public curiosity of which no outward sign existed. Now, there are two results of this policy. One is that you have been compelled to wash some dirty linen in the presence of the world. The conduct of your military operations has not been uniformly successful, and it has not been free from the criticism of Europe; but so far as I can infer from what reaches us of the Continental press, all comment which they have hitherto passed on our operations in the field is low, is dumb, as compared with the stupor of astonishment with which they have received the publication of these despatches. Then there is the second effect, which has a far greater influence on Sir Redvers Buller himself. Some of those generals have been punished, some have not. Sir Charles Warren has been removed; a colonel who was on the top of Spion Kop, and who-sent a telegram depicting, perhaps in too urgent language—but I am not sure even of that—the necessities of the situation, has been suddenly placed on half-pay. The highest of all has been left to bear the stigma you have placed upon him in the presence of his victorious troops. The noble Marquess thinks it is no stigma at all. I have not the despatch before me, and I cannot quote the words except from memory. If the noble Mar-

    733
    quess will oblige me with the despatch I should greatly like to read them again. [Lord LANSDOWNE handed the noble Earl a copy of the despatches, from which he read the following extract—
    "But, whatever faults Sir Charles Warren may have committed, the failure must also he ascribed to the disinclination of the officer in supreme command to assert his authority and see that what he thought best was done, and also to the unwarrantable and needless assumption of responsibility by a subordinate officer."]
    I can hardly conceive a greater stigma on a general commanding in the field than to say that he does not care to see that what he thinks right should be carried out, and does not care to exercise his own high authority. I will be frank, and take an instance from our civil life. Very much the same charge has been urged against the noble Marquess as is brought against Sir Redvers Buller — that he does not sufficiently exercise his high authority and see that what ought to be done is done. We have not considered that a light censure, and we have been astonished at the patience with which the noble Marquess has borne it. The noble Marquess, however, is not commanding in the held; he has not behind him thousands of soldiers, hundreds of officers, all reading the judicial condemnation passed on his conduct by Lord Roberts, the Commander-in-Chief. I venture to say you have degraded his authority, you have impaired his position in a way which was not achieved by any of the repulses he met with in the field. And why have you done this? Because you, the strongest Government of modern times, have been unable to face the prospect of a few questions in the House of Commons. Mr. Gladstone once said to mo of a statesman who is now dead, and whom I shall not name, that he was of a composition to which water would add strength. I am afraid that history will write that epitaph on Her Majesty's Government.
    THE LORD PEESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Duke of DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, the two noble Lords who have addressed the House from the front bench are perfectly justified in sheltering themselves under the irresponsibility of their position in opposition, and in declining to give the House any indication of what they would have done in the circumstances in which my noble friend was placed.
    THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I am afraid I did not make myself clear. I should not have published them.
    THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I thought my argument tended in the same direction. I am quite willing to take the same responsibility.
    THE DIKE OF DEVONSHIRE: It merely comes to a difference of opinion as to which of the two courses was the more advisable in what I imagine must be admitted by all to be a very difficult position. My noble friend who has just sat down said that the Government refused to take the responsibility of declining to publish these despatches because they were afraid of questions in the House of Commons. Nothing could be further from the fact than that statement. We have entirely accepted the principle laid down by the noble Earl. The sole guide which we have any right to consult in these circumstances is what would be best for the public service: and in our judgment, if any other course had been taken except that which we took it would have tended to still greater disadvantage. Noble Lords opposite seem to think that, except having to face a few questions in the House of Commons, no consequences would have followed the non-publication of those despatches. They have no right to make any such assumption at all. My noble friend behind me has shown that despatches have been published relating to every one of the principal operations of the war. Does the noble Earl suppose that the total omission to publish the despatches on one of the most important operations of all—the failure to effect the relief of Ladysmith by way of Spion Kop — would not have excited comment more injurious to the reputation and character of the generals than the moderate censure which has been published from Lord Roberts? Questions would have been asked—Are there despatches? If so, will they be published? If not, why not? And I defy the ingenuity of any Minister to have devised an answer which, while admitting that the despatches existed, could show that the omission to publish any part of them was due to any other reason than that they contained comments which seriously affected the character and the judgment, and perhaps more than the character and the judgment

    735
    of the officers concerned. The noble Lord who raised this question made repeated comments—comments which have been made in some of the public newspapers, upon the invitation which was addressed to Sir Redvers Buller to re-write his despatch. I have no hesitation in saying it is much to be regretted that Sir Redvers Buller did not accept that invitation. The Regulations, which have been referred to, and part of which was read. by my noble friend, on the subject of the writing of despatches by general officers commanding Her Majesty's forces in the field, are not, I think, so full, clear, and explicit as they might be; but obviously the most convenient procedure would be that despatches sent home by a general officer commanding in the field should contain, in the first place, a simple narrative of the operations which have taken place, and that any comment or criticism on the conduct of any officer the general officer thought it necessary to make should be contained and sent home in another despatch, which it would be open to the Secretary of State to publish or not to publish. It was simply that course which Sir Redvers Buller was invited to take. He had sent home a despatch not containing his own narrative in accordance with regulations, but containing a great number of enclosures, and embodying the narratives of many other officers with his own comments. That was not the narrative despatch required by the Regulations, and what Sir Redvers Buller was invited to do was to write a simple narrative of what had taken place which might be published, and then there would have been no question of publishing any comments, favourable or unfavourable, which the Commander-in-Chief in South Africa thought it necessary to make. I can scarcely imagine that Sir Redvers Buller thought an invitation was addressed to him to supply something that would be more agreeable either to Lord Roberts or to the Commander-in- Chief at home, and certainly I, for one, on the part of Her Majesty's Government and my noble friend, absolutely repudiate the idea, and deny that it ever crossed the mind of any one of us, that Sir Redvers Buller should be invited to retract a single expression of opinion he had given, but simply it was that he should confine his despatch to a narrative of the events that had occurred. I do not deny, and my noble friend does not deny, that in-
    736
    convenience attended the necessity for publishing this qualified censure, but I do not agree with the noble Lord who has just spoken that the censure was a severe one. I cannot deny that the publication of a censure upon any officer in Sir Redvers Bullers position is greatly to be regretted; but I conceive, and I believe that on reflection many of your Lordships will be disposed to the same opinion, that any other course we might have taken would have been attended with equal, or perhaps greater inconveniences. Nothing could be more damaging to the reputation of an officer than that after a sufficient interval it should go forth to the world that despatches existed which could not be made public on account of the damaging character of the criticisms which they contained These, my Lords, are the considerations that guided the Government in the course they have taken. It will, of course, remain a matter for difference of opinion whether the course taken was right or not, but your Lordships must admit that the unfortunate circumstances in which we had to act made it very difficult indeed, if not impossible, to take any course that would have been free from inconvenience or mischief.
    House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past Six of the clock, to Monday next, a quarter past Four of the clock.