Sitting of 3 February 1902

Preamble
The House met at Three of the clock.

MR. SPEAKER'S INDISPOSITION.
The House being met, the Clerk Assistant at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker
164
owing to indisposition: Whereupon the Chairman of Ways and Means came to the Table, and after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS [Lords.]
  MR. Deputy Speaker MR. Deputy Speaker laid upon the Table Report from the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in respect of the Bills comprised in the List reported by the Chairman of Ways and Means as intended to originate in the House of Lords, they have certified that the Standing Orders have been complied with in the following cases, viz:—
  Manchester District Telephone Board.
  Whit stable Improvement.

  PRIVATE BILL PETITIONS (STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH).
  MR. Deputy Speaker MR. Deputy Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, viz:—
  Sheffield, Rotherham, aRd Bawtry Railway Bill.
  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

  PRIVATE BILL PETITIONS [Lords] (STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH).
  MR. Deputy Speaker MR. Deputy Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, viz:—
  Saddleworth, Springhead, and Lees Tramways Bill.
  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (ELECTRIC SUPPLY).
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Burns, Sir Samuel Scott, Mr. Lough, and Dr. Macnamara.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS).
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Burns, Mr. Lough, and Dr. Macnamara.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (SUBWAYS AND TRAMWAYS).
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Burns, Sir John Dickson-Poynder, and Mr. Peel.
  LONDON WATER PURCHASE.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Burns, Mr. Lough, Mr. Sydney Buxton, Mr. Stuart Samuel, and Dr. Macnamara.
  WEST HAM GAS.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Major Banes and Mr. David Morgan.
  YORK CORPORATION.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Butcher and Mr. Wilson-Todd.
  FISHGUARD AND ROSSLARE RAILWAYS AND HARBOURS.
  Petition for Bill; referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
  EASTBOURNE CORPORATION BILL.
  "To make further and better provision for the improvement, health, and good government of the borough of Eastbourne; and for other purposes," read the first time; to be read a second time.
  LEAMINGTON CORPORATION BILL.
  "To make further and better provision in regard to the health, local government, and improvement of the borough of Royal Leamington Spa; to repeal part of The Leamington Corporation Act, 1896; and for other purposes," read the first time; to be read a second time.

  MANCHESTER CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL
  To authorise the Corporation of Manchester to construct additional tramways in the city; to empower the Corporation to purchase a short length of tramway beyond the city, and to confer upon the Corporation running powers over certain other tramways
  166
  boyond the city; and for other purposes," read the first time; to be read a second time.

  NORWICH CORPORATION (ELECTRICITY, &c.) BILL.
  "To authorise the transfer of the undertaking of the Norwich Electricity Company, Limited, to the Corporation of Norwich; and for other purposes," read the first time; to be read a second time.
  READING GAS BILL.
  "For consolidating the capital of the Reading Gas Company for enabling that Company to raise additional capital; and for other purposes," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  SHEPTON MALLET GAS BILL.
  "For incorporating and conferring powers on the Shepton Gas Company," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  SOUTHPORT AND LYTHAM TRAMROAD BILL.
  "For extending the time limited for the acquisition of land and completion of works under The Southport District Tramroad Act, 1899, and The Southport and Lytham Tramroad Act, 1900; for authorising the issue of preferred and deferred half shares; and for other purposes," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  WOLVERHAMPTON CORPORATION WATER BILL.
  "To empower the Corporation of Wolverhampton to construct additional waterworks, and to make further provision in regard to their water undertaking; and for other purposes," read the first time; to be read a second time.

  HUDDERSFIELD CORPORATION BILL.
  "To confer further powers upon the Mayor, Alderman, and Burgesses of the county borough of Huddersfield with respect to waterworks and other matters; to provide for the transfer of the Technical College and the Lockwood Mechanics' Institution to the Corporation, and to make further provisions for

  167
  the health and good government of the borough; and for other purposes," read the first time; to be read a second time.

PETITIONS.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petition from Stafford, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES OFFICERS SUPERANNUATION.
  Petition from Bromley, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petitions against; from Staveley; Wimbledon; and Codford; to lie upon the Table.
  MIDWIVES BILL.
  Petition from Wimbledon, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.
  Copy presented, of Returns of Accidents and Casualties as reported to the Board of Trade by the several Railway Companies in the United Kingdom during the nine months ending 30th September 1901, together with Reports of the Inspecting Officers, Assistant Inspecting Officers, and Sub-Inspectors of the Railway Department to the Board of Trade upon certain Accidents which were inquired into [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLIES IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES (MISCELLANEOUS, No. 1, 1902).
  Copy presented, of Reports from His Majesty's Representatives in Foreign Countries respecting the methods of taking Divisions in Legislative Assemblies, and the number and duration of the Sittings [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION (PROCEEDINGS).
  Copy presented, of Return of Proceedings during the month of November 1901 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1902–3.
  Estimates presented, for the year 1902–3, with Explanation of Differences [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 40.]
  NAVY (STATEMENT EXPLANATORY OF ESTIMATES).
  Copy presented, of Statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty explanatory of the Navy Estimates, 1902–3 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 2741 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  TRADE REPORTS (MISCELLANEOUS SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Miscellaneous Series, No. 572 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk Assistant—

  INQUIRY INTO CHARITIES (COUNTY OF LANCASTER).
  Further Return relative thereto [ordered 8th August, 1898; Mr Grant Lawson]; to be printed. [No. 41.]
  TELEPHONE EXCHANGES.
  Return ordered, "giving the names of all Telephone Exchanges of the Post Office in the United Kingdom, with the date of opening, the number of subscribers on each Exchange on the 31st day of December 1899, 1900, and 1901, and the tariff."—(Mr. Gibson Bowles.)
  CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS (PEMBROKE AND HAVERFORD.)
  Ordered, That the Copy of the Judge's Report in the Pembroke and Haverford Election Trial [presented 22nd February, 1901] be printed. [No. 42.]—(Mr. Attorney General.)
  CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS (ISLINGTON).
  Ordered, That the Copy of the Judge's Report in the Islington Election Trial presented 5th March, 1901] be printed. No. 43.]—(Mr. Attorney General.)
  CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS (MONMOUTH BOROUGHS)
  Ordered, That the Copy of the Judge's Report in the Monmouth Boroughs Election Trial [presented 24th April, 1901] be printed. [No. 44.]—(Mr. Attorney General.)
(3.33.) QUESTIONS.

  South African War—Inquiry into Conduct of the War.
  MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he will now consider the advisability of instituting, in accordance with the promise made some time ago, a general inquiry into the administration of the various Departments responsible for the conduct of the war.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I have nothing really to add to the many answers which I have given on this subject. The position remains, as far as I know, unchanged from what it was this time last year.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: The war was over then.

  Peace Negotiations—Anglo-Dutch Papers.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when it is likely that we shall have the Dutch Papers?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope that they will be in our hands to-morrow evening.

  British Indian Subjects in South Africa.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he discussed with Lord Milner, at the the time of the latter's visit to England last year, the question of the disabilities inflicted
  170
  upon His Majesty's Indian subjects in districts until lately known as the Transvaal and Orange River Colony; whether the Boer regulations are still enforced by the British officials in those Colonies; and will he use his influence to induce the authorities in Natal and in the Cape Colony to revise the restrictions as to fixed locations in which Indians must live in certain towns, and other alleged grievances, which have been explained to him in various memorials.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): The matter was discussed with Lord Milner, but, as I informed the hon. Member for Bethnal Green, N.E., on 15th July last, I was obliged to reserve it for consideration after Lord Milner's return to South Africa, and he has not yet been able, in the multiplicity of affairs calling for his attention, to deal with the question, but he informed me a few days ago that he hopes to address me on this subject soon. Meanwhile the legislation of the late Government is in force, although some modifications have been introduced into the administration. I do not think it desirable at present to make any representations to the self-governing Colonies.

  Land Mortgages in the Annexed Republics.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether there have been any foreclosures of mortgages in the Transvaal and Orange River Colony since Lord Milner's proclamation of 9th October, permitting the recovery of interests on mortgages; and, if so, whether there have been any forced sales of land in pursuance of such foreclosures; and whether in any such case the mortgagor has been a prisoner of war.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer is in the negative. I may point out that the proclamation in question does not apply to the Orange River Colony.
  MR. CHANNING:May I ask whether the date has yet been fixed for which it will be possible to sue for capital and interest?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Not that I am aware of.

  Martial Law—Case of Mr. Marais.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether Mr. Marais, who was deported from the Paarl to Beautfort West, and imprisoned in August last on an allegation of infringement of martial law regulations, has ever been tried for this alleged offence; whether he is aware that Major General Wynne, the Commanding Officer of the Cape Colony District, made an affidavit before the Supreme Court at Cape Town, on 6th September, 1901, in which he deposed that Mr. Marais would be tried as soon as possible by a Military Court and either acquitted or detained in custody; whether Mr. Marais has been either acquitted or convicted by such a Military Court; and, if convicted, can he state what sentence has been passed on him, and where he is now imprisoned or detained.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): I have nothing to add to the information which I have already given the hon. Member.
  MR. CHANNING: The right hon. Gentleman said the other day that he had had no information since the first proceeding. When will he be able to answer the Question as to the affidavit and the subsequent Questions?
  MR. BRODRICK: I have made inquiries as to the second paragraph of the Question, and hope to have an answer shortly.
  MR. CHANNING: I will repeat the Question this day week.

  Army Meat Contract.
  MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether the contract for the supply of meat to the troops in South Africa has been made with Messrs. Moritz Bergl and Company of Smithfield, and is that firm solely entitled to its benefits, and solely liable for carrying out its provisions; or can he state whether the performance of the contract has been guaranteed by the
  172
  right hon. C. J. Rhodes and Dr. Jameson; and, if so, to what extent have these latter an interest in it, and does the contract contain any restriction as to sub-letting.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY,): Several tenders were received for this contract, of which the lowest was Messrs. M. Bergl and Company's. The tender being for so large a sum, the firm mentioned in the tender that they contemplated transferring it to a Company, and mentioned substantial names as being associated with them. The War Office being satisfied of the stability of those who participated in the tender, accepted it. I have no knowledge of the guarantee referred to, though I understand that a number of prominent firms in South Africa are interested in the undertaking, which involves a capital of £500,000.
  MR. PIRIE: May I ask if it is the case that this contract was treated in the same way as the horse contract which was brought up before the House on Friday night, and whether it is the case that it was re-sold to a syndicate consisting of Messrs. Wernher Beit, Lewis, and Marks?
  LORD STANLEY: No, Sir; to the best of my knowledge that is not the case.
  MR. PIRIE: Will the noble Lord inquire into the matter?
  [No answer was given.]

  Army Accoutrement Contracts.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether, seeing that the Resolution of the House of Commons of 13th February, 1891, has not been adhered to in connection with contracts for Army Accoutrements by certain firms in Bermondsey, he will take immediate steps to deal summarily with the firms concerned; can he say during what period of time this breach of the regulations has been going on in the firms alluded to, and what steps, if any, were taken by the Government prior to

  173
  the 20th of this month for the protection of those employed.
  LORD STANLEY: The inquiry which I have already stated was in progress has not yet been concluded. I may add that it is extremely difficult to ascertain accurately the current rate of wages at any time owing to the considerable fluctuations due to the war.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: Can I furnish the noble Lord with information which will facilitate the present inquiry?
  LORD STANLEY: The hon. Member has kindly given me certain information, on which I am making inquiry.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I will furnish the noble Lord with further information.

  Officers' Accommodation at Frimley and Salisbury Plain.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether, in view of the quality of the accommodation provided at Frimley and Salisbury Plain, for commanding officers, as compared with that provided in permanent barracks elsewhere, he will grant lodging allowance to the officers concerned until the promised improvements have been effected in order to help them to meet the expense of house rent which they are compelled to incur.
  LORD STANLEY: The accommodation provided is in accordance with regulations, and therefore no case arises for the issue of lodging allowance.

  Under Age Recruits.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, seeing that enlistment under eighteen years of age is contrary to the conditions of the enlistment, and further seeing that the Commanding Officer of the 1st Royal Dragoons, Shorncliffe Camp, refused to grant the discharge from the Army of John Donovan, of Knockaderry, county Limerick, who was under seventeen years of age at the time of his enlistment in the said regiment, as a certified copy of the register of his birth sent to
  174
  the Commanding Officer proves, he will direct the discharge of the boy from the Army.
  MR. REDDY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, seeing that enlistment under eighteen years of age is contrary to the conditions of enlistment, whether he will direct the discharge from the Army of Francis Dooley, of Leabeg Frankford, Kings County, who enlisted in the Irish Guards, being at the time under seventeen years of age.
  LORD STANLEY: These matters are left entirely to the discretion of the local military authorities, to whom the hon. Members should address any communication they may wish to make.
  MR. REDDY: Will the boy be discharged if application is made to the Commanding Officer?
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Is the noble Lord aware of the fact that this boy's father applied to the Commanding Officer for his discharge, and that he has replied that the matter must be held in abeyance till the close of the war; also that if the boy again applies he will be liable to be tried by a Court Martial for making a false statement as to his age. Is he aware that the boy at the time of his enlistment did not know his actual age, and will he, in view of these circumstances, order his discharge?
  LORD STANLEY: No, Sir

  Recruiting direct from Schools.
  Mr. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether there is any intention to shortly change the system of recruiting by, in addition to other methods, recruiting direct from the schools, and so obtaining boys of reliably known ages to be classed and kept together as boys till they reach the proper age for efficient military service; and, if not, whether in any changes that may be made, attention will be given to the advantages of such a proposal, whereby reliable data as to age of Army recruits would be secured.
  LORD STANLEY: Boys are already enlisted from the Duke of York's School and the Royal Hibernian School; further a list of schools is periodically published from which boys can be obtained. Regiments have a fixed establishment of boys who are classed and kept together as boys. There is no immediate intention of making any further changes in this respect.

  Newport Mule Battery.
  MR. DAVID THOMAS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he can state when the mule battery stationed at Newport will be re-armed with the new design of mountain gun; and if, for the convenience of inspection by Members, he will cause one of the muzzle loaders firing black powder, at present in use, to be placed with the specimens of a similar type at the entrance to the Museum of the Royal United Service Institution in Parliament Street.
  LORD STANLEY: The new guns are in process of issue to the Depôt at Newport. Perhaps the hon. Member will refer the second part of his Question to the Institution, as the matter does not rest with the Secretary of State for War.

  Officers' Pay Abroad.
  Mr. LLOYD MORGAN: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office, whether, in the case of Officers now serving abroad in sub-tropical climates who draw retired pay plus £150 in lieu of the pay of their rank, he will consider the question of establishing for them the same rate of pay as that paid to other officers of the same rank who have commuted their pensions for a lump sum.
  LORD STANLEY: Officers on retired pay when re-employed may draw the pay of their rank or retired pay plus £150 whichever is most advantageous. Officers who retired on a gratuity when re-employed draw the pay of their rank. There is no advantage to be gained by changing this arrangement.

  Judge Advocate General.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he can state what arrangements have been made for carrying on the increasing work of the Judge Advocate General's Department whilst Sir Francis Jeune is engaged as President of the Commission to which he has been appointed by the Board of Trade.
  LORD STANLEY: The work of the Judge Advocate General will not in any way be interfered with by his occupation in connection with the Presidency of the Committee referred to.
  DR. FARQHARSON: I beg to give notice that at the earliest possible opportunity I will draw the attention of the House to the administration of military law, and move: "That in the opinion of this House the office of Judge Advocate General should be restored."

  New Dockyard Suggested.
  MR. HARMSWORTH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, whether, in view of the withdrawal of an order to lay down a battleship at Portsmouth, the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty have considered the desirability of acquiring an additional dockyard, and, having regard to the formation of a North Sea Squadron, will he take into consideration the creation of a Government Dockyard in the Tyne or on the East Coast of Scotland.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): There is no present intention of establishing any additional Royal Dockyard.

  H.M.S. "Irresistible."
  MR. HARMSWORTH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, whether H.M.S. "Irresistible," one of the latest types of battleships, is to become guardship at Gibraltar instead of joining the active strength of the Mediterranean Squadron.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The "Irresistible," a battleship of the latest type, has taken the place of the "Devastation," a less powerful and older

  177
  vessel, as guardship at Gibraltar. The "Irresistible" is, like all other vessels in the Mediterranean, under the orders and at the disposal of the Commander-in-Chief.

  H.M.S. "Condor."
  MR. HARMSWORTH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, if there is any record at the Admiralty of one or more guns of any vessel of similar class to the "Condor" breaking loose in a heavy sea.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: There is no record of one or more guns of any vessel of the "Condor" class breaking loose in a heavy sea.
  MR. HARMSWORTH:I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, if he can state what amount of deck cargo was put on board the "Condor" before she left Esquimault.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: There is no information to the effect that any deck cargo was put on board the "Condor" before she left Esquimalt.
  MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: Was not a quantity of stores put on the "Condor" at Esquimault to be taken?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I have looked through the log-book, and I can find no trace of anything of the kind. That is the only indication I have.
  MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: Was not an order sent by the Admiralty for certain stores to be taken on at Esquimault?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Whether any order was sent or not, there is no reference made in the log to the fact that any stores were carried on deck. I can find no trace of it in the log, and it is the only information I have. I have personally examined it.

  British Forces in India—Time-Expired Men.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether he can state what was the effective strength in non-commissioned officers and men of the British European forces
  178
  in India on the 1st January 1896, 1897, and 1902, and what number of men are now serving beyond the terms of their engagement.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): The effective strength in non-commissioned officers and men of the British Forces in India on 1st January 1896, was 70,615, and on 1st January 1897, 70,400. I have not yet received the figures for 1st January 1902, but according to the latest quarterly return 1st October, 1901, the strength was 61,686. There are no men detained in India except under conditions laid down in the terms of their engagement. I am unable to state the exact number of time-expired men at present serving in India. In June last the number was estimated at 22,000; but of these nearly 17,000 have up to date accepted bounties for the extension of their term of service up to a total of 12 years; in addition to this the number has been greatly reduced by wholesale interchanges of men between India and South Africa. I have therefore good reason to anticipate that in a short time very few time-expired men will remain in India.

  Russia in Manchuria.
  MR. JAMES O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether His Majesty's Government has received any assurance of a proximate evacuation of Manchuria by the Russian troops.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE,): The Russian Government have not receded from the intention which they have announced to evacuate Manchuria. It is understood that negotiations for that object, which were delayed by the death of Li Hung Chang, are still proceeding.

  General Medical Council—Case of Dr. Rendall.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether his attention has been directed to the case of Dr. Rendall, of Great Yarmouth, who, on

  179
  23rd November, 1901, was summoned before the General Medical Council and deemed by that body to be guilty of infamous conduct in a professional respect, on the ground that he held an appointment as Medical Officer for the Liverpool Victoria Legal Friendly Society, which canvassed for members, and which society has been established sixty years, is duly registered under the Friendly Societies' Act, and comprises a membership of two and a half millions: and whether he will take the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown with the view to ascertaining whether the General Medical Council have power under the Medical Acts to declare a properly qualified medical man holding such an appointment guilty of infamous conduct and thus be able to erase his name from the Medical Register.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. JESSE COLLINGS,): My hon. friend desires me to say that he does not wish to enter into the details of the particular case referred to, as he understands that it is still, in a sense, sub judice; but he is advised that the powers of the General Medical Council as to deciding what is and what is not "infamous conduct in a professional respect" within the meaning of the Medical Act are clearly laid down by that Act and the decisions there under; and he sees no necessity for consulting the Law Officers of the Crown in the matter.

  Highgate Police.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether it has been brought to his notice that, in consequence of the removal of the Police Station in Highgate out of the county of London into the county of Middlesex, a distance of only about 400 yards, the police constables in that district will lose their lodging allowance of 1s. 6d. per week; and whether he will reconsider the advisability of extending the lodging allowance to all the members of the force, whether doing duty in or outside the London boroughs.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: My right hon. friend has decided that the lodging allowance shall be continued in the case of the men who are at present attached to the Highgate Police Station so long as they continue to be so attached, notwithstanding the removal of that station beyond the boundary of the county of London. The answer to the latter part of the Question is in the negative.

  Regulation of the Sale of Poisons.
  MR. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, under the law relating to the sale of scheduled poisons, an unqualified assistant of a medical man or of a registered chemist is prohibited from selling poisons, under penalty of a fine, but that no penalty is attached to the employer for any offence committed by such unqualified assistant; whether he is aware that, in the case of registered medical practitioners, the General Council of Medical Education and Registration of the United Kingdom have given notice that they will treat as infamous conduct in a professional respect, and have the name erased from the Medical Register, under the 29th section of the Medical Act, 1868, any medical practitioner who may leave an unqualified assistant in charge of their medical halls or open shops, whilst no penalty is attached to the registered chemist who employs an unqualified assistant should that assistant sell scheduled poisons; whether it is within the power of the General Council to declare the employment of an unqualified assistant to be infamous conduct in a professional respect under the Medical Acts; and, if so, whether he will introduce legislation which will equally punish a registered chemist who may similarly employ an unqualified assistant, seeing that the danger to the public is equally the same whether the unqualified assistant be that of a medical practitioner or of a registered chemist.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: My right hon. friend understands that, under the Pharmacy Acts, 1868 and 1869, any person who, not being a chemist or a qualified medical practitioner, sells poison, is liable to prosecution, but that

  181
  there is no provision in those Acts for making the employer responsible for the acts of his apprentice or assistant except in the case of a breach of the regulations to be observed in the sale of poisons. As my right hon. friend has said, in answer to another Question, the powers of the General Medical Council as to deciding what is or what is not "infamous conduct in a professional respect" under the Medical Act are governed by the terms of that Act, and the decisions there under, and the Secretary of State for the Home Department has no authority to interpret them. As regards the last paragraph of the Question, the subject of the sale of poisons is now being considered by a Committee, whose recommendations must be awaited before any decision as to the legislation suggested can be arrived at.

  Disturbance at Anti-War Meeting at Birmingham.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in connection with the Birmingham riots of December last, whether any of the 97 constables who were injured on that occasion will be compensated from Imperial funds; and, if not, will the injured men be compensated from local funds.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: With regard to Imperial funds, the answer is in the negative. The Secretary of State cannot say whether the constables injured will receive any compensation from other sources, as that is not a matter in respect of which he has any authority.
  MR. FLYNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if a constable in Ireland sustains the slightest injury under circumstances like these, a heavy compensation is levied on the locality? And why not in Birmingham?
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Because Joe lives there.

  The "Miniah" Crew's Grievances.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, if he is aware that a crew of seamen were engaged at Glasgow on 13th December,
  182
  1901, on the steamship "Miniah" to proceed to Alexandria, on the understanding that if the vessel was sold at that port, the owners would pay the cost of the men's passage home to the United Kingdom, and their wages, until arrival at a home port; whether he is aware that the British Consul at Alexandria compelled the crew to sign clear of the ship, although the captain was only paying them two days pay each, contrary to the provisions of the articles of agreement, which provided for a continuance of their wages until their return to the United Kingdom; and will he cause inquiries to be made into the matter, and insist on His Majesty's Consul at Alexandria paying over to the crew of the "Miniah" the wages they have lost in consequence of his action.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): I am informed by the owners of the "Miniah," that the seamen discharged from that vessel at Alexandria (with the exception of one man, who, I understand, was left in Hospital) were given passages home, and have been paid their wages up to the date of their arrival in the United Kingdom, and this information is confirmed by the Consul with whom I communicated.

  Tuberculosis.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether he can state when the Commission, appointed to report on Professor Koch's theory that bovine and human tuberculosis are distinct diseases and incommunicable, is expected to report.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GRANT LAWSON,): I am not in a position to state when the Commission will be able to report, but it is not likely that they can do so for a considerable time. I am informed that very extensive experiments will have to be carried out by the Commission, and that for this purpose laboratories and other buildings have been erected on the farms where this part of the work is to be done.

  183
  It is, I understand, impossible to say how long these experiments will take, but arrangements have been made for the Commission to occupy the farms for three years.

  Smallpox.
  MR. PLATT-HIGGINS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether he will state what steps the Local Government Board are taking to prevent the spread of smallpox by tramps.
  MR. GRANT LAWSON: My right hon. friend has recently issued circular letters to Boards of Guardians, in which he called attention to the risk of smallpox being spread by means of casual paupers, and pointed out the steps which should by taken by the guardians and their officers, with a view to diminishing as far as possible the danger from this source.
  MR. PLATT-HIGGINS: Will care be taken that considerations of expense will not be allowed to stand in the way, especially so far as extra remuneration to the medical officers is concerned?
  MR. GRANT LAWSON: Such considerations will not be allowed to stand in the way. We have not restricted the expenditure in any direction.

  Llanelly Union—Relief Distribution.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether he is aware that in the Llanelly Union relieving officers have been in the habit of using rooms in public houses for the purpose of dispensing out-door relief; and, whether he has information to show that such a practice prevails in other unions; if so, what steps he proposes to take to discourage a continuance of the practice
  MR. GRANT LAWSON: From inquiries which I have made I find that it has been the practice to administer relief at a public house in one of the districts of the Llanelly Union. The room in which the relief has been distributed is stated to be outside the main building, to have a separate entrance
  184
  and never to have been used for the sale of intoxicating liquors, but I am happy to say that arrangements are now being made for the payment of relief at the Parish Hall. I have no information to show that the use of public houses as relief stations prevails in other unions. The Local Government Board have already refused to allow this to be done where the matter has come to their knowledge, and this course I shall continue to pursue.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Llanelly Board of Guardians recently passed a Resolution prohibiting such payments in future?
  MR. GRANT LAWSON: I have said that in future the distribution is to take place at the Parish Hall, and, I presume, that is in consequence of some resolution passed by the Board.

  London Water Bill.
  MR. LOUGH: Can the President of the Local Government Board say at what date it is intended to take the Second Reading of the London Water Bill? Will he give an interval of, at least, a fortnight?
  MR. GRANT LAWSON: My right hon. friend informs me he thinks that the Second Reading of the London Water Bill should not be long delayed. The Bill will be put down for Thursday next, and he hopes that it will then be possible to fix a day.

  National Telephone Company's Directory.
  MR. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether he can state in what printed list of National Telephone Exchange subscribers are to be found the names and addresses of 40,000 National Telephone Exchange subscribers in the London Telephone area, who may be rung up by subscribers to the new Post Office Telephone Exchange.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): The National Telephone Company's Directory issued

  185
  last July, with the Supplement issued last month, contains the names and addresses of those subscribers who desire their names and addresses to appear in the Directory. The Company state that among the 40,000 subscribers connected with their London Exchange System are included, in accordance with the usual method of arriving at Telephone Exchange Statistics throughout the world, extension lines and additional connections. Separate entries in the Directory are unnecessary in many of these cases.
  MR. HORNER: I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the addresses in this telephone book are so indistinct and incomplete that it is sometimes impossible to know whom to call?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think that arises out of the Question.

  Brighton Postmen's Grievance.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, if any reply has yet been given to a petition handed in by the Brighton postmen, on 19th February 1901, with regard to the appointment of an assistant inspector of postmen.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Memorialists deprecated the promotion of a Postman who had been strongly recommended by the Postmaster for promotion to be Assistant. Inspector of Postmen, and all their statements were carefully inquired into, before the promotion was made; but they were not considered such as ought to militate against the promotion. In these circumstances, the announcement of the Postmaster-General's decision to sanction the promotion was considered a sufficient reply to the representations of the Memorialists.

  Engineering Branch of Postal Telegraphs.
  MR. DAVID MORGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General whether he has received a petition from the London
  186
  Committee of the Telegraph Clerks Association, asking that all appointments in the Engineering Branch of the Telegraph Department, should be open for competition among the operating staff, and that the age limit of 26 years should be abolished; and, if so, whether an answer can now be given.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General received the petition in question. It has been carefully considered, and he hopes to be able to give a reply to the Memorialists in a few days.

  Registration of Scottish Teachers.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, if his attention has been called to the fact that the Board of Education Act, 1899, under which an Order in Council establishing a register of teachers has been issued, applies only to England and Wales; and, if so, what steps, if any, it is proposed to take to enable teachers at work in Scotland to be admitted to registration.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. Graham): The Board of Education Act, 1899, does not apply to Scotland, and this being so, the Scotch Education Department does not propose to issue an Order in Council, establishing a register of teachers as provided by that Act. What steps may be required in connexion with any such register will be considered when occasion arises.

  Continuation Class Code for Scotland.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the attention of the Scotch Education Department, has been called to the effect of the financial conditions of the Continuation Class Code for Scotland, in discouraging School Boards in the poorer districts from instituting such classes; and whether any relaxation of these conditions is contemplated.
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: Representations have been made as to the difficulty, in some of the poor districts, of raising even the moderate amount of local contribution required by the Continuation Class Code, which, by

  187
  Article 50, grants terms to rural schools more liberal than any previously allowed. The matter will receive consideration when the Code is under revision, but I am not to be understood as pledging the Department to a modifition of the condition.

  Isolation of the National Gallery.
  LORD BALCARRES: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he can state what progress has been made in the acquisation of properties needed for the isolation of the National Gallery, as specified in the Act passed during last session.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): Arrangements have been in negotiation for the acquisition of all these properties, and provision for the purchases is made in the estimates for 1902–03. As soon as possible, after the 1st of April next, the purchases will be completed. I hope that possession will be obtained and the premises demolished this summer.

  Westminister Abbey and the Coronation.
  LORD BALCARRES: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he can say what special steps he has taken to preserve the fabrics of Westminister Abbey from damage likely to be caused by the erection of scaffolding for the Coronation Ceremony.
  MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: Westminister Abbey will, I presume, be handed over to my Department according to precedent, with a view to preparing the edifice for the Coronation. Every care will be taken by the officers of my Department to preserve the fabrics from injury; and my officers have had recently, and I have every reason to hope, will retain, the friendly co-operation and assistance of the authorities of the Abbey in this connection. I can assure my noble friend I have every desire to avail myself to the fullest extent of their experience.

  Ireland—Discharging Firearms from the Public Road
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord
  188
  Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on the 31st of December last firearms were discharged on the public road between Kenmare and Templemore, county Kerry, by members of a shooting party; that the occurrence was reported to two policemen, who were on boat duty, by a gentleman who witnessed the occurrence; and will he explain why proceedings have not yet been instituted.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,):A complaint was made to the police of the nature mentioned. They at once proceeded to the spot indicated, but found no member of the shooting party either on the road, or within sight, and from further inquiries since made, it is not believed by the police that shots were fired from the road, as alleged. No information has been sworn by the person who stated he witnessed the occurrence. He did not give his name to the police.

  Irish Teachers' Pensions.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of teachers admitted into the first division of first class in the year 1888, and how many of these were admitted to the standard number for pensions of the said class; and can he hold out any hope, seeing that the stoppages are increased by, in some cases, 200 per cent., and as the surplus after paying all demands exceeds £20,000, that the standard number, which is only 150, will be increased.
  MR. WYNDHAM:Thirty male teachers were admitted to the first division of the first class in 1888. Of this number, nine have been absorbed into the Pension Establishment of the same grade, which is limited to 150. The Government is not in a position to hold out any immediate prospect of increasing the limit.

  Poaching Prevention in Ireland.
  MR. ROCHE; I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the police at Ferryoober, county Galway, took a gun and hare

  189
  from John Mulvehill on the 9th instant: Whether Mulvehill had a license to have and carry the gun; and, if so, will he direct that the gun be given back to Mulvehill; and whether it is any part of the duty of the police to act as gamekeepers.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. It forms no part of the duty of the police to act as gamekeepers, nor did they do so on the present occasion. They were engaged in enforcing the provisions of the Poaching Prevention Act, under which proceedings are now pending against Mulvehill. The Inland Revenue Authorities are also proceeding against him for shooting game without a Game Certificate. In view of these proceedings I cannot say whether the gun will be restored to Mulvehill.
  MR. REDDY: Did the police have the game?
  MR. ROCHEput a further Question, but Mr. Wyndham asked for notice.

  Irish Agricultural Grant.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, can he state what is the total amount of the receipts from assigned revenue and agricultural grant of the Local Taxation (Ireland) Account for the last financial year, and also what is the total amount of the expenditure?
  MR. WYNDHAM: The receipts amounted to £1,402,866 and the expenditure to £1,320,791. I have forwarded to the hon. Member a memorandum giving details of the receipts and payments.
  MR. LOUGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what has become of the difference?
  MR. WYNDHAM:I will go into that, if the hon. Member wishes to raise the question. I do not know if he has seen the figures.
  MR. LOUGH: Yes. I will put a Question down for Thursday.

  Tallow Licensing Case.
  MR. O'SHEE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord
  190
  Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Constable Callanan, of Tallow, County Waterford, refused to leave the house of Mr. John O'Brien, Tallow, when requested by Mr. O'Brien; can he state what explanation the police authorities have to give for this conduct; and can he explain why Sergeant St. John informed Mr. John O'Brien, that his licence renewal would be opposed by the police if he sold drink to Mr. Redmond O'Brien, one of the Tallow traversers.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The constable entered the licensed premises of Mr. O'Brien in the excercise of his duty, as he had reason to believe that persons were assembling there for an unlawful purpose. He was not requested by Mr. O'Brien to quit the premises. The Sergeant did not state that the licence would be opposed if the publican sold drink to Mr. Redmond O'Brien, but he did state that the licence would be opposed if the latter were allowed to frequent the house for an unlawful purpose.

  Dublin Shrievalty.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Lord Lieutenant has declined te appoint as High Sheriff of Dublin the gentleman nominated first on the list for that office, by the Corporation of that city; if so, what are the reasons for this step; and is there any other instance since the passage of the Act of 1876 of the choice of the Corporation being overridden.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The three names for the Dublin City Shrievalty having been submitted in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Privileges Act, 39 and 40 Vict. cap. 76, Sec. 3, the Lord Lieutenant selected the second person named on the list, who appeared to him the best qualified to fill the office. There are several precedents for the course which the Lord Lieutenant has taken.
  MR. NANNETTI: Is the right hon. Gentlemen aware that the first name on the list was that of a working man whose character is second to none in the City of Dublin?
  MR. WYNDHAM: The hon. Member is in error, if he thinks that the exercise of the Lord Lieutenant's discretion involves any imputation on the character of either of the two gentlemen who were not selected.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Then why did he exercise it?
  MR. NANNETTI: May we take it, that it was because he was a working man that this man was passed over?
  MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir.

  Richmond Lunatic Asylum.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he can state the number of persons regarded as harmless lunatics at present in the Richmond Asylum?
  MR. WYNDHAM: If the expression "harmless lunatics" means those who could with safety to themselves and society be at large without supervision, there are none such in the Richmond Asylum.

  Derreen and Fanore Fishermen.
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if the question of a landing pier for the fishermen of Derreen and Fanore, County Clare, has been brought under his notice; and if he can do anything towards providing a suitable pier for the district.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Representations have been made to this effect. The proposal will be considered in connection with other projects of a similar character.

  Election of Irish High Sheriffs.
  MR. M'GOVERN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, having regard to the fact that the councils of the cities of Dublin, Belfast, Cork, Limerick, and Waterford have the right to elect gentleman to discharge the duties of high sheriff, subject to the approval of the Lord Lieutenant, and also to the manner in which the councils of these cities have exercised this right for the
  192
  past 15 years, and seeing that the County Councils in Ireland have to pay the salaries of the sub-sheriffs and keep the Court Houses in repair, will the Government have the Local Government (Ireland) Act amended so as to enable County Councils to elect high sheriffs for their respective counties in a similar manner.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The reply to this Question is in the negative.

  Irish Land Bill.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he can state when he intends to introduce the promised Irish Land Bill.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I must refer the hon. Member to my reply to the similar question put to me on Friday last by my hon. and learned friend the Member for South Londonderry.*
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Can the right hon. Gentleman see his way to introducing the Bill immediately, as decrees have been obtained against 40 tenants on one estate in my constituency.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am afraid that the date of the introduction of the Bill must be governed by the proceedings of this House.

  Glin Pier.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he can state what was the object of the Board of Works engineer in inspecting the Glin Pier during the recess, and what was his report thereon.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The inspection of this pier was carried out merely to ascertain its condition. The engineer reported that the pier was in good repair.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Will the right hon. Gentleman give some reason why he did not extend the subsidised steam boat service to this pier?
  See page 41
  MR. WYNDHAM: The report was that it could not be done.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Can the right hon. Gentleman not give me some tangible reason why it cannot be done?
  MR. WYNDHAM: No.

  Labourers' Dwellings in Wexford.
  MR. FFRENCH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that overcrowding prevails in the borough of Wexford; and seeing that the Wexford Corporation have, up to the present, been unable to procure sufficient land for building purposes, whether he will take steps to enable the Corporation to take land outside the town compulsorily as sites for artizans' and labourers' dwellings.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Corporation can obtain powers to take lands outside the borough by means of a Provisional Order.

  Cork Post Office Building.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury as representing the Postmaster General whether he can state what is the cause of the delay in rebuilding the Cork Post Office; what period has elapsed since work on the building was brought to a standstill; and when it will be resumed.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General is informed that there has been no stoppage in the work of enlarging the Head Post Office at Cork. While the iron girders and columns were being placed in position, the setting of the outside stone work could not be proceeded with; but that work was resumed more than a fortnight ago, and in the interval the stone work for the upper part of the building was being prepared. A large staff of men has been at work continuously since the building was begun.
  MR. CREAN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that for close on two months there has been practically no work done on this building?
  194
  And has any attention been paid to the representations of any local authorities?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I have given all the information I possess.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether any reply has been sent to the letter and report of the Cork Chamber of Commerce and Shipping, of November last, in reference to the alleged inadequate accommodation provided for the public, according to the proposed plans for the reconstructed post office building; and, if so, can he state the nature of the reply; is he aware that, in consequence of representations made by the Chamber on this point in November, 1900, to the Postmaster General and the Board of Works, an amended plan was prepared showing a larger floor space and increased counter length of about 20 feet; and will he explain why this plan was not adhered to by the Post Office authorities, having regard to the dissatisfaction in commercial circles and amongst the general public of Cork at the apparent intention to carry out the original plans.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: A reply has been sent to the letter from the Cork Chamber of Commerce and Shipping, of November last, stating that their further representations have been considered, and that the Board of Public Works sees no reason to modify their judgment that the plans suggested by the Chamber, for the further enlargement of the public office in the Head Post Office at Cork are impracticable. The Postmaster General also is satisfied that the office as it is being constructed, is large enough to meet the reasonable requirements of the public. The plan to which reference is made was never adopted. It was prepared simply to show what would be the effect of the alterations desired by the Chamber of Commerce.
  MR. FLYNN: Is the Postmaster General aware that two independent architects reported of this work that it could be carried on without risk

  195
  for £500, and that the contractors agreed to carry out amended plans for that small sum?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. Gentleman wants that Question answered, I must ask for notice.
  MR. FLYNN: Will the Post Office authorities pay any attention at all to local public opinion?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, they have given great attention to local representations. I am afraid, however, that I cannot hold out any hope that the decision which has been arrived at will be reversed.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: Would the people of Belfast have been treated as the people of Cork have been?
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: It arises in this way—
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order!

  Telephone Communication in Cork County.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that disappointment exists amongst the merchants and traders of Cork city and county owing to the fact that no substantial progress has been made in the matter of trunk telephone extension; is he aware that, when the General Post Office decided to assume the ownership of the trunk telephone lines, the National Telephone Company were on the point of establishing connection between Cork and Tralee viâ Mallow and Killarney, also between Cork and other towns in the west of the county, but, notwithstanding representations made on behalf of the trading community, nothing has yet been done in the way of telephone extension in the south of Ireland; and whether the Post Office Department are prepared to give at least the same facilities to the district as would have been given by the
  196
  National Telephone Company if the trunk lines had been in their charge.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: May I, at the same time, ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that, when the Post Office Department decided to assume the ownership of the trunk telephone lines, the National Telephone Company had commenced a connecting line between Cork and Youghal and had established the line to Midleton (half way); and, whether, under this circumstances, the Post Office Department will consider the desirability of taking prompt steps to complete the connecting line between Cork and Youghal.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No trunk telephone lines in Ireland except one between Dublin, Belfast, and Drogheda, were transferred by the National Telephone Company to the Post Office, nor is anything known of a proposal by the Company to connect Cork with Youghal, Mallow, Killarney, and Tralee. The trunk line between Dublin and Cork was constructed by the Post Office. It is no doubt the case that the National Telephone Company have connected Cork and Midleton, as the company have certain Exchange subscribers in Midleton, and both places are in the same local Exchange Area. The question of extending the trunk system to the places named has been carefully considered on several occasions, but there seems no probability that the revenue would cover the cost of working the lines. The Postmaster General would, however, provide any lines required, if a guarantee were given, either locally, or by the National Telephone Company, on the same terms as for extensions of the trunk wire system in other parts of the United Kingdom.
  MR. FLYNN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the National Telephone Company were prepared, when the Government took them over, to extend telephone communication viâ Mallow?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am not aware of that.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Do I understand that the hon. Gentleman can hold out no hope of the extension from Midleton to Youghal?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Not unless a guarantee is given which will secure the Post Office Revenue against loss.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: Are these guarantees required in England?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, under similiar circumstances they are required in all parts of the United Kingdom.

  Great Southern and Western Railway Company's Rates.
  MR. P. J. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state at what time and place the Railway and Canal Commissioners will hold their inquiry into the question of the proposed increase of rates by the Great Southern and Western Railway Company on their goods traffic, including artificial manures and breadstuffs, in the districts in the South of Ireland to the stations on their line between Dublin and Cork. Whether the Irish Board of Agriculture will intervene to protect the interests of the traders and general public in the districts so threatened with increased rates, and if the cost of such inquiry will be borne by the Railway Company, or will any portion have to be borne by the several public bodies who have given notice to take action in the matter by being represented before the Commissioners. In the latter case can he state how the costs will be apportioned, or what the probable amount might be which an urban council would have to bear. And, whether he can state when the time for lodging objections before the Commissioners will expire.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The hon. Member's Question deals with the procedure of a legal tribunal as to which I have no means of information other than those open to the public. The Registrar to the Railway and Canal Commissioners has, however, been good enough to tell me, in answer to an in-
  198
  quiry, that the Commissioners will sit at the Four Courts, Dublin, on Tuesday, the 18th instant, to hear the application of the Great Southern and Western Railway Company in the matter to which the hon. Member refers. He adds that the time for lodging objections expired on the 22nd January, and that among the objections received was one from the Department of Agriculture for Ireland. All objectors will receive formal notice of the place and date of hearing. Under Section 2 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1894, the Commissioners have no power to award costs on either side unless they are of opinion that the claim or defence has been frivolous and vexatious. I have no means of estimating the probable amount of the costs which may be incurred by any of the parties in this case.
  MR. CULLINAN: May I ask whether, as it is not generally known by the persons interested that the period for lodging objections closes on January 22nd, the right hon. Gentleman will extend the time?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have no power to do so.

  Omagh Female Telegraphists.
  MR. MURNAGHAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, will he explain why, although it has been decided that no female telegraphist should be kept on duty after 10 p.m., female telegraphists are retained at the postal telegraph office at the railway station, Omagh, after 10 p.m., and occasionally till midnight; and will the regulations of the Department in this respect be enforced at the Omagh office.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Question seems to refer to some few late attendances that were given in exceptional circumstances during June and July last year without the knowledge of the Postmaster General. Inquiry is being made on the subject, and the hon. Member shall be duly informed of the result.

  Belturbet Post Office.
  MR. M'GOVERN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as represent-

  199
  ing the Postmaster General, whether he can state what steps, if any, have been taken to secure a proper site for the new post office which is to be built in Belturbet, and when building operations are expected to commence.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: A good site in The Diamond at Belturbet has been offered, and it is now under consideration whether the site can be acquired and a suitable building erected on it within the limits of expense which the amount of the post office business in the town would justify. The matter will go forward without delay, but it is impossible at present to state when building operations are likely to be commenced.

  Irish Mail Delays.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can state the number of times that the connections of the mail trains failed at Limerick Junction since the amalgamation of the Waterford, Limerick, and Western Railway Company with the Great Southern and Western Railway Company; and, whether he can state what steps the Postmaster General has taken or will take for a more regular delivery of mails throughout the districts between Limerick and Tralee.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN:It is understood that the train for Limerick awaits at Limerick Junction, the arrival of the Day Mail train from Dublin, but that failures of connection sometimes occur at Limerick with the train for Tralee. Inquiry is being made as to the number of such failures recently, and also as to the possibility of improving the service, and the result shall be communicated to the hon. Member as soon as possible.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask is the hon. Gentleman aware that, owing to the failure to connect the mails at Limerick Junction for Tralee, the Dublin daily papers due to arrive at Ruthkeale in the County of Limerick at about eleven o'clock in the forenoon do not get there till seven in the evening. Would that be tolerated in England?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Gentleman cannot expect me to speak with accuracy on those facts I must have notice.
  MR. FLYNN: In view of the frequent failures to connect since the amalgamation, will the hon. Gentleman represent to the Postmaster General the desirability of establishing a motor car or cycle service for the delivery of the mails?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN:The possibility of improving the service is already being considered by the Postmaster General.
  MR. FLYNN: But the service is going from bad to worse.

  Irish Post Offices—Supply of Change.
  MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether postmasters and postal telegraph officers in Ireland are bound by the regulations of the Department to keep in their offices sufficient change to meet public requirements, and if not, whether steps will be immediately taken to provide for this being done.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Postmasters in Ireland are supplied with sufficient cash to meet ordinary requirements. They are not bound to give change, but they should not refuse to do so if they can give it conveniently. If the hon. Member will furnish particulars of any case in which inconvenience has been caused owing to a postmaster not keeping sufficient change in his office, inquiry will be made.
  MR. O'DOWD: I will forward some cases to the hon. Gentleman.

  Promotion in the Dublin Post Office.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he will state what, compared with the Dublin sorting clerks and telegraphists, were the special qualifications of Messrs. Hawkins and O'Donnell, imported from Queenstown and Derry respectively, to fill supervising clerkships in the Dublin

  201
  sorting office, and whether service in provincial offices like those named is held to make an official more capable of supervising in Dublin than men trained in the Dublin office; whether Messrs. Hawkins and O'Donnell passed a competitive examination; and is he aware that some of the Dublin officials passed over went through either a limited or open competitive examination.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I have already informed the hon. Member that Messrs. Hawkins and O'Donnell were appointed by the Postmaster General to their present positions at the Dublin Sorting Office because they were, in his opinion, better fitted to perform the required duties than any of the officers then in that office. I can add nothing to this answer. Messrs. Hawkins and O'Donnell did not enter the service by competitive examination. The Postmaster General is aware that some of the sorting clerks and telegraphists now in Dublin entered by competitive examination.
  MR. NANNETTI:Is the hon. Gentleman aware that both of these gentlemen who were supposed to have such superior knowledge had only been in the service two years, and that they took precedence over men who had served all their lives?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN:The mere fact of being in the service does not necessarily show competence to perform certain duties. I have stated the qualifications of these gentlemen.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I suppose they are Unionists.

  Government Licensing Bill.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if the Licensing Bill, introduced by him on Thursday last, will apply to Ireland, if passed into law.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: The Bill, as drafted, applies only to England and Wales.
  MR. SHAUGHNESSY: Can the right hon. Gentleman see his way to introduce a Temperance Bill for Ireland, considering
  202
  the strenght of public feeling in favour of it?
  [No answer was returned.]

  Government Education Bill.
  MR. TREVELYAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he can state approximately the date of the introduction of the Education Bill, which has been promised in the King's Speech as the leading measure for the session.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In answer to the hon. Gentleman I have to say that I think he is inaccurate in saying that the Education Bill was promised in the King's Speech as the leading measure of the session, because, as he knows, it is an open secret that the rules of procedure have always been considered by the Government to be the first business with which they ought to deal, although, for reasons known to the hon. Gentleman, that was not mentioned in the King's Speech. As regards the substance of his Question, I am afraid I cannot yet state the date of the introduction of the Bill.
  MR. TREVELYAN: Will it be before Whitsuntide?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope so, Sir.

  New Procedure Rules.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the, Treasury whether, in the discussions of the new rules of procedure, any, and if so what opportunity will be afforded of submitting to the House, by way of Motion, or Amendment, or additional new rules, any proposals for the more effective despatch of public business, such as the carrying over to the next session Bills which have been read a second time and have reached the Committee or some subsequent stage, in lieu of the present dilatory practice of commencing de novo by reintroducing such Bills, such as the allocation, by a Committee of the House, of a specified time to the consideration of particular measures.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am very loth to deal with this question. It occurs to me that it is more a question for Mr. Speaker, more a question of order, and it is for Mr. Speaker to make a statement on it. My impression is—if the hon. Gentleman insists on my giving an answer—that it would not be possible for hon. Gentlemen to move suggestions for rules of their own, in addition to those which the Government propose; nor do I believe it would be possible for them to suggest Amendments to existing rules unless those Amendments were relevant to Amendments which we propose. That, I believe, is the state of the case. The hon. Gentleman must not take that as being—what I have no right to give—an authoritative decision.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that information. Perhaps he will enable us to form our own judgment by saying, whether he intends that the Second Reading debate on the rules should be preceded by any such Motion as that they be considered.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My Motion is on the Paper.
  MR. DILLON: I wish to ask the First Lord whether there is not in the Foreign Office or the Library of the House, ample material to give us information as to the rules of Foreign Legislatures for the punishment of disorder and obstruction, and if so, would be direct somebody to supply the information to the House.
  SIR JOHN BRUNNER: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisibility of making a précis, not too long, of the rules of procedure of important Foreign Legislatures.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think that we ought to turn ourselves into a Committee for preparing a comparative jurisprudence of all the Assemblies or all the Legislatures who have, more or less, I framed themselves on our model. I quite admit that we have in many respects something to learn from them; but I should not have thought that we have much to learn from them in regard to these par-
  204
  ticular questions. I cannot say, off-hand, whether the information is in the Library or in the Foreign Office, but the Blue-book which I promised will, I think, be in the hands of Members to-day, and the hon. Member will then be able to see how far it meets his wishes.
  MR. DILLON:I shall put a Question down for to-morrow. Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been drawn to the fact that in 1890 Lord Salisbury telegraphs to the agents of the Government in foreign countries to obtain information which the Committee required, and that the Committee was placed at great disadvantage because they only had telegraphic answers?
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: There seems to be some doubt whether the debate on the procedure rules will be commenced to-morrow or Thursday. Can the right hon. Gentleman clear that up?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR:I have made inquiries, and I do not seem to get any further than we were on Friday night. The situation on Friday night was this:—The Government thought, and I am sure, that we ought to finish the Second Reading in the course of the present week. I said that, because I think that two days should be sufficient for a debate which will be repeated, as far as each rule is concerned, when the rules come up in detail. There will then be ample opportunity for discussing each question, though, of course, I grant that a group such as those dealing with the order of the business might be with advantage considered together. If we have a right to begin the discussion of the rules in detail this day week, it follows that, if the House is not satisfied with two days, I must take to-morrow. I have received no assurance from those qualified to give one that two days debate will be sufficient, and in the absence of one I have no course open to me except to begin the discussion to-morrow evening.
  MR. CREAN: Take a Saturday sitting.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I beg to renew the appeal so often made to the right Hon, Gentleman. I understood that in the course of Friday night it was quite arranged, in the usual friendly and confiden-

  205
  tia way in which such things are arranged, that the debate should not begin until Thursday, and I earnestly hope the right hon. Gentleman will not disappoint hon. Members who have formed their plans upon that supposition. I do not quite know what the right hon. Gentleman meant by saying he has a "right" to begin the detailed consideration of these rules on this day week. There is no order or regulation on the subject, and, although it may be desirable and convenient, there is certainly no law to compel it. Apart from that, and without deciding the question whether there ought to be two or three nights debate, I certainly did understand last Friday that it was understood the general discussion should not begin till Thursday.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will not chicane with the right hon. Gentleman over the word "right." All I meant by it was, that the Government have endeavoured to treat the House fairly, and have not stood upon what is technically their right not to have a Second Reading debate, and they are entitled—[Cries of "Oh, oh."]—I can assure hon. Gentlemen that it is an irregular proceeding.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: It was done by the Tory Party.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My point is this. The Government have tried to meet the House fairly, and in return, I think, we have a right to ask that no unnecessary delay shall be interposed between us and the consideration of the rules. When the right hon. Gentleman got up and said that there was a friendly understanding, I hoped he was going to add an assurance that two days debate would be considered sufficient. But I have heard nothing of that, and unless I get the assurance from the right hon. Gentleman and others authorised to speak on this point, I can go no further.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I think the general feeling in the House is, that this debate ought not to commence before Thursday, and that the interval between this and next Thursday may be wel lspent in the further consideration of the rules. I may also express the
  206
  feeling of hon. Members who sit on these benches that it is unfair to ask us to enter into any agreement to conclude the debate on Friday night. I cannot for the life of me understand the right hon. Gentleman's plea that the Government have a "right" to get the debate closed on Friday night.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I withdraw the word "right."
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I submit that they have no reason to expect such a thing. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken about the concession he made to the House by allowing a Second Reading debate. But he knows there are precedents for that, which extend over far more than two nights. I would therefore earnestly urge the right hon. Gentleman not to take the debate until Thursday, and not to attempt to force a decision on Friday night. As far as I am concerned, I have no desire, and neither do I think any of my hon. friends desire, to prolong this debate unnecessarily. But it is an unfair thing to ask us in advance to pledge ourselves to consent to the ending of the debate on Friday night, whether we have been able to express our views or not. This is a position which I do not think we ought to be placed in.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I have no right to speak for any one but myself, but may I be permitted to say I thought it was arranged with the right hon. Gentleman on Friday night that the Second Reading debate was to be taken on Thursday. I went from the House under the impression that it was settled in that way, and I earnestly hope and think it will be in the interest of business that the debate may be postponed until Thursday. I have only seen to-day, for the first time, the Motion which the right hon. Gentleman has placed on the Paper, and it may be desirable to bring forward an Amendment to that.
  MR. ALFRED THOMAS:I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept the suggestion which has fallen from one of his own followers,

  207
  and not begin the debate until Thursday. He knows very well that on Tuesday there is set down for discussion a question vitally affecting the people of Wales.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down was good enough to send me a private communication, in which, in most courteous language, he expressed the wish that Tuesday might be left for the discussion of the Motion in which he and his friends are deeply interested. I would gladly meet his views if it were in my power, but I think he will see that I am not pursuing an unreasonable course in asking that the debate on the rules should be confined to two days. I gather from the hon. Member for Waterford that he is not content with two days, and cannot agree to any such arrangement.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: No.
  MR. DAVID THOMAS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of suspending the 12 o'clock rule on Friday?
  EARL PERCY: In view of the conflict of opinion, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of beginning the discussion of the new rules on Wednesday?
  [No answer was returned.]

SUPPLY (REPORT) [31st JANUARY].
Resolution reported:—

ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES. 1901–02.
"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1902, for Additional Expenditure, due to the War in South Africa, in respect of the following Army Services, viz.:—

£.

Vote 6.

Purchase of Remounts

2,000,000

Vote 7.

Provisions, Forage, and other Supplies

3,000,000

Total

£5,000,000

Resolution read a second time:—
Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): Before the Committee divided on this Vote on Friday last, I ventured to make an appeal that the tone in which the discussion had been conducted for a short period might be modified; that we should suspend our judgment on the very important considerations which had been brought before the Committee, and I undertook to make certain further investigations. I think it would be more convenient for the House, before proceeding to consider this Vote on Report, if I should state the present position at which we have arrived, and remind the House, if I may, what are the points that we have to resolve in regard to the question of remounts. Many speeches were made on Friday night, but they had this disadvantage, that replies were made to them at different times of the evening, and especially two replies at a time when the House was very empty. Many Members were entirely influenced in their view of the proceedings by what they heard casually in the course of the discussion.
Now, Sir, the circumstances which we were engaged in debating were practically as follows: At the beginning of the great pressure of the war, in the first three months, from December, 1899, a large number of fresh forces were raised, and the process of sending out remounts to South Africa was carried on at a perfectly unprecedented pace. Of these new forces the Yeomanry was one, and the whole equipment of the Yeomanry was left in the hands of a Committee of the colonels and officers of the Yeomanry. And, as a portion of equipment, there was left in their hands the question of the purchase of remounts. That may have been a wise or an unwise proceeding. I know that at the beginning, early in the day, there was an almost unqualified commendation of the course pursued, both in this House and outside that door. There are many people who have a great suspicion of the power of the War Office to cope with a great emergency, who are continually

209
urging upon us the desirability of placing in the hands of experienced persons and business men the conduct of affairs with which we may find ourselves at the moment incapable of dealing. That was the course which Lord Lansdowne took when he invited these six or seven gentlemen, all experienced in questions relating to horses, all experienced in Yeomanry matters, and some of them business men of very high repute, to undertake the provision of these 10,000 horses, and also the equipment of the Yeomanry. And be it remembered that at that moment the War Office was not standing idle; but itself had concluded contracts four or five times as large. Well, Sir, all the questions which have arisen, all the subjects, without exception, which were raised in debate on Friday night, referred not to the contracts with which the War Office was more immediately connected, but to the sum of money handed over to these expert gentlemen of the Yeomanry Committee, and expended by them on their own responsibility, and on that responsibility, as they believed, to the best advantage. I hope I shall be absolved by the House of trying in any respect, on any subject, or in regard to any period, even though it is antecedent to my own entrance into my present office, to give up any responsibility which I can possibly take; but I confess that when these subjects are discussed in the House I think it would be a great advantage that we should be perfectly open and frank, as to where responsibility really lies. I think it is very hard that my right hon. friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet, who knows perfectly well the capacity of these gentlemen who undertook to provide these 10,000 horses, should have insisted again and again in speaking of the Committee as throwing dust in the eyes of the people, and insisting on laying the responsibility on the Secretary of State for War alone.
MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I did not say anything about the Yeomanry Committee throwing dust in the eyes of the people. I was referring to what I called the white-washing Committee.
MR. BRODRICK: I do not want to insist upon it; but my right hon. friend
210
stated that he hoped there would be no further attempt to appoint "these Committees." He was speaking of two Committees.
MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I beg pardon. I was referring to the Committee appointed last year to discharge similar duties in respect to other contracts.
MR. BRODRICK: My right hon. friend did not make that by any means clear; and it was certainly understood when he was speaking of two Committees that he alluded to both. I challenge my right hon. friend, who has great knowledge of horses himself, to get up and deny that on that Committee there were men of first class ability as regards business, and of first class knowledge and judgment of horses. Well, they entered into a contract which has been condemned. I am not going to defend it; I think the work might have been far better done. There are many points in regard to which I believe that a want of foresight was shown and that unwise appointments were made. But at the same time, we must remember that this was done under great pressure; and we must also remember, what is of far more importance for the House to recollect, that this was a single contract entered into by a Committee which has ceased to enter into these contracts. And, although it may reflect some want of credit on their business power and discernment, that cannot be charged against those officials of the War Office whose business it is to conduct these proceedings, but who had no part or parcel whatever in this contract.
What occurred? The Yeomanry Committee found a gentleman of the name of Lewison to whom, without any precise knowledge of his power to carry it out, they gave a large contract for the supply of horses. Mr. Lewison took out with him a veterinary surgeon of undoubted capacity, Captain Hartigan, who was engaged by him on these terms: First of all, for getting the contract, he received a commission of 2½ per cent., not on each horse passed, but on the whole number of horses. That is an impor

211
tant qualification, because it was immaterial to Mr. Lewison whether or not so many horses were rejected. The whole number had to be made up in the long run, and on the whole number Captain Hartigan was to receive 2½ per cent. Subsequently Captain Hartigan arranged with Mr. Lewison that he should receive payment for his expedition to Austria-Hungary at the rate of two and a half guineas per day, with expenses. That is material. The important point is that he became Mr. Lewison's paid agent. The Yeomanry Committee, having nothing to do after the entering into the contract with Mr. Lewison, then proceeded to send out an officer to inspect these horses as they arrived at Szabadka. They made an excellent selection. Colonel Maclean was sent out, and undoubtedly, so far as the inspection of horses went, he was a man of admirable capacity, by all accounts, for this work. He discharged his duty undoubtedly well, and no question whatever has been raised as to his honour and the honesty of his proceedings. He sent back a considerable number of horses, and so far as the horse inspection went, Colonel Maclean, who had commanded the Royal Dragoons before he left the army, was unquestionably a competent man for his task. It was pointed out by the Committee, that the main difficulty which has emerged, arose from this: that when the contract was nearly at an end, or appeared to be nearly at an end, a veterinary surgeon, Captain Webb, who had gone out with Colonel Maclean to pass these horses, sailed on board the "City of Lucknow," with a consignment of horses for South Africa; and Colonel Maclean, who required a man to replace him, wrote about it to the Committee. The Committee suggested one or two men, but Colonel Maclean, without rejecting any of these names, pointed out that Captain Hartigan, who had then ceased to be employed by Mr. Lewison, was on the spot, and that he had the requisite knowledge. It appeared that it was Colonel Maclean's idea, that as there was only another hundred or two horses to be passed, Captain Hartigan should be engaged, and he suggested that that should be
212
done. Then ensued a complication of events, about which there is a conflict of evidence. Captain Hartigan states that he made a perfectly clean breast of it to Colonel Maclean, and a full disclosure of his particular connection with Mr. Lewison.
I am sure the House will pardon me if I go into detail a little, because I want to make the matter perfectly clear. Captain Hartigan was asked very specifically by the Committee, at question No. 1175—
"When Captain Webb sailed for South Africa in the 'Lucknow,' in the month of March, did Colonel Maclean appoint you as his veterinary officer?—He did, and I told him the arrangement I had with Lewison before I accepted."
The next question was—
"You explained your position with regard to Lewison before you undertook it?—Yes."
Another question was—
"During the time you were veterinary surgeon with Colonel Maclean you had no dealings with Lewison at all?—He was not there: he went away."
Then there was a further question—
"Your business relation with Lewison was that you received 2½ per cent. on the gross amount writ issued?—Yes, I had a lawsuit, and he had to pay me." "And two guineas and a half a day and expenses while you were selecting for Lewison?—Yes." "That relationship continued after you had passed into the employ of the Imperial Yeomanry to the extent of 2½ per cent. on the gross amount?—Yes, and it continues still—if he gets a job from them again. I have got the paper stamped."
Well, Sir, I do not suppose any Member of the House will consider that Colonel Maclean wise or well-advised, even to finish the end of a contract, in taking over the services of a man who had been the servant of the contractor. But it was very broadly stated, especially by the hon. and learned Member for Dundee, who spoke, as I think, with great haste, and who challenged me in the course of my observations with an air of absolute authority, and stated that the transaction was absolutely illegal and that it gave the employer the right to call on Captain Hartigan to pay that money over.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: No, Sir, I put it interjectionally. I did not know the facts. I asked whether it was not such a commission as would

213
give the employer the right to call upon the employee to pay over the money.
MR. BRODRICK: I do not complain of that statement, but I do complain that the hon. Member laid down the law with such an appearance of authority and in such a manner, that his method was most calculated to mislead the House. My answer to the hon. Member in all humility was, I am not a lawyer; but it struck me at the moment what I now assert, that the whole question with regard to Captain Hartigan depends as to whether he made a full disclosure or not of his position. I do not want to offer any apology for Captain Hartigan, but if he made a full disclosure of his position, he would stand in this way, that he was there on the spot, and there was a certain amount of work left to be done, and he said to the officer who asked him to undertake the work, "I am already in the employ of the other man; I am getting 2½ per cent. commission; but if you like I will do what I can." If Captain Hartigan did that, at all events he committed nothing that was illegal. I do not say that a man with a very nice sense of honour might not have said "I would rather not undertake the work at all." But if that is his position he does not deserve the strictures passed upon him by the hon. Member for Dundee.
MR. LABOUCHERE: Did Colonel Maclean know of this?
MR. BRODRICK: If the hon. Member will wait, he will see. I was going to say that this statement by Captain Hartigan was so precise that not merely was it accepted by the Committee, but it was accepted by me as giving the view of what must have been absolutely public knowledge out there as to his relations with Lewison before he had undertaken the work. I did not say on Friday night what I now must say, that Colonel Maclean, however excellent an officer in other respects, was very ill-advised in accepting Captain Hartigan's services. I go further and say that I think whoever was responsible on the Yeomanry Committee for allowing him to take Captain Hartigan into his service was also extremely ill-
214
advised. I perhaps should say that both the officers whose names have been mentioned in this connection, and who were constantly mentioned in the House on Friday last—Colonel Maclean and Colonel St. Quintin—have long retired, and are not now within the reach of any censure from the Commander-in-Chief, but we have to consider Captain Hartigan's own position.
Great complaint was made on Friday night that Captain Hartigan had subsequently been employed as Civil Veterinary Surgeon at Aldershot. I have made careful inquiry into that. Captain Hartigan is undoubtedly at this moment filling the post of Civil Veterinary Surgeon. Strictures were passed on General Truman, Inspector General of Remounts, for permitting this. I could not meet that on the spur of the moment, as I had not the Papers with me, and I could not tell who was responsible for the appointment. On looking into it, I find that these appointments of Civil Veterinary Surgeons for the ordinary conduct of veterinary work in regiments, are not made by the Inspector General of Remounts, who has nothing whatever to do with them, but by the principal veterinary officer. I have called upon him for an explanation, and I understand that, in a moment of great pressure, Captain Hartigan applied to him for employment. He was undoubtedly an able veterinary officer; he had left the service some years before with very considerable experience, and he was employed without reference to General Truman at all. That entirely absolves that officer. I was strongly pressed on Friday night to remove Captain Hartigan from his employment at Aldershot, but I think the House will see that at this moment the matter stands in this way. He made full disclosure of his position, a fact which was not altogether borne out by the evidence of Colonel Maclean, and I would ask the House to leave the matter in my hands so that I may investigate it further. I have not lost time, but I do not wish to pass a slur on Captain Hartigan untill know precisely what are the facts of the case. He is in temporary employment at Aldershot, and I can terminate his appointment by a stroke of the pen, but I would ask the

215
House to allow the matter to rest for two or three days until we hear—it is only the fair thing—what Captain Hartigan's explanation is.
Then there is the case of General Truman. He was made the subject of a very serious attack on Friday night. The main allegation against General Truman proceeded, I think, from an uneasy feeling that somehow or another he was responsible for the loss of public money involved in the overpayment for the contracts in Hungary. It was pointed out—and I could not deny it—that it was his duty to have communicated with the Military Attachéin Austria as to the capabilities of the country in that respect. Let two things be remembered. The main attacks made on General Truman on Friday night had regard first of all to the failure of this contract, which having been made by the Yeomanry Committee he had no more to do with than any hon. Member of this House, and in regard to which he was never even consulted by the Yeomanry Committee. They were invited by Lord Lansdowne to put themselves into communication with the Remount Department, but, as a matter of fact, they did not. They carried out the business themselves on their own authority. General Truman was also severely attacked for having been accessory to the employment of Captain Hartigan. He had nothing to do either with the employment of Captain Hartigan in Hungary, nor with his subsequent employment as Civil Veterinary Surgeon at Aldershot. No attack whatever was made in the course of the discussion on General Truman's honour, or on the honesty with which he carried out his duties. It is necessary to say this, because I am bound to feel that the House was, to some extent, carried away, and a very injurious impression was produced in the public Press, as well as in the House, by the remarks made about General Truman. At the same time, I said then and I still feel, that other remarks were made as regards General Truman, not affecting his honour or his honesty, but his capacity, and I have received from General Trueman a letter in which he requests the Commander-in-Chief for a Court of Inquiry to be held into the
216
conduct of his Department during the whole of the war. The Commander-in-Chief has recommended that that request should be granted, and I think it is extremely desirable that that inquiry should be held, and promptly held, into these circumstances, and that an authoritative verdict should be pronounced as to the manner in which General Truman's Department has carried out its work. I can assure the House that no Member of the House is more desirous than I am that that inquiry should be prompt and effective, and that a Report should be produced, which I shall present to Parliament, as to the conduct of the Department, and as to General Truman's own personal capacity to conduct it.
MR. TREVELYAN: What sort of an inquiry will it be?
MR. BRODRICK: A Military Court of Inquiry, a proper court, held under the Army Regulations; and I will undertake that the Court shall be promptly composed, and that it shall sit at once. My hon. friend the member for Westminster asked me with reference to Mr. Hauser whether further contracts would be made with that firm. Now, Sir, I have gone carefully into that, and I am not at all certain that my hon. friend quite knew what he was asking when he asked the House to pass a Resolution of that character.
MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: I did not ask the right hon. Gentleman to give any undertaking. I only asked him for information as to whether any contract with Hauser was now running.
MR. BRODRICK: As I understood my hon. friend's remarks with regard to Mr. Hauser, they were rather taken by the House as indicating that it was desirable that there should not be further contracts in that quarter. I am open to argument on that subject, but the position is simply as follows: Mr Hauser was selected originally for the first contract given by the Army—not by the Yeomanry Committee because he had the largest capacity in Hun-

217
gary for supplying horses; he was a man of substance and capital, and had the best buyers quartered in all the best districts. The whole point with regard to Mr. Hauser is that he made a large profit on the first contract. I do not say that he made an excessive profit; the excessive profit was made by the other middlemen, who were allowed to come in before the profit reached Mr. Hauser. I believe he received £22 per horse. We know nothing; we can only judge by our own estimates; but I suppose that in every case Mr. Hauser would have to pay £10 or £12 for each horse. Before they were landed they would have cost another £5 each, and if a man is £16 or £17 out of pocket for a horse, certainly nobody will say that £22—that is a profit of £5 or £6 per horse—is an undue one. Consider the circumstances. Every horse that dies during transit over several hundred miles, or during a detention of possibly two or three weeks, has got to be paid for by Mr. Hauser; every horse that is rejected is thrown on his hands; and if the ship is detained in harbour a demurrage of, I think, £75 a day has to be paid by the contractor. I am not experienced in horse-dealing myself; my right hon. friend has got a knowledge of this subject which I have not; but I very much doubt whether, taking a contract with all these elements of risk, he would say that a profit of £5 or £6 on a horse would be considered excessive. At all events we know that the Austrian Government pay a larger price, and the whole question seems to be—Do we secure the animal we require? We must get the very best. On that question we have the universal opinion of the officers who have examined them—men against whose capacity no word has been said. We have also the evidence from South Africa. I say at once that there is no class of horse from any part of the world, including Great Britain and the Colonies, which has not received censure from one or other of the authorities in South Africa. It is absolutely impossible when we have a number of horses, purchased for service in South Africa, many of them hurried up the country owing to the exigencies of the service much too soon,
218
that there should not be a number of persons who have objection to Hungarian, Argentine, British, Australian, or American horses; but I can say that the very strong majority of opinion is that the Hungarian horses have done very well. Messrs. Hauser are not only men of large capital, but own 3,000 or 4,000 stalls in the town in which we must collect and in the centre of the horse breeding country, and they have provided us to the satisfaction of our inspector with a very large number of animals. I should not be prepared to cut the country away from such a source of supply. We must look at this matter from the point of view of our interests. Mr. Hauser may have made large profits at the first. But we have had lately a lot at £20 apiece, and also a lot of a very strong class of cob at £26 10s. each. I have ordered a most careful investigation in South Africa by a variety of authorities as to the capacity of these cobs recently shipped from Hungary as compared with those from other countries; and it is upon the result of that investigation that I shall decide whether or not the contracts with Messrs. Hauser and Schlesinger shall continue.
With regard to the officers and others whose names have been mentioned in connexion with this matter—the men who I am afraid are chiefly responsible for the feeling of distrust produced in the House with regard to the contracts—those are Captain Hartigan, the contractor's men who passed the horses delivered by the contractor, Colonel Maclean, and Colonel St. Quintin. I regret to have to name them. I very much regret the error of judgment they made. But I have no power to do more than express my regret, for they are not under the authority of the Commander-in-Chief. General Truman, who is under the authority of the Commander-in-Chief, must stand or fall by the inquiry which will be made. Captain Hartigan will be given the opportunity of substantiating the evidence which he has given; and unless he very distinctly clears himself of all imputations whatever in regard to the matter, I certainly shall not allow him to continue even in his temporary

219
employment at Aldershot. I can only repeat what I said on Friday night—that we are as anxious as any Member of the House can be, not only for the purity, but for the efficiency, of these contracts. I deeply regret that in the course of this discussion so much obloquy has been thrown on the Committee who are responsible for bringing these things to light. That Committee have performed their duty with absolute fearlessness. I think it extremely hard that gentlemen who took upon themselves an invidious and unpleasant task, and have performed it with impartiality, should have been made the objects of bitter attack. I say also, as I said on Friday night, that the failure of one contract, carried out by persons not associated with the War Office, should not be made the reason for attacking the whole series of contracts carried out by the War Office in connection with the war, and for the casting of imputations, which are entirely delusive, that the want of business capacity displayed by private individuals proves a loss of millions of money on contracts made by the War Office. So long as I represent the War Office in this House, whatever may be the temper of Parliament in regard to that Department, I will endeavour that justice shall be done, and that facts shall be put forward; and I believe the War Office will not suffer and that the country will gain if, where justice is required, justice is done.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has reason to complain of the tone in which the Committee dealt with this question on Friday night. The House was startled, surprised, and intensely interested, but I do not think that it can be at all a matter of wonder that strong things were said after the disclosures which the Report of the Remounts Committee contains. The right hon. Gentleman has now looked into the matter personally, and we acknowledge at once the spirit in which he has done so. He has promised that if, on further enquiry, it is found that Captain Hartigan is no longer fit to be retained in the position he holds, he will see that the decision is carried out.
220
The right hon. Gentleman also very properly accedes to the request of General Truman that there should be an inquiry into his conduct by a military court, there being—as the right hon. Gentleman rightly interprets the opinion of the Committee—no imputation on that officer, but only the suggestion that he conducted the operations with which he was connected in an unbusiness-like way. So far, that leaves the matter for the moment in a satisfactory position. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman proposes to postpone the Report stage of the Vote for some time in order to enable the House to pronounce an opinion upon the conclusion to which he ultimately comes. It seems to me that that would be the regular and proper course to pursue, but, at any rate, we shall be informed, no doubt, of that conclusion by the right hon. Gentleman when he arrives at it.
I would venture to go a little further. I do not think I am wrong in saying that there has been an uneasy feeling in the public mind about the manner in which horses have been purchased in other places besides Hungary. One hears vague accounts upon which, of course, one cannot rely, that the arrangements for the purchase of horses in this country, in Ireland, in Canada, in Argentina—indeed wherever horses have been bought—have been in some cases open to doubt, and that the results have not been satisfactory. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government should not promote an inquiry into the general question of the purchase of horses in this great emergency, which emergency, no doubt, would cover a multitude of sins. We have been already told that there is to be a full inquiry into the conduct of the war, at the end of the war, and it may be said that this investigation could be very well postponed until then; but we have had this inquiry into the purchase of horses in Hungary, and I do not see why the investigation should not be extended to the other markets. If it should be decided to hold this general inquiry, I trust it will be held by a Committee somewhat more competent to go fully, dispassionately, and com-

221
pletely into the question than the Committee which dealt with the purchase of horses in Hungary. I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said as to the proof which the Report supplies of that Committee's desire to arrive at the facts of the case honestly and straightforwardly. At the same time, with all deference in the world to individual members of the Committee, perhaps it is not, out of place to say that it was not, for the purpose of a business inquiry, a very strong Committee. The hon. Gentleman opposite, who was the chairman of the Committee (Sir Charles Welby) has been private secretary to two successive Secretaries of State, and is now, by some strange arrangement, Assistant Under-Secretary unpaid at the War Office, or has been recently so. Of my hon. friend behind me (Mr. C. Hobhouse) I say nothing. In my hon. and gallant friend opposite (Colonel Kenyon-Slaney) I have great confidence also, but he is not a person particularly quick to mark iniquity in occupants of the Treasury Bench. The only other member of the Committee is the near relative of the Secretary of State for War himself. The secretary of the Committee is a near relative, a brother, of a member of the Government, and I believe private secretary to the noble Lord the Financial Secretary to the War Office. We are accustomed to family connections in the affairs of the Empire, but even these small matters—comparatively small matters—are entrusted to little family parties. I say this without the slightest imputation on any members of the Committee; but for the purpose for which they were appointed they were not, as it happened, a strong Committee; and if an inquiry is made, which I think ought to be made, into the purchase of horses generally, then I trust it will be seen to that the members of the Committee are more entirely independent of the Government, and perhaps more qualified by business experience to conduct such an inquiry.
COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY: Unfortunately, I was away on Friday night, or I
222
would have had something to say in the course of the debate which then took place. But perhaps I am happy in the postponement of the little I should have said, in that I have had the opportunity of listening to the general speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. He says I was not a very strong member of the Horse Purchase Committee, because he does not think I look with sufficient vigour on the iniquities of this side of the House. He does not complain of my conduct in that respect when I sat on that side of the House, because he recollects that I had something to do with convicting of very great iniquities a right hon. Gentleman who was short of cordite. The right hon. Gentleman made a great and somewhat unhappy blunder in his remarks. He spoke as if a Committee of this sort was chiefly interested in dealing with the questions submitted to it from a Party or Government point of view. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman's charge against me was that I might be too partial to the Government side of the House. The right hon. Gentleman made a sad mistake. He should recollect that when such Committees are appointed, and hon. Members are invited to serve on them, they do not look on their duties from a Party point of view, but solely and simply with the view of arriving at a fair decision on the questions submitted to them. In questions of this sort, Party, or Government, or Opposition, does not enter into consideration at all. There were two matters at stake—the efficiency of the horses supplied to the army, and, more important still, the good faith and honour of the officers of the army. I freely confess that on the latter point I am a decided partisan. I should have been extremely sorry to have had convict an officer of the army of bad faith and unjust dealing, but, just in proportion as I should have been sorry to do so, I should have done it if the evidence warranted it, in order that the high reputation of the army should have been purged of such a man, if any such existed.
In the course of the debate on Friday,

223
there were said some things which, in justice to myself, I cannot pass over in silence. We were blamed by several right lion. Gentlemen for the references we made to the hon. Baronet the Member for Dulwich. But those who blamed us could not. I think, have read the reference under which we sat. The first part of the reference was:
"The Committee are requested to examine certain allegations as to bribes given to British officers in relation to the purchase of horses in Austria-Hungary, made by Sir Blundell Maple, M.P., and to hear such evidence as may be tendered in support of them."
It was, therefore, absolutely necessary that we should deal with the question. We were delighted, in the course of our investigations, to hear from the hon. Baronet that his speech, from which those ideas were taken, did not convey what he intended it to convey, and that he challenged the correctness of the report in a certain newspaper of an interview which was thought outside to substantiate those accusations. The army at large feels very bitterly the imputations cast upon it, and it looks to the Secretary of State for War and the Commander-in-Chief to see that its honour is not impugned, and that it is fairly treated when such charges as these are made. I think, therefore, that any fair-minded man will allow that in making the statements we did, basing them on the evidence that came before us, we were simply carrying out the first of the duties entrusted to us. I allow most heartily that the action of the hon. Baronet has been productive of much good; and that the matter was brought forward with the best intentions and the single-minded idea of doing good to the country, both now and in the future. In that respect, I think the hon. Baronet can congratulate himself on having achieved a satisfactory result, although I regret the army should have had reason to think that an imputation was made which we now know was not intended.
After the speech of my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War, it is unnecessary for me to labour at any length the questions to which he has referred. But in reading the report of last Friday's debate, it was clear to me that there were one or two misconceptions in the minds of those
224
who spoke and expressed strong opinions. They did not seem quite to realise that the business of horse-buying for the Imperial Yeomanry was one entirely outside and beyond the Remount Department as constituted; also that the amount at which the contract was set had nothing whatever to do with Mr. Hartigan, but was a matter of business between the Imperial Yeomanry and the contractors; and, further, that there was not an unlimited number of horses on which anybody might get a percentage, but that the number of horses, as well as the amount of the contract, was laid down. There also seemed to be an idea that Mr. Hartigan was an officer in His Majesty's Service, and that therefore it was extremely dishonourable on his part to associate himself in any way with such a contract. Well, he was not at that time in any way whatever connected with the King's Service. Another misconception was that, after his time was over, Mr. Hartigan was re-established in the King's Service under the auspices of General Truman. That point has been dealt with and set at rest by my right hon. friend the Secretary of State; and I hope that all the ideas engendered by it will be put away for good and all.
Now, there are one or two points which, for my own satisfaction, I want made somewhat clearer. Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet, when he speaks of a "white-washing" Committee, to refer to that Committee of which I was a member and whose Report is now in my hand? I should like a specific answer on that point.
MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Certainly I applied that term to a Committee which appeared to me to approach this subject with a view to discrediting the person who demanded the inquiry, and of white-washing the people concerned.
COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY: Then I understand the right hon. Gentleman does apply that term to the Committee. Let me tell him plainly that I repudiate it absolutely. I am extremely sorry that the right hon. Gentleman should have used any such expression, which does no credit to his courtesy or

225
his perception of right and wrong. ["Oh."]
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: On a point of order, Sir, is it in order to refer to and answer speeches made in previous debate in this House?
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member asked the right hon. Gentleman a question. He based his statement on the reply he received to that question.
COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY: The hon. Member has forgotten that it was only a short time ago the charge was repeated. I say it is most unfortunate that hon. Members cannot do their best on a Committee of this sort without calling down upon themselves language which is not at all befitting to the House or deserved by themselves. Then I wish to refer to another speech made in the debate on Friday night, because there was certain other language used which I think ought not to pass without challenge. The hon. Member for King's Lynn, who interrupted just now, used these words—that a special part of the Report was "altogether disingenuous and dishonest." Those are objectionable phrases. To my mind they not only show extreme want of taste, but they partake of extreme impertinence. ["Oh."]
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I must ask, Sir, that the hon. and gallant Member's statement be taken down—the word "impertinence."
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: That practice has now passed into desuetude. The practice is no longer in existence by which words spoken in this House can be taken down by the clerks and action taken upon them. The hon. Member is entitled to ask whether the words are in order, and if they are not in order they must be withdrawn.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I ask you then, Sir, whether the word "impertinence" is in order.
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: If the hon. and gallant Member used the word "impertinence" in the sense in which it is
226
generally used, it would be disorderly; if he used it in the sense of "irrelevance," then it would not be disorderly.
COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY: Let me be quite frank. I did not use the expression in the sense of "irrelevance"; I used it as a very proper expression, in reply to a charge of disingenuousness and dishonesty.
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: If the hon. and gallant Member says that, then I have to say that the word used in that sense is not in order, and I must ask him to withdraw it.
COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY:As you so rule, Sir, of course, I withdraw it. May I ask, in turn, whether the words "disingenuous and dishonest," as applied to a Committee of this House, are to stand on the records of this House?
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Before you answer, Sir—
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: If the word was used in Committee in the sense in which the hon. and gallant Member thinks it was used, I am sure that the Chairman of the Committee would have had his attention called to it directly. But as that did not occur, I must presume that the word was not used in that sense, and must have been used in regard to the general Report of the Committee, and not as an imputation on any member of the Committee.
COLONEL. KENYON-SLANEY: Of course, I can only judge of English as it is written and spoken. I accept your ruling on that point, Sir, but I should like to re-read the words, so that the House may judge whether or not I read them aright:
"But he proposed to draw the moral from the story which the House had listened to. He wished to call attention to a special part of the Report which, he considered, was altogether disingenuous and dishonest."
Now, Sir, if with regard to the Report of a Committee an hon. Member uses the language, "the report which I consider was altogether disingenuous and dishonest," it passes my limited knowledge to understand how that can be anything but a direct slur on the character and probity of the members of that Commit-

227
tee, and I desire, in every way the forms of the House permit, to put on record that I consider the use of such language extremely offensive, extremely uncalled for, and extremely wrong. The hon. Member sometimes seems to think that it is within his province to blame us all. We do not all of us suffer from sore heads; we do not all of us suffer from "swelled-head"; and I only hope that when the hon. Member again addresses himself to that sort of subject he will be a little more careful as to the epithets he uses, and the words which fall from his lips. He was good enough further on to ask about the "tame" and "bleating" Committee. It seems to me it is the duty of the House at large to consider whether to treat Committees in this way is useful, whether it tends to the good conduct of business, and to the promotion of that willingness to take part in the affairs of the House which is urged upon us by gentlemen of high position, who tell us that one of the things the House most needs is that the younger, or at least, the less known or more humble Members like myself, should be ready to take what little part they can in the business that goes on, and not be afraid of doing their best. I do not think this sort of treatment is likely to facilitate that end.
MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: What about the hon. Member for Dulwich?
COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY: The hon. Member for Dulwich I have already dealt with, and I have nothing more to urge against him, for I have said what I had to say in regard to his case. I am perfectly certain that the Report of this Committee will be useful for the conduct of affairs in the future, for it will have done much to clear the issue. I would like to say that it is very doubtful whether this House is doing very good service either to itself or to the country when it indulges in any strong denunciation of any public servant, civil or military, with very often incomplete knowledge of the facts. I heard an opinion expressed in several quarters that General Truman should be dismissed at once. We have heard some arguments used which ought to
228
make those hon. Gentlemen sorry that they spoke in such a hurry. The Department over which General Truman presides has done very great service, though everyone acknowledges that there is ample room for improvement and reorganisation in that Department; but it is not wise to blame the man who has carried out well a great deal of the duties lately because another part of the office was not conducted to the full approval of the House, and as we have every right to hope that it will be conducted in future. If, however, after this warning and experience there is reason to blame the Remount Department, I believe that not a word would be said against making an example of those who failed to profit by both. A rumour has reached me that General Truman has been called upon to resign. I hope it is not so, and if it is so the call for his resignation should be rescinded. General Truman has appealed to a military court of inquiry, and until that court has issued its finding General Truman should not be called upon to resign. The House, perhaps, will pardon me as a soldier if I am jealous of fair play towards soldiers, and if I am anxious that they should not be treated unfairly as well as discourteously. I apologise to the House if I have spoken more strongly than I ought to have done. I confess that I feel strongly in regard to the language which has been used, and I thought it my duty to say here, and put on record, what I should not hesitate to say in private.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: The hon. Member has naturally used somewhat stronger language than he would otherwise have done, because he was not in his place on Friday night. Although he knew that this matter was coming up for discussion, he has waited until to-day, in order to take an opportunity of answering a speech made last Friday; but I think it would have been more appropriate if he had taken his opportunity upon that occasion. The hon. Member only exaggerates the scope of the word "dishonest," which you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, have pointed out was used by me in a perfectly proper and Parliamentary sense. [Ministerial cries of

229
"Oh, oh!"] Yes, I say that the word was used in a perfectly proper and Parliamentary sense. The suggestion was not that this excellent Committee, the type of all the virtues and all the proprieties, was guilty of conscious dishonesty. I think the very words which the hon. Member quoted show that what I intended to convey was that the Committee had not followed to a logical conclusion the result of the evidence they had before them. I think the hon. and gallant Member is a little hard upon me, considering the way they treated the hon. Baronet the Member for Dulwich. At first the Committee expressed their very deep regret that the Member for Dulwich whom they now cannot praise too much for having brought forward the subject, should have committed himself to public statements which, whatever their intention, were universally understood to be direct attacks on the honour and integrity of British officers. But they cannot deny that there was not a fact set out in this Report which was not originated by the hon. Member for Dulwich. It was not the Committee whe found out about Hartigan; it was the hon. Member for Dulwich. It was not the Committee who discovered that the horses were as bad as they were. If the horses were good it would not matter so much about the price. It was the Member for Dulwich, corroborated by Lord Kitchener, who discovered that these horses were "flat-catchers." The complaint of everyone on Friday and the gravamen of the whole thing was that these Hungarian horses were flat-catchers. [An Hon. Member: What is a flat-catcher?] I should imagine that a flat-catcher means a horse which will only take in a flat, and those were the sort of horses we got. The Secretary of State for War does not agree with that, and he says that they were excellent horses and have done well, but that is not the opinion which I hear on all sides, which is to the effect that they were about the worst four-footed things of the horse kind that the Almighty had ever permitted to crawl on the earth.
MR. BRODRICK: So far as regards the reports from the front, the officers
230
apologised for sending them out so quickly but the horses looked so well that it was considered useless to keep them at the base.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I shall come to that point in a minute, but that is another matter. They were not believed to be good horses, and nothing will convince me that they were otherwise than very bad horses. As regards the particular gentlemen who have been adverted to in Friday's debate and to-day, it is no use for anybody to defend them. The Secretary of State for War admits that there is a primâ facie case against them. He has committed them for trial as it were; there is to be a military court—an inquiry in one case, and a military Court of Inquiry in another. I hope, therefore, for the present that we shall abstain from further criticism upon this point. When the right hon. Gentleman talks about the attachéat Vienna, I cannot help thinking that a great slight is cast upon him by General Truman, because he says in his evidence on page 66, at question 1636:
"You have already said that you never made use of a military attaché for that purpose?—No!"
"1637.—Do not you think he would be the very obvious and natural person to refer to and from whom to obtain reports at regular or irregular intervals?—He might, but from what I have heard of the military attaché, he did not know the biggest dealer, or the name of the biggest dealer, in Hungary."
That, I think, is an imputation of ignorance to the military Attaché. As I have said before, I do not think it would be right to pursue the inquiry now into the case of Captain Hartigan or General Truman. There is one other thing which I should like to advert to. The right hon. Gentlemen led the House to suppose that Captain Hartigan only passed a hundred or two horses.
MR. BRODRICK: No!
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: He had 2,500 or 3,000—
MR. BRODRICK: When Colonel Maclean asked for Captain Hartigan's services he had only 100 or 200 more to pass, but Captain Hartigan went on and passed 1,500.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman did not intend to mislead the House. The right hon. Gentleman seemed again and again this afternoon to repudiate responsibility for the Yeomanry Committee, and therefore he repudiated all responsibility for what they did in regard to Captain Hartigan. He also said that the Inspector General of Remounts had no more to do with it than any Member of this House, and that this matter cannot be charged on the officials of the War Office. I entirely deny that. I say that the War Office was wholly and fully responsible for all the doings of the Yeomanry Committee. The War Office delegated its authority—and I am not complaining of it—for a special purpose to this special Committee of very competent experts. They delegated to this Committee the power of spending the money voted by this House to the extent of hundreds of thousands of pounds, and it is not open to the right hon. Gentleman, now that criticisms are being made to turn round and say: "We are not responsible, and it is the Yeomanry Committee who is responsible." The right hon. Gentleman on this point is wholly at variance with his colleague the noble Lord the Financial Secretary to the War Office who sits beside him.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY,)assented.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I am glad to have the noble Lord's assent, and he admits that the War Office is absolutely responsible for everything the Yeomanry Committee did.
Now, Sir, I come to another aspect of the question. If the War Office, the Yeomanry Committee, Captain Hartigan and General Truman have been remiss, or any other War Office Officials, as to the remounts bought in Hungary, what about the other remounts? I was very much surprised at one statement made by General Truman. Speaking on the 15th of July, 1901, he said that he had not yet had any regular reports as to the state of these Hungarian horses when they reached South Africa. They were sent out eighteen months before—in July, 1901—and General
232
Truman said he had received no regular reports. He had only received casual denunciations in letters. I think that is a strange way of conducting the business of remounts. Here let me remind the right hon. Gentlemen of the responsibility of the War Office; these two gentlemen went to Hungary in consequence of their being prohibited by the War Office from going to America or Australia; they were forced to go there; they had no other place left; they had no choice in the matter, and I use that as an argument to show the responsibility of the War Office. What happened? The right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean asked a Question a short time after the House met, as to whether any general report had been received. He did not restrict it to Hungarian horses. We have heard quite enough about the Hungarian horses—perhaps too much. But what about the other horses? If no report was received up to July last, eighteen months after the war commenced, has any report been received now as to the other horses?
SIR CHARLES DILKE: He said he had.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I only remember the answer, but I think it was an extremely general one. He said he had received "several" reports. I believe when the general report on the condition of the remounts is before the House—and I hope he is going to give it to us—it will show many things. I think it will show that unqualified officers were sent to inspect the horses which were bought—I am not speaking of Hungarian horses only—and that the officers were selected for social considerations. That reminds me of the suggestion of my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Agriculture, who said that we must take care that if there is any system whereby promotion in the army is influenced by smart ladies in society, it must be stopped. I think if there is any system whereby smart gentlemen in society, who, though unqualified, are sent out as veterinary officers to pass horses, that too ought to be stopped. I am not suggesting what will be found in this Report.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. Balfour,)asked the hon. Member for the names.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I alluded to the President of the Board of Agriculture and the suggestion which he made.
MR. BRODRICK:My hon. friend makes a charge against the War Office of sending out officers for social reasons, and my right hon. friend asks him if he has any names to give to the House, because if the hon. Gentleman has any he ought to give them.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I will mention no names.
MR. BRODRICK: Then I think the charge should be withdrawn. If the hon. Member is unable to substantiate the charge that officers were sent out for social reasons, then I think he ought to withdraw it.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I will willingly withdraw the words as a charge. I may say that I can hardly be said to have made the statement as a charge. I stated what I believed would be found when inquiry came to be made. I am convinced that what happened with the Hungarian horses happened also with the others. Far too little time was given to passing the horses. We have it in the evidence given before the able and gallant gentlemen forming this Committee, that one gentleman, Colonel Williams, passed 500 cobs a day. I do not say that this happened to the same extent in the case of other horses, but far too little time was given to the officers who passed them. I am told that it is impossible for a man to properly examine and pass more than 50 or 60 horses a day. I want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman has got any confirmation of what I am now stating. Will he give us his Report? He has not made up his mind, perhaps. I believe it will be found that, after passing 50 or 60 horses, a man's judgment leaves him, and he becomes incapable of passing any more horses that day. I am told that the treatment of these horses—I am not now speaking of Hungarian horses only, but of all
234
of them—when landed was something disgraceful. Large numbers were sent up the country at once, and were without food and drink for three or four days together. While many of them were perfectly useless when landed, a large portion of the remainder became absolutely useless after this treatment. I am credibly informed—and I should like to know whether it is true—that but for the grievous state of the horses arising from some of them being bad horses, and many of them having been treated in the way I have described, President Kruger and President Steyn would have been caught at Poplar Grove. I want to know if there is any contradiction to what I have said. Above all, if the right hon. Gentleman has these things in his Report on the remounts, let us have that Report. We know that charges will be made. Some charges have been made which had to be withdrawn. There were such in connection with the Hungarian horses. If the right hon. Gentleman will undertake to give us his own Report on the remounts, I will withdraw anything in the nature of reflection upon him, or his Department, or the officers who passed the horses. In spite of a certain amount of heat developed in their course, these debates have not been unprofitable. It is our bounden duty in this House to inquire into the way in which the money voted by the House is spent. We do not grudge the money. Last Friday if it had not been that we well knew that we were voting Supplies for the war, His Majesty's Government would have been beaten in the House. We could not take the responsibility of voting against them in the circumstances. Surely the Government should take some heed, and let us know whether the rest of our money has been properly spent. Let us know whether his Department is absolutely perfect. I am glad that an inquiry is to be made in the case of one gentleman. But that will not suffice. We will require a much larger inquiry than that. To find that Captain Hartigan has done wrong and sacrifice him, to find that General Truman has been mistaken and excuse him, will not be sufficient. It is quite clear from the history of the Hungarian horses that

235
money has been wasted like water—wasted by tens of thousands of pounds. We would not have wasted half the money if we had got good horses. It is the badness of the horses we complain of. In the absence of further explanation from the gallant members or official members of the Committee, we cannot but feel that, prima facie, the responsibility rests upon the War Office. The War Office is bound to give a full, clear and perfect inquiry into this matter.
SIR BLUNDELL MAPLE: I should not have risen at the present time were it not that I find the Secretary of State for War has not thoroughly read the Blue-book. A great deal, if not all the difficulty, we have had to deal with has arisenthrough the War Office not appointing a proper Committee with the requisite authority to go out and make all the inquiries that were needed on the spot. I told the Committee on Friday that I had found it necessary, inasmuch as what I had stated was not believed, to send out at some cost a secretary and Mr. Waugh to make inquiries. You will find Mr. Waugh's statement at page 21. The particular statement to which I wish to refer the Secretary of State for War is the reply to question 1173 in Captain Hartigan's evidence—
"Did you have any relations with Colonel Maclean at that time when you first went out?—No except that I used to oblige him, and keep the book every day, that is to say, write down a description as follows: 'Bay mare, 14·3, colour, so and so' and so on—"
"You kept that book for Colonel Maclean? "I did and got nothing for it.
It is a fact within my knowledge that Captain Hartigan and Colonel Maclean stayed together, and also that at their little luncheon parties and dinner parties, Mr. Hauser was often present. I have in my possession an affidavit by a man who declares that he paid for Hauser, not only Captain Hartigan's board, but also Colonel Maclean's. It was important, when such a subject was brought forward, the War Office ought to have sent out some gentlemen charged to inquire into the whole circumstances of the matter. It is difficult for a man like myself, situated in England, to get together all the different gentlemen at this long distance. The House will
236
remember that it was in February of last year that I first asked for inquiry, and I repeatedly asked the inquiry afterwards, but nothing was done by the War Office for some time in the way of making inquiry in any shape or form. The War Office ultimately did this: They appointed a Committee, and in the reference they said that I made allegations. I avoided making allegations. I said that insinuations had been made, and I asked that inquiry should be made on behalf of the army as well as the country.
I am convinced that if the War Office wish to get to the bottom of the whole subject they should get full information. I suggest most decidedly that some further inquiry should be made in this matter. There are gentlemen in Austria-Hungary who are interested in this matter. They feel that they are the breeders of the sort of horses that were required in South Africa, but other inferior horses were bought. You had old brutes sent out, not at all the animals which ought to have been sent out. I can assure the Secretary for War that I have had letters from South Africa which state that my correspondents were disgusted with the class of animals sent out there. I could tell you the names of the hotels at which these men stayed in Austria-Hungary, and how they lived together. I have heard how the accounts were paid, and therefore I know a lot. It was impossible for me to give the noble Lord the affidavit, as I did not get it until after attending the War Office Committee; but if the gentlemen of the War Office were to go out there they would get all the information of what went on. I am quite in accord with my hon. friend, and also with the Leader of the Opposition, when they I said that it was most important to go into the whole question of remounts. Since this matter was opened I have had many letters referring to certain people who have been charged with buying horses in different parts of the world. We know that many thousands of our poor fellows have died or were shot down, or compelled to surrender, because of the wretched horses on which they were mounted. I do hope that the Secretary for War will carry out the promise he

237
has made, and will appoint a very strong Committee. I am quite sure that the members of the old Committee tried to do what was right, but they had their hands tied, and could not send out anyone to make inquiries on the spot. There should be a proper re-organisation of the Remount Department. First-class horses no doubt can be got in Ireland, in Yorkshire, and in the Colonies. Then, there was gross mismanagement in the treatment of the horses that were sent out to South Africa. I know of cases where 13 horses had been squeezed into trucks only capable of carrying eight, and where the animals were kept for 36 hours without water or food. The natural result was that a great many died.
MR. BLAKE: I think that the House and the country must feel that we are greatly indebted to the hon. Baronet for bringing up this question. The hon. Member is not one of those candid friends of the Government who, for one cause or another, make themselves disagreeable and hypercritical. He had special opportunities for acquiring knowledge which gave rise to that belief in his own mind that scandalous proceedings were going on, which proved to be only too well founded. He did not make any public attack. He communicated privately with Ministers as long as a year ago, in February last; and I remember well that the hon. Baronet was obliged to make a statement to the House in June last on the subject; because he had found it impossible to get the Government, by private exhortations and communications, to take any action whatever. The result of his public statements in this House, however, at the end of June, forced the War Office into some sort of action, and thus came about the appointment of the Departmental Committee in July. It resulted, not freely from the private information of February, but reluctantly from the public proposal of June. The hon. Baronet justly complained of the invidious position in which he had been placed by the terms of the reference to that Committee, and of the limitations of that reference; and hon. Members,
238
grateful to him for his public service, have a right to join in that complaint. I say that the terms of that reference were not suitable. Then what next happened? The Committee, right or wrong, reported in August—so much we learn from the prints before us—and the responsible Minister—for so I must call him—actually took no steps to inform himself upon the matters affecting the personal conduct and position of officers in the army and officers of his own department implicated in this matter, previous to the debate. He was quite uninformed on these subjects as late as Friday night last, when he asked the House to pass this Vote. So far from considering that the Report placed in his hands in August obliged him to inquiry and action, so far from considering that he ought to call for explanations from Captain Hartigan, General Truman, and Colonel McLean, the Secretary does nothing, but comes down here to move his Vote absolutely ignorant on the matter which was the chief subject of the disagreeable debate of Friday. What has been his course towards this House? First of all he endeavoured, so far as he could, to prevent the House being informed effectively of the full facts of the case.
MR. BRODRICK: I do not know whether the hon. and learned Member was in the House on Friday night.
MR. BLAKE: Yes, I was.
MR. BRODRICK: Well, he must know that I explained that a case was pending in the Law Courts involving two of the persons implicated, and that that case was only settled in the Courts in the middle of January; and at that moment I did not think I was justified in making all the facts public.
MR. BLAKE: The right hon. Gentleman laid the Papers on the Table at the latest instant he could do so, and then he said to the House, with the gravest possible face, that we had all the information he could give. It is ridiculous to say that he could not have given the information sooner. But if in truth he could not have laid the papers earlier, then he was bound to

239
defer the Vote till later. It is an absurd position to say "The lawyers told me I ought not to inform you till now, and therefore you must in a few moments master this bulky book." But although hon. Members had only a few minutes in which to master this Report, I am bound to say that they did master it a great deal more thoroughly than the right hon. Gentleman, although he had had the document in his possession since August last. In truth, his information seemed to be derived from statements made in debate by members of his Committee, rather than from any study of his own of their Report. Next the right hon. Gentleman, having thus precipitated the Vote without being informed himself, or giving the House any proper chance to inform themselves, repudiated all responsibility. He said, in substance—
"This is not a War Office matter. If it had been a case of the permanent officials, of General Truman or other agents, of course I would have been responsible. That is the political rule; but I chose to employ a special agency for the purpose. I employed a Committee of gentlemen in whom I had confidence to do this business, and because of employing this special agency, instead of the normal regular agency I am not responsible; my permanent staff is, of course, not responsible; there is no one responsible."
If that is the result of employing special agencies, the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to say that he had better not employ any more special agencies. What I say is, that the public business must be so done that someone is responsible to us for what is done. The truth is, that the right hon. Gentleman is just as responsible for what this special agency did as for the doings of his own officials in the War Office, and to endeavour to escape political responsibility on the ground of special agency is both humiliating and ridiculous. What happened next? Having come to the House, having thrust the Papers on us at the latest possible moment, uninformed himself, having made no inqury whatever, and unable to answer on the charges made against General Truman—because, as he now tells us, he did not know the facts, and was not able to deny that General Truman had anything to do with the present Hartigan appointment—having abstained from inquiry of the General,
240
of Hartigan, of Colonel McLean—he could say nothing. But was it not his business to have found out the truth about those circumstances which had been in vain brought before him in February, and before the House by the hon. Member for Dulwich in June last? Was it not his business at any rate to have inquired before asking the money? But the right hon. Gentleman has found out since. Once again, driven by the public exposure of Friday, he has spent the time between Friday and Monday in finding something out about General Truman, and has got some explanation from him. And he has also got some explanation from Captain Hartigan, and now he is going to make an inquiry—not by a strong Committee, but a personal inquiry—and form his own judgment on Captain Hartigan's conduct. There is also to be a military inquiry in regard to General Truman; and his fate will then be settled. But, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman ought to have informed himself of all these facts and to have acted, last summer, and anyway before he asked the Committee on Friday night to pass this Vote. For every fact which made it necessary that he should enquire and investigate is in these Papers on the Table; and these Papers have been in his hands since August last. He had done nothing on them whatever. He did nothing on his own Motion. He had not even informed himself before the Vote. He would have known nothing and done nothing but for the debate. But forced again, Sir, he now at last finds that there is a prima facie case against one, and that a Court of Inquiry should be held on another, and he invites us to suspend our judgment accordingly. Sir, the right hon. Gentleman's own statement shows a gross neglect of his official duty. He has done nothing voluntarily, or in time, or until the House of Commons has forced his hand down, that such a method of conducting public business does not inspire me with any confidence as to the result of the right hon. Gentleman's further inquiries, or his mode of conducting the business of this Nation.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not rise to make any lengthened statement on this subject, but the

241
hon. Gentleman has levelled a charge against the Secretary for War. The Secretary for War in the course of his official career has had many charges made against him, but this, take it, is absolutely the first time in his experience that he has been accused of want of energy and want of industry in carrying out his official duties. A more preposterous charge never was made in this House by any man, and that is saying a good deal, for we are rather reckless in some of the charges that are scattered about. But a more reckless charge than that, or one more absolutely without foundation, it would be difficult to produce in our parliamentary annals.
What are the facts? My right hon. friend has got to defend a Vote of five millions for carrying on the war in South Africa—a very large Vote, dealing with very great and pressing interests. My right hon. friend, I suppose, is the hardest worked man at this moment in the three kingdoms; and because he is not fully primed in all the details of transactions which happened twelve months before he was in office, with regard to which not one shilling of public money was asked for in this Vote, with regard to which not one penny of the five millions voted on Friday has anything to do, directly or indirectly, my right hon. friend is charged not only with gross incompetence apparently, but with idle neglect of his public duty. I leave the absurdity of that charge. It is not worth pursuing further.
There are only two other points on which it is necessary to say a word. One is this question of the responsibility of the War Office for the duties which were delegated to the Yeomanry Committee. It is said, and said, of course, with perfect truth, that in a very real or perhaps a technical sense no responsibility can be got rid of by delegation. Of course that is quite true. No human being denies it. But I unless delegation means some kind of substantial transfer of responsibility, what is the use of delegation? The whole point of decentralization, which so filled the mouths of Army critics two or three years ago—in fact ever since I have listened to debates in this
242
House—is that the War Office should not be obliged to enter into every minute detail itself, but should appoint competent persons to carry out part of its duties. If decentralization does not mean that it means nothing, and we must abandon the idea of decentralization altogether. Then, it will be noted that the charge cannot be against the War Office that it did not look into the details; the charge can only be that it appointed an incompetent body to carry out the delegated functions. Will anybody say that the Yeomanry Committee was an incompetent body? I cannot imagine it. But that is not all. I am personally an advocate of decentralization and delegation in these matters, but the circumstances under which the Yeomanry Committee were asked to undertake these duties were circumstances which rendered decentralization and delegation an absolute necessity. This Committee was asked to undertake the provision of horses immediately after the disaster of Colenso, when the War Office had thrown upon them the herculean task of doubling the Army, a task the difficulty of which I do not think is sufficiently appreciated—or, I venture to think, the skill with which, on the whole, it was carried out. That task was thrown on the War Office. These patriotic Yeomen came to the War Office saying: "We will provide horses, men, money, transports, and saddles." Were the War Office at a moment of our national fortunes like that to reject this offer? It was impossible that at that moment they should supply out of their own staff all the organisation which might at other times have been desirable to assist this Yeomanry Committee. In those circumstances not only do I say it is most ungenerous to attack the War Office—[Opposition cries of "Oh"]—most ungenerous to attack the War Office because these delegated duties were not carried out to the taste of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I will go further and say that delegation, in itself a good thing, was an absolute necessity at the moment at which in this case it was carried out.
There is only one other observation I have to make—it is in the nature of an answer to a question put by the right

243
hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. He said: "The result of the inquiry into remounts in Hungary has been to show that some things at all events passed there which are greatly to be regretted; have you any evidence that your remount operations in other parts of the world were better conducted? Do you not think, therefore, that you ought to have an inquiry into the remounts from North America and South America, from our Australasian Colonies, and from home?" Well, we are entirely of opinion that the matter cannot be allowed to rest where it is. We think with the right hon. Gentleman that a survey of the whole of this important question must be made without fear and without favour. While we hold that view quite clearly, we equally clearly hold that it would be perfect insanity to attempt it at this particular moment, because the men who would have to help us with that inquiry are all of them up to the eyes in work at this moment connected with your Army in South Africa. You would interrupt the most important military operations in that country by attempting that inquiry at the present time; and unless you are going to consider that the majority of the inquiries in this House into what happened months or years ago is of more importance than the immediate and pressing necessities of the country, you would be perfectly insane unless you deferred this inquiry to a time when all your important witnesses could give you the evidence you need without neglecting duties which are even more important than that of giving information to the two Houses. I hope this means no long delay. We may hold that hope I think with some confidence. But, however that may be, we do not mean to interrupt the military operations at the front by anything. When the time comes when the inquiry can with public advantage be undertaken, it will be open to question whether it should be merged into that large inquiry which the right hon. Gentleman seeks, or whether it should be a separate inquiry. Our sole object is to get at the truth with the least delay possible, and the precise machinery with which that great public end may be served is a matter of
244
relative unimportance. I will enter only one caveat at the present stage of our discussion. When the inquiry is made, I hope—indeed I feel confident—that the body which conducts it, whether a Committee of this House or a Departmental Committee or a Royal Commission, or whatever it may be, will remember that the task which had to be done was to transport thousands of miles from very different countries about a quarter of a million of horses. No such task has ever been undertaken in the history of the world, nor anything like it or approaching it. That there have been things done which might have been avoided is possible—perhaps, after what has already been revealed, I may be forced to say it is even probable—but that much of the natural irritation which the soldiers at the front felt at the defects of the remounts was absolutely impossible to be avoided, considering the task that had to be accomplished—that also I find very difficult to deny. But I hope, and fully believe, that the tribunal looking into this matter will judge these defects in a fair and equitable spirit, and that when their Report is presented to this House they will remember that not merely this or that mistake was made, but that it was made by people working under exceptional pressure under exceptional difficulties, in carrying out a task which is unparalleled in the military annals of the world.
MR. ASQUITH: The right hon. Gentleman, whose speech I have listened to with attention, hardly yet appreciates the nature of the impression which this incident has created, not only upon this House, but upon people outside. The object of those who have taken part in this discussion—and I think I may fairly remind him in reference to one remark he made just now, that the stream of criticism has flowed in equal volume from both sides of the House—the object of those who have taken part in this discussion has been, not so much to select for censure a particular individual, as to examine the system and prevent the possible recurrence in the future of the gross scandal that has occurred.

245
What are the facts? From this point of view the taxpayers of this country have been saddled with a contract which has compelled them to pay a sum of £33 per horse for a number of horses as to which it is not suggested even that the ample profit of 33⅓per cent. is too much, and they have been mulcted to the extent of at least £10 or £12 per horse. I am putting it as moderately as I can; I am stating the minimum of the loss which the taxpayers can be said to have sustained. That is brought to the notice of the House of Commons, and are we going to be told that we are to hold nobody responsible for it? What does the right hon. Gentleman say? He says it is most ungenerous to hold the War Office responsible, for the War Office have been doing the very thing you reformers say they ought to be doing—they have delegated the performance of their duties to a subordinate authority. But when we come to speak of the subordinate authority—the Yeomanry Committee—we are told that it is most unfair and captious to make criticisms upon them. Were they not a body of patriotic, public-spirited persons, who, in a moment of great national emergency, at the sacrifice of their own time and convenience, have come forward and spontaneously and voluntarily undertaken this work? Where are we? What becomes of the control of the House of Commons? Who is to be made amenable for what everybody acknowledges to have been—to use the mildest possible epithet—a most unbusiness like transaction?
It is said this is only a case of delegation. Heaven save us from this kind of delegation! Let us see what the delegation was. Horses had to be obtained, I agree, in circumstances of great stress and danger, and sent out to South Africa. I say nothing for the moment of the extraordinary want of preparedness, the absence of information which appears to have prevailed, not only in the War Office, but among agents abroad, in regard to so vital a matter. An emergency arises, a want has to be supplied. The War Office delegates, the right hon. Gentleman has told us, to this Committee the duty of
246
looking after the horses. The Committee delegates to another gentleman—one of its members—Colonel St. Quintin, I think. Colonel St. Quintin delegates to another, Colonel Maclean, the duty of passing the horses, and Colonel Maclean delegates—the last link—to Captain Hartigan. At any rate, he calls in to his assistance—he passed the horses, but, of course, he could not do the veterinary work himself—for this triply-delegated task Captain Hartigan, who, we know, was receiving a handsome commission on the total amount of the transaction. That is not the kind of delegation which I think this House wants, or which was desired when it was said that the War Office ought to be decentralized.
I cannot help thinking that I shall be speaking the sentiment of the great bulk of hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House when I say we owe a great debt of gratitude to the hon. Member for Dulwich for drawing attention in the first instance, to these transactions. This debate, although it has now extended over the better part of two evenings, will not have wasted one moment of the time of the House and the country, if it makes it for ever impossible that the War Office should put forward pleas so flimsy and unsatisfactory as those which have been produced in this discussion. I was going to make a remark with reference to what the right hon. Gentleman said at the close of his speech as to the promised inquiry. I confess I should have thought that both the witnesses and the materials for that inquiry were already in existence and at hand; and, having regard to the extreme importance in matters of this kind of dealing with them while they are still fresh, and dealing with them so far as you can in an isolated fashion, and not jumbling them up as there is very great reason to fear we shall in one large general inquiry into all the various misadventures and mistakes that have taken place during the war, I press upon the Government and the right hon. Gentleman the importance of the utmost possible promptitude in instituting a special investigation into this particular matter, and putting the House and the country as soon as possible in possession of the facts. If that is done, I do not say that this is the last time we shall have anything of the sort, but a substantial step will have been taken to prevent its recurrence.
MR. JAMES LOWTHER: The references that have been made to me by my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War, and my hon. friend the Member for the Newport Division of Shropshire, urge me to say one or two words which, however, will not be words of withdrawal or explanation. What I said last Friday I stand by now, and that was that this Committee was what is popularly known in the lobby as a Whitewashing Committee. They commenced operations by largely discounting the public-spirited and patriotic action of my hon. friend the Member for Dulwich. The House on all sides concurred in what the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down said. But there is one paragraph in the Report which I confess did astonish me. This Departmental Committee took upon itself to pass a censure upon an hon. Gentleman for words uttered in this House! That is a most unwarrantable liberty; even Committees of this House are actually debarred by resolution from passing any censure on any Members of the House, and, this Committee acted unjustifiably in indulging in the remarks it did, and my opinion remains the same as it was on Friday, that these references were ill-judged.
There was one mistake the Secretary of State for War made in his reference to my remarks. My right hon. friend thought my reference to the Whitewashing Committee included the Imperial Yeomanry Committee. I did not intend to convey any such impression. I was thinking of the South African Committee and the Horse Purchase Committee, and my right hon. friend the Member for Leeds will have to look to his laurels; he will not always have the monopoly of drawing up Reports of this character. The right hon. Gentleman took exception when I said that this House regarded him as the only person responsible. I repeat that statement. Parliament looks to the executive Government of the day; to the responsible Minister representing in Parliament the Department allocated to him. We are not unreasonable enough to hold him personally responsible for any of these proceedings, but he is the person to place the Vote before the House, and
248
he is responsible to us. Otherwise parliamentary control is gone. A Vote has only to be handed over to the Commander-in-Chief or to an Inspector of Remounts, and Parliamentary control disappears.
Now, Sir, with regard to the Report, complaint is made that it was suddenly sprung upon the House a few hours before the debate came on. My right hon. friend thought he had a perfect answer to that complaint when he spoke of private litigation, but that is not an answer, as it reveals that in the ordinary course, this Vote would have come to us and we should have passed it without having this information before us, but for the fact that a private lawsuit had come to an end. We should have been asked for £2,000,000 without knowing the facts. What business had any one to withhold anything from the House, especially if the information was calculated to show up the unbusiness like methods of one of our great Departments. The suggestion must have come from the Whitewashing Committee. and the case is carried no further by saying that there was private litigation of which this House has no cognizance. My right hon. friend talks of law-suits, but I believe he is a litigant personally, in his official capacity, I understand that action is now being taken in respect to a robbery of public funds, and is now before the Irish Courts.
MR. BRODRICK: My hon. friend is perhaps aware that the whole onus of this discussion is with regard to what passed in Hungary; the matter before the Irish Courts relates to quite a different subject—horses bought in Ireland.
MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I do not admit that in the slightest. This Report deals only with a limited portion of the question, but as I understand it the War Office believes itself to have been robbed in other directions in the same manner as by the Austria-Hungary deal. I know nothing about the Irish case. As regards the Report I do not wish to go into details, but one thing has not been mentioned which is, that the only gentleman I mentioned, the only officer to

249
whom I made any reference is Captain Hartigan. I understand his action is to be the subject of inquiry by the Secretary of State. I think the right hon. Gentleman has dealt very fairly and properly with the matter, and nobody would wish to force his hand on a question with regard to which he is bound to act in a judicial spirit. But there is one phase of Captain Hartigan's connection with this matter which is worth noticing. It appears that Mr. Lewison was introduced to the Imperial Yeomanry authorities by Captain Hartigan, and that he, as the price, not of services rendered—he was paid extra for those—but merely as introducer, was entitled to receive 2½ per cent. commission. It appears later on in the evidence, though at what stage we are not told, that Captain Hartigan informed some of the officials at the Imperial Yeomanry office of this transaction, and he appears to have been modest enough to say that it might perhaps constitute some impediment to the impartial discharge of his duty in the fresh capacity of veterinary officer, in examining into the fitness of 1,500 animals, in regard to each of which he was to receive a commission. But why did the Department not rely on these hints? The presence of the middleman is what I object to in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman is the only spokesman we have for the Imperial Yeomanry Committee, and in this House he is responsible for their proceedings. Why did they not go direct to the contractor instead of encouraging, as they appear to have done at every stage, this system of middlemen? No wonder the money was frittered away. The system of middlemen ought to be discouraged.
In conclusion, I would suggest that the inquiry that we have been promised should be full and complete. Whatever is done it must not be mixed up with the enormous number of complaints with regard to the conduct of the war. In an inquiry of that magnitude it would be lost. I am not bold enough to assign a time for the convening of that Committee or Commission, but I hope that as soon as the materials are at hand, and the excuse of official occupation can no longer be urged with regard to the officers concerned, there will be a search-
250
ing inquiry into these grave abuses, for; the bringing of which to our notice we owe so deep a debt of gratitude to the hon. Member for Dulwich.
CAPTAIN NORTON: The Secretary of State for War has alluded to the speech I made on Friday night as a diatribe. He dismissed it as such, without attempting to answer the accusations I brought forward. What was my broad statement? That in connection with the remounting of the Army in South Africa, there had been mismanagement from, top to bottom. By that statement I stand. I further stated that I could prove my statement up to the hilt from the Report of the Committee. I made no accusation against the right hon. Gentleman; I made no direct charge against any particular officer; but I showed that the entire system had broken down, that the special Department connected with the transactions had not performed its duty to the satisfaction of the country, and that the country had been defrauded, and had lost a large sum of money. Moreover, I urged that there had been bungling, first, as regards the information with reference to the proper fields for obtaining a supply of horseflesh; secondly, with reference to the arrangements for buying the horses; next, with reference to the transports of the animals; and, lastly, most important of all, with reference to the preparation of the horses for going to the front. The Secretary of State alludes to the Yeomanry as though he had no control over and nothing to do with them. That may be the right hon. Gentleman's view of his position, but our view is that we voted a certain sum of money for the purchase of horses, and that it is our duty, in the interests of our constituents, to see that the money was properly spent. Through the hon. Member for Dulwich information came to us that a certain dereliction of duty had taken place, and it was our duty to investigate it.
I said that arrangements were not made to ascertain the proper field from which to obtain a supply of horses. It is well-known that so far as the supply from the Argentine Republic

251
is concerned, the horses were of the worst possible class and, as a result, broke down, and it is well known that the one man who ought to have been consulted in Hungary—the Military Attaché was not consulted. What is more, I should like to know whether the Military Attaché was communicated with from the War Office, whether the War Office took the trouble of instructing the Military Attachè to give all possible information to the officers who went to buy horses in Hungary. Whether they did so or not, we know that the officers did not avail themselves of the valuable services of the Military Attachè, and consequently they dropped into the hands of horse dealers; they were "done," and the country has suffered. Then, an officer was appointed to go out and buy horses, and his only qualification was that at one time he had commanded a cavalry regiment, and that he was a first-class horseman. But he ought to have had with him some one who knew the language of the country, and was in a position to advise him as to the class of men from whom to buy. Sufficient has been said with reference to Captain Hartigan, but, for my part, I protest against one particular officer, and he the junior, being made the scape-goat for the breakdown of the entire department. A very injurious impression has been created, both in the Press and throughout the country, and with good reason, seeing the amount of loss that has been sustained. As to the transport, again and again at the commencement of the campaign I drew attention in this House to the fact that shiploads upon shiploads of horses were being sent from this country and other parts of the world without a veterinary surgeon on board, and that as a result innumerable horses were being lost, and further, that there was no proper staff of veterinary surgeons at the port of debarkation to see that the horses were properly prepared for the front. Not only did many of the horses die within three or four days, but hundreds, nay, thousands of our men were lost because their horses were not able to do their duty. Worse than that, as I pointed out in a previous debate, the failure of the campaign was due to the fact that we had not a sufficient quantity of horseflesh in proper condition to take the field. Had we had proper horses, and
252
a sufficient supply in proper condition, the war would not have continued to this day, because the enemy who escaped from Pretoria would have fallen into the hands of our troops. Again, it is said that the horses bought in Hungary were of the wrong class. Yes, they were, but as to the condemnation of Hungarian horses generally, it is known by all who have had experience that, for the purposes for which these horses were required, there is no better horse to be had than the Hungarian. Therefore, we not only paid far too much per horse, but we did not buy the right class of horse. I fail to see where there could have been a greater amount of bungling. With regard to the passing of the horses, we find that hundreds were passed in a few hours. On one occasion I find, by a short calculation, that these horses were actually passed in two minutes. That was the sort of examination to which the animals were subjected. Everybody knows that it would be a physical impossibility for the most experienced veterinary surgeon to examine satisfactorily even one horse in three minutes. I abide by the statement I made on Friday, and I should be glad if any member of the Front Bench opposite would answer my diatribe, as it has been called, viz., that there has been bungling from start to finish with reference to everything connected with the buying, preparation, and placing in the field of these horses, because I have not heard a single word from any part of the House which traverses one particle of my statement.
MR. ARTHUR LEE: I will not detain the House more than one minute, but I wish to refer to a remark made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife. He referred to the inefficiency of the War Office in this matter, but he went on further to speak of the ignorance of the accredited representatives of the War Office abroad with reference to this question of the supply of horses. We have seen in the Report of this Committee that at any rate the accredited representative of the War Office at Vienna was given no opportunity of showing the knowledge which he possessed of the resources of that country in the matter of horses, and perhaps I may be permitted to call attention to the fact that there was

253
another case of the same kind. I was military attaché at Washington at the beginning of the war, and I was not informed that it was the intention of the War Office to purchase horses in the United States. I found out after some time, through the American newspapers, that officers had been sent out, but I was not informed who they were nor what their instructions were, nor was I asked to give them any assistance. It might be said that I was not a competent person to give assistance in this matter. If that was the case, surely I ought not to have been retained in my position. I think this question calls for a wider inquiry into the purchasing of horses in other countries as well as in Austria. I will say further that, at that time, I had the opportunity of engaging the services for our Government of the chief horse expert of the United States Army as adviser. I cabled this offer to the War Office authorities, but I received no reply, and possibly my cable never got beyond the waste paper basket at the Foreign Office. It may be that the Remount Department did not know that we had a military attaché in Washington. I must confess that there were moments when I had doubts on the subject myself. Anyhow the fact remains that the military attachés in Austria and the United States were not called upon to exercise their functions or to utilise the special experience by which they were fitted for their offices, and I think this is a matter which should be inquired into. There is one point I do not quite understand. The Leader of the House spoke of a larger inquiry which would take place, as it could only take place, at a later period. The Secretary of State for War spoke of the Military Court of Inquiry which I understood would immediately inquire into certain aspects of this question. I wish to know whether it is the intention of the War Office to order that Military Court of Inquiry to assemble at once and go into the whole system of purchasing, because this matter of horse buying is not by any means finished. We have done a good deal in the past, and I hope that no more opportunities than are absolutely necessary will be given for us to be similarly done in the future. I hope that an interim inquiry will be
254
held not only into this Austrian matter but into the whole method of buying horses for remounts in South Africa.
MR. LABOUCHERE: I do not wonder that this war is costing us a good deal of money, and that so much is wasted in this extraordinary way, when I hear the Secretary for War express such extraordinary ideas as to what is a reasonable profit made by Mr. Hauser. He said Mr. Hauser was a most valuable man, whose services we ought not to lose because he made a very reasonable profit. Mr. Hauser says in his evidence that the profit to him was between £10 and £12 per horse. We will take the profit at £11. Now the Minister for War has pointed out that we have already bought about half a million horses. Therefore we have to make a very simple calculation to see, according to the right hon. Gentleman's own statement, that these horse dealers have legitimately gained exactly £5,000,000 sterling from us. The right hon. Gentleman says that Mr. Hauser might have lost on these horses, but he is a great deal too clever to lose anything. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and the War Office that they are not in it with Mr. Hauser, and he can turn them all round his fingers. Mr. Hauser gave the Committee his own account of these transactions. He bought these horses in hundreds, and the dealers only got their money at the end of the week when the horses had been passed. Therefore the right hon. Gentleman will see that he was wrong in his apology for Mr. Hauser in regard to his profits, in saying that he might have had a good many horses returned to him, and he did not lose one single farthing in this way. The right hon. Gentleman has some most extraordinary ideas in this matter. The Leader of the House said that we ought not to go into this matter now because the Secretary for War was a hard-worked man.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I did not say anything of the sort.
MR. LABOUCHERE: Does the right hon. Gentleman now deny that his colleague is a hard-worked man?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No.
MR. LABOUCHERE: We are all acquainted with the way in which right hon. Gentlemen on the front Bench opposite puff one another, but we are dealing with horses now and not with Ministers. The Secretary for War says "I am not responsible; I left everything in the hands of the Imperial Yeomanry Committee," and he asks "is there a man who will get up here and say that the Imperial Yeomanry Committee were incompetent?" Yes, there is such a man, and I am that man. I know absolutely nothing about this Imperial Yeomanry Committee except what I have learned from this evidence in the Report. We are asked to believe that a gentleman who has been a Colonel of a Yeomanry Regiment is an exceptionally able man. We have these men dealing with a specific subject, the buying of remounts in Hungary. We test them by results, and they show that a more absolutely incompetent set of men in regard to this particular business never could be found on the face of the earth. They did not pretend to know anything about this business. Colonel Maclean comes across Colonel St. Quintin, who knows a gentleman named Lewison, who keeps race horses. [An Hon. Member: No, he is a horse dealer.] No, he is not a horse dealer, but I will say that he is connected in one of those mysterious ways in which people are connected with horses. I do not make any charge of acting in a dishonourable way against these officers, for I do not think that they took a penny, but I do say that they were stupid and incompetent, judging by the results. There was an Inspector General of Remounts, but he exercised no control over them, and the right hon. Gentleman should exercise general control over them. Are we to say that this sort of thing is to go on without the House of Commons having one vestige of control over the whole thing? If so there will be no one responsible in this House. We are supposed to look into these matters. We are supposed to protest if we think the nation's money is ill-spent, and someone on the Treasury Bench is supposed to take the responsibility. Although the right hon. Gentleman
256
may have been overworked, with the best intentions, we shall make him responsible for every farthing that is asked for of the House of Commons for this purpose.
The righthon. Gentleman has told us that in the dim and distant future there is going to be a general investigation of the whole of this subject. The right hon. Gentleman promised my right hon. friend the Member for Forest of Dean that he would present to the House of Commons, as soon as they were ready, certain reports which were being made with regard to the purchase of horses in different parts of the world. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether we are to understand that we are still to have these reports, or whether because he has now promised, in a vague way, a general investigation in the matter; we are no longer to have these reports. I hope before the debate is over we shall have an answer to that. I like to go to the bottom of things. We have heard a great deal about Mr. Hauser, Captain Hartigan, and Mr. Lewison, but I want to know something about the Messrs. Rothschild. Let hon. Gentlemen listen to this. It is at page 52, in the evidence of Captain Hartigan:
"That was a contract for 1,000 horses?—'Yes.'"
"So that Lewison must have seen a clear profit of more than £7,000 on that 1,000 horses?—He is a shrewd chap. Where I made a mistake was that I did not take the contract myself, but I am a poor man, and I thought you required money. This is what Lewison did. He went to the City to Rothchild's; he borrowed £75,000 that he did not want at all. It never struck me how a poor man could come by that. He came by it in this way. He handed in the contracts, and he never had to draw a penny of that £75,000. Colonel Maclean's room and my room were next to each other, and we wrote notes like this: 'How many horses did you pass to-day?' 'So and so.' Colonel Maclean would write: 'Then I am right in verifying for so and so.' Then he would say, 'Pay into W. W. Lewison's account for '130 horses so much.' That went in every day, and it was paid into his account at Barclay's. He only paid a dealer every week."
We have business men in the House, and I would ask any business man what is the nature of this finance? I cannot understand it, and I am surprised that the Committee did not go a little further and ask what this finance meant. What was the relation of Mr. Lewison to the

257
Messrs. Rothschild in this matter? I suppose he went to the Rothschilds when offered the contract himself, and asked for a general letter of credit to show that he was a sound man himself, and got the letter on the understanding that he would not draw upon it, but that he might flash it about and that he might show to everyone that he was connected in some way with that eminent firm. Messrs. Rothschild make no complaint. I have no doubt they conducted their business in a very businesslike fashion. I want to know what did the Messrs. Rothschild get for it. He did not pay interest on the money, for he never took the money. One of two things must have happened. Either the Messrs. Rothschild are handed down a certain sum for this extraordinary letter of credit, or they were partners with Messrs. Lewison in this contract. There is a way of talking about Lewison, Hartigan, and all that sort of people, but there is an evident disposition in this House to shirk these great people. I do not think it is fair to Hartigan and Lewison when they are attacked in this way. Let us understand what is the position of the Messrs. Rothschild. Whenever any contract or money is to be made, the money goes to the clique or coterie in the city, who are generally more or less connected with South African affairs. I hope when the investigations are being made into the conduct of Captain Hartigan, Mr. Hauser and General Truman, an investigation will also be made by the War Office into this most remarkable contract. As it is stated in the evidence, I defy any business man in the House, or anybody else, to explain what it means.
MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: I shall not detain the House more than two minutes in making an observation to the Secretary of State on a point which has been alluded to by the hon. Member for South Hampshire. I consider that there is no real reason why the inquiry should be postponed to the conclusion of the war. The first Lord of the Treasury has said that it would possibly hamper the prosecution of the war. Well, you have had several inquiries already. There has been the
258
inquiry into the purchase of Hungarian horses. I do not suppose that the Secretary of State for War would say that it hindered the prosecution of the war. We have been told that the general officer commanding the Remount Department is to be brought before a Court of Inquiry almost immediately. Will that hamper the prosecution of the war? If so, now is the time for the Secretary of State to withdraw from his determination to institute that inquiry. We have had the Hospitals Committee, and I am not aware that it interfered with the prosecution of the war. It is a matter of common report that the wounded have been much better looked after since then than before. There appears to be little doubt that if an inquiry, not necessarily of an imposing or formal nature, were held into the question of remounts, so far from hampering or hindering the course of the war, it might infuse greater vigour into the prosecution of it.
(7.23.) MR. PHILIPPS: I think the Government have now realised that a great many people in the country treat this matter very seriously. At the beginning of the war, when some of us spoke on this question we got very short answers indeed from the Government. I remember when the hon. Member for Dulwich made his speech I said the allegations were serious. We had a great display of temper and very little argument from the Treasury Bench. We have got past the time when that sort of answer satisfies the House of Commons, and for the first time to-night, the First Lord of the Treasury has been obliged to get up to defend the Secretary of State for War. He got up to say what an industrious man the Secretary of State for War is. Well, he may be an industrious man. We have got nothing to do with that. What we have to do with is the result, and if the right hon. Gentleman has been buying horses too dear all over the world, it is no answer of the First Lord of the Treasury to say that he has all the virtues, including industry. The First Lord made some curious statements. He said it was ungenerous to attack the War Office.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I never said anything of the kind.
MR. PHILIPPS: I do not want to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman, but if he looks at the reports to-morrow he will find that he used the word "ungenerous." If it is ungenerous to talk about this question of remounts, it is a form of want of generosity which is common to everybody in this country and to every Tory newspaper. Whenever we have attacks made upon the Government in connection with this matter we are told that it is the system which is to blame. You must not attack anybody definitely. You must not attack the Secretary of State for War—it is the system. This Government, with its different re-constructions, and from time to time a little new blood added but coming usually from one family, has been in office for 13 years. It is true that the Secretary of State for War has not been in the same office all these years, but he was Under Secretary for War when I first became a Member of this House. I want to ask, are we to make nobody responsible? If anybody is responsible, is it not the man who has been at the War Office for ten out of these thirteen years? Is it not time that we had this plan ended of saying that it is not the man, but the system that has been inherited, that is bad? The right hon. Gentleman says, "Oh! the country wanted us to decentralize, they do not want everything done at the War Office, and therefore we appointed the Yeomanry Committee." Yes, but he is put there by a majority in this House. The Secretary of State is responsible for the appointment of competent men. The First Lord of the Treasury said we must not have an inquiry now, because it would interrupt the war. Sometimes we are told that the war is ended, and then when we want an inquiry we are told that it will interrupt the war. How can it interrupt the war if an inquiry is held in regard to the manner in which horses are bought for the war? Mr. Allison, who is a prominent man and an authority in connection with horse flesh, has exposed the system on which horses were being bought in England and in the Argentine, and I venture, to say that the scandal revealed is quite as great,
260
perhaps greater, than that in connection with the horses bought in Hungary. We have had certain very remarkable revelations as the result of the inquiries of this Committee. The right hon. Gentleman below the gangway has called it a "Whitewashing Committee," and if it be not that, I do not know what it is. The Committee consisted of four gentlemen and a secretary. Of these five individuals one was a gentleman holding a non-official appointment in the War Office, and two were relatives of members of the Government; but even such a Committee could not whitewash the action of the Government. I do think, from his own point of view, that the First Lord of the Treasury is wise in refusing a Committee, for if this whitewashing Committee painted the Government as black as they did, what would happen if an impartial Committee was appointed? It has been a matter of notoriety in South Africa that the horses were bad, and the Committee revealed an atrocious scandal; and I think it does not show great bravery on the part of the Government that they should definitely refuse to allow any further inquiry to be held.
LORD ALWYNE COMPTON: I do not know under what system the remounts for South Africa were purchased, nor do I know where they were taken from. But there is another side to the question. I had the opportunity of making observations at the other end of the road, and of seeing the horses in South Africa. In the course of my duty I had to disembark a whole shipload, numbering a thousand, of these horses, and I also saw the Remount Department at work at Bloemfontein, at Kroonstadt, and later on in Natal. The impression left on my mind, after reading this Report, is that the system of the Remount Department was a bad one. I am also convinced that the system of dealing with horses up country was likewise bad. I do not say this in any spirit of carping criticism. I am not prepared to say that the war is over, although I hope it will be over soon. I think this is the time that we should take the lesson to heart; and I should like to

261
urge that some kind of investigation should immediately be made, and the production of an interim Report should not be delayed. I wish to make one other point, and it is this: It has always been the custom in this House when anything wrong has been revealed in connection with the War Office, that the blame has invariably been attached to the civil side of the War Office. It seems to me that in this particular instance it is the military side that is entirely to be blamed. I have no doubt that the selection of General Truman was a particularly good one, and, as to the Yeomanry Committee, the appointment of Colonel St. Quintin was also a particularly good one, because he had had much experience of the Remount Department in India. But all the members of the Committee were very much to blame, and I am for their bearing the blame. I think that a strong Committee of Investigation should be appointed, and report forthwith, before, it is too late, and before we sit down with folded hands and forget all about the matter.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I have three observations to make, and will only occupy the time of the House for three minutes. The first thing I have to ask the House—not so much the country—is to watch and think well over the progress of this debate. The Secretary of State for War made on Friday night no fewer than four speeches, each one contradictory of the other; and he began the debate this evening on Report of Supply with a fifth speech—an unheard-of thing on the part of the Minister. That shows the difficulties under which that good and industrious man labours. Then we had a high-falutin speech from the noble Lord his assistant; and, finally, we have had a speech from the First Lord of the Treasury. The First Lord is a great supporter of his friends, but when he got up and praised the Secretary for War as an Admirable Crichton, and the personification of all the virtues, he forgot that that right hon. Gentleman was receiving £5,000 a year for his work; and he must have noticed that his triumphant periods were received with very lukewarm applause
262
from his own Benches. I would ask the First Lord not to give the right hon. Gentleman too much credit for his industry. The right hon. Gentleman may be very industrious, but he has not sufficient abilities for his position, and that is also the opinion of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen below the gangway. I would advise the First Lord to ask the right hon. Gentleman to relax some of his industry. He has now the War Office on his shoulders, and the burden of 250,000 men in South Africa. Let the good man relax his industry for the benefit of society and of this kingdom, to which his precious life is so valuable; and also give up two or three of the directorships he holds while still retaining a seat in the Cabinet.
MR. BRODRICK: I do not hold several directorships.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: You do hold a directorship, Sir. You may have shed some of them, but you hold one, and it is one too many. [Cries of "Question."] Ah!—it is too much to the question for the dinnerparty opposite. I have another observation to make. There is a vast deficiency in this debate. We have had the First Lord with great eloquence praising the genius of the Secretary for War, five speeches from the Secretary for War, and one speech from the noble Lord, his assistant; but another occupant of the Treasury Bench, who knows all about these transactions, has been conspicuous by silence, although he has been listening to the debate with an interest equal to that of an "Irish removable." I am anxious that the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who was Under Secretary for War during these transactions, should give us his opinions of Lewison and the rest of the contractors. There is one thing more I have to say. This debate has mainly turned upon the question of horses and remounts, and the precautions which the War Office ought to have taken to have the troops properly and well mounted. The first Lord of the Treasury, whose memory is not extremely vivid in reference to details, forgot to mention that when the war began, in October 1899, offers came from the Colonies to the

263
War Office of assistance, and the War Office replied that no horses were required at all. These are the industrious people banded together by ties of family and blood! I do not want to throw a stone at an arbitrarily constituted tribunal, but I will say that I have as much faith in the findings of this Committee as in those of the South African Committee. There will be no doubt about my vote. I will vote against the Report of Supply; and I believe
that two-thirds of the Gentlemen who will vote for it, owing to Party discipline, will say in their hearts that the Ministers are grossly incompetent, and that they wish to God they could get rid of them.
(7.45.) Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 226; Noes, 64. (Division List, No. 12).

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Davenport, William Bromley-

Keswick, William

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

Kimber, Henry

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Dickson, Charles Scott

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Allen, C. P. (Glouc., Stroud)

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth

Allsopp, Hon. George

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Lambton, Hon. Frederick W.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lawson, John Grant

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)

Asher, Alexander

Duke, Henry Edward

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Dunn, Sir William

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Austin, Sir John

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Leveson-Gower, Fredk, N. S.

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Balcarres, Lord

Fardell, Sir T. George

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Mancr

Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent)

Banbury, Frederick George

Finch, George H.

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Beach, Rt. Hon. Sir Michael H.

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Fisher, William Hayes

Macdona, John Cumming

Bignold, Arthur

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

M'Crae, George

Black, Alexander William

Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S. W.

M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh W.)

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Fuller, J. M. F.

M'Kenna, Reginald

Boulnois, Edmund

Furness, Sir Christopher

Manners, Lord Cecil

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

Gardner, Ernest

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)

Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Brassey, Albert

Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn

Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

Brigg, John

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Milvain, Thomas

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Gordon, Maj. Evans-(T'rH'mlts

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Brown, Alex. H. (Shropshire

Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.)

Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

Brown, Geo. M. (Edinburgh)

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

Butcher, John George

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Caine, William Sproston

Greene, Sir E. W. (B'ry S Edm'ds

Morrison, James Archibald

Caldwell, James

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Morton, Arth. H. A. (Deptford)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edwd. H.

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Moulton, John Fletcher

Cautley, Henry Strother

Hambro, Charles Eric

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

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

Hamilton, Rt Hn Ld. G. (Midd'x

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

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

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Harris, Frederick Leverton

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Chapman, Edward

Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.

Pemberton, John S. G.

Charrington, Spencer

Heaton, John Henniker

Philipps, John Wynford

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Higginbottom, S. W.

Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Hogg, Lindsay

Plummer, Walter R.

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Holland, William Henry

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Hope, J. F. (Sh'ffield, Brightside

Price, Robert John

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Hoult, Joseph

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Howard, J. (Midd. Tottenham)

Purvis, Robert

Craig, Robert Hunter

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Cranborne, Viscount

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Randles, John S.

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Rankin, Sir James

Crossley, Sir Savile

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

Rea, Russell

Reid, James (Greenock)

Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Remnant, James Farquharson

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Rickett, J. Compton

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M 'Taggart

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

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Strachey, Sir Edward

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Stroyan, John

Whiteley, Geo. (York, W. R.)

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Round, James

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G. (Oxf'd Uni.

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Tennant, Harold John

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Rutherford, John

Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Thorburn, Sir Walter

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

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Thornton, Percy M.

Wylie, Alexander

Seton-Karr, Henry

Tollemache, Henry James

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Tomkinson, James

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Tritton, Charles Ernest

TELLERS FOR THE AYES,—

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Ure, Alexander

Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

Valentia, Viscount

NOES.

Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)

Labouchere, Henry

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Ambrose, Robert

Lloyd-George, David

Pickard, Benjamin

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Lundon, W.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Bell, Richard

MacDonnell, Dr Mark A.

Reddy, M.

Blake, Edward

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

Boland, John

M'Govern, T.

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Burns, John

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Roche, John

Channing, Francis Allston

Mooney, John J.

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Murphy, John

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Cream, Eugene

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Shipman, Dr John G.

Cullinan, J.

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Sullivan, Donal

Dillon, John

O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

Thomas, J. A. (Gl'm'rg'n, Gower

Doogan, P. C.

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

White, George (Norfolk)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

White, Patrick (Meath, North

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

Ffrench, Peter

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Yoxall, James Henry

Flyen, James Christopher

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Gilhooly, James

O'Dowd, John

TELLERS FOR THE NOES,—

Hayden, John Partick

O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon N.)

Captain Norton and Captain Donelan.

Jordan, Jeremiah

O'Malley, William

Joyce, Michael

O'Mara, James

INDIAN FAMINE COMMISSION.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): In accordance with the understanding arrived at the other night by which we undertook to give the hon. Member for Camborne an opportunity to initiate a debate, I have placed a non-controversial resolution on the Order Paper, which, I think, will give the hon. Member the same scope and latitude for his speech which he would have had if he had moved his own Resolution. I therefore beg formally to move.
Motion made, and Question proposed: "That this House approves of the several recommendations of the Famine
266
Commission of 1901, made for the benefit of the agricultural population of India:—(Secretary, Lord George Hamilton.) (8.0.)
(8.30.) MR. CAINE: I am glad to see that I have rather more of an audience than there usually is when Indian questions are discussed, but I trust that the importance of the matter which I have to bring before the House will induce a larger number of members to attend presently. This debate has been arranged in order to enable the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India to speak to a notice of Motion which I had on the Paper as an Amendment to the Address. The Government are as anxious as I am that there should be a debate upon the im-

267
portant issues raised with regard to the poverty of India and whether the Report of this Commission goes far enough to meet the evil. I am obliged to take up the position of hostility to the recommendations of this Famine Commission, on the ground that they do not go far enough, and to urge upon the Government and the Secretary of State for India the great importance of looking more to famine prevention, rather than to the mere palliation of the evils which arise from famine. I approach this question with a deep sense of responsibility, for I am not entirely ignorant of the Indian people, having spent four winters in India, during which time I endeavoured to acquire all the knowledge I could of the people. During that time I learned enough to realise the vastness of the problems involved in the alien European government of 300millions of Orientals, with an ancient civilisation of their own to which they are passionately attached, on which we are trying to graft the newer Christian and Occidental civilisation of the nineteenth century, This work is being carried on by the very pick of that Anglo-Saxon race which is the dominant influence in the civilisation of the West. I have nothing but the profoundest admiration for the ablest civil service that the world has ever produced, and I would not dare to criticise its methods or call in question its results unless I was driven to it by hard realities of failure.
The Amendment I have to move is a charge of failure in one, and perhaps the most important, of the responsibilities undertaken by Britain when she became the Lord of India. It declares that the vast agricultural population of India have not materially benefitted under British rule, that they are not only poor, but that their poverty is chronic, and increasing in volume and area, and I urge upon the Government with a view to its prompt relief—
"A diminution of civil and military expenditure and the eventual removal of its causes."
I have no complaint whatever to make on this occasion with regard to the condition of classes of the Indian people, other than those engaged in agriculture. The development of natural resources other than agriculture is progressive, though, if the occasion fitted, I could show that the progress might be considerably stimulated by the Indian
268
Government. During the last ten years the great mineral industries have been stimulated, the production of coal and iron ore has been more than doubled; of petroleum the increase has been six-fold. The productive power of Indian cotton mills has increased50 per cent., of jute and hemp mills 60 per cent., of woollen mills 80 per cent., of paper mills 120 per cent., and of all other manufacturing industries an average of 70 per cent. The number of joint-stock companies has increased, during the same period, from 928 to 1,340. It must, however, be borne in mind that the whole of these industries are small in proportion to the population. All the cotton mills in India do not put out as much produce as the town of Burnley in Lancashire. The sea-borne and land trading of India has more than maintained itself, and although native industrfes could and ought to be stimulated enormously, such stimulation being one of the best methods of providing alternative employment for the poor agriculturist, I feel justified in lifting all other industries but agriculture out of the range of my Resolution; although a heavy discount must be taken off the prosperity produced by these manufacturing industries by the consequent reduction of employment in hand-weaving and other indigenous employments, the shreddings of which are apt to further congest agricultural employment. My Resolution, therefore, applies only to the 180 millions of the whole 230 millions of people within the area of British India who are engaged in agriculture, and these form about 80 per cent. of the whole.
I need not occupy much time in establishing the fact that the agricultural populations of India are poor. It is notorious that of all countries under Western rule, India is the very poorest. The average income of the United Kingdom and her self-governing Colonies, the United States, France, Germany, Holland, and Belgium is £33 per head per annum: of Russia, Italy, and Spain £13; while that of India is, on the authority of Lord Curzon, only £2 per head. I will endeavour presently to show that even this estimate is optimistic, but I am quite content to rest my case for extreme

269
poverty upon Lord Curzon's figure. But Lord Curzon goes into further detail. Two pounds is the average income of all India from the rich Parsee merchant in Bombay and the wealthy Zemindar in Bengal, down to the poorest peasant on the dry lands offamine. He definitely estimates that part of the national income derived from agriculture, and states it authoritatively at 20 rupees, or £1 6s. 8d. per head per annum. I ask the House to ponder over this, for it is the deliberate statement of the present Viceroy of India, whom no one will charge with undue pessimism, that 180 millions of our fellow-subjects have to exist, year in and year out, on an average income of 320 pennies for 365 days, which is less than one penny per day. But I ask hon. members to please bear in mind that this average includes all the landowners, Zemindars, and wealthy tenant farmers, and were it possible to separate the ten millions of the richest from the 180 millions, it would leave 170 millions of people whose average income would not reach three farthings per day. I will ask the House to consider what this income means to these 180 millions who "enjoy" it.
Let me put before the House some estimate, not of my own but that of a competent authority, to show what is the expenditure of an average Indian small farmer. In 1888, Mr. Leslie S. Saunders, Commissioner in the Indian Civil Service, made an official estimate for the province of Buar, which he begins by a declaration that—
"Little or no poverty exists in the province."
He takes a family of three of the agricultural labouring class, and estimates the year's expenses as follows:—Clothing, 16s.; cost of grain—not wheat or rice but inferior cereals—£3 15s. 11d.; condiments, 15s. 1d.; salt, 6s. 2d.; cooking oil, 5s. 9d.; lamp oil, 3s. 10d.; and 17s. 2d. for petty expenses, making a total of £6 19s. 11d. Lord Curzon estimates the average income of all engaged in agriculture at £1 6s. 8d., but here is an agricultural labourer whose family of three require, if sufficient food of the humblest sort is to be had, an income of £6 19s. 11d., towards which the average, including
270
the income of the Zemindar of his village, only produces £4. It is little wonder that the late Sir W. W. Hunter declared that there were 40 millions of people in India who travelled from the cradle to the tomb without ever having had enough to eat at a single meal. Sir Charles Elliott does not hesitate to say that—
"Half our agricultural population never know from year's end to year's end what it is to have their hunger fully satisfied."
Reduced to the individual it is clear, not only from the estimate of Mr. Saunders, but from a hundred similar estimates familiar to any student of Indian famine literature, that the agricultural population of India, if they are to have sufficient food of the humblest and coarsest quality, require at least £1 8s. per annum per head. According to Lord Curzon their total income is only£1 6s. 8d., which is not enough for food alone. They cannot obtain simple covering for their nakedness, they cannot light a lamp at night, they cannot give a few pence to the priest, or scatter a few flowers before the altar of their God, except at the cost of an extra pinch to their empty bellies. But it must be borne in mind that Lord Curzon's is an all-round estimate. The better off have much larger incomes than the average, and the average is below the bare needs of each, while every man who, gets enough to eat and to wear, gets it at the cost of his poorer neighbour.
I am treating Lord Curzon's estimate as though it were clear money, but I have no doubt that rent or the Land Tax has to come out of this average income and some items of taxation beside. The noble Lord in his explanatory memorandum on the Indian Budget states this to be 1s. 6d. per head, which reduces the amount to £1 5s. 2d. But apart from rent it is only too certain that the bulk of the Indian peasants have to meet the demands of the money lender out of their slender and precarious income of £1 6s. 8d. per year. It is impossible to go into lengthy detail concerning the enormous indebtedness of the Indian peasant to the village money lender and the grain merchant. It may be inferred from the fact that in Punjab special legislation has just been

271
passed to prevent the money-lender becoming the universal landowner, and the permanent middleman between the Government and the tiller of the soil. It may be inferred from the terrible revelations of the Deccan Riots Commission, and from the fact that in the Surat district of Bombay presidency in 1900, 85 per cent. of the year's revenue was paid direct to the Government by money-lenders that their wretched creditors might be kept upon their puny and and staggering legs.
The powerful and elaborate report of Mr. S. S. Thorburn, who is one of the ablest of Indian Civil servants, upon which was 'based the Punjab Land Alienation Act, 1900, just referred to, is a perfect mine of information about the grip of the money-lender on the peasant. Why have hon. Members not got this report which the noble Lord promised last sessions? I think this delay requires an explanation from the noble Lord. In the course of his inquiry Mr. Thorburn investigated 474 different villages in the Punjab, and he found that all these villages were involved in debt. He divided them into three classes—firstly, those hopelessly involved; secondly, those seriously involved; and thirdly, those slightly involved. The 126 villages classed as hopelessly involved contained a total cultivated area of 64,000 acres, of which no less than 28,000 acres was held by money-lenders. Of the 210 villages seriously involved the total cultivated area was 143,000 acres and 30,000 of these had passed into the hands of the money-lenders There were 138 villages slightly involved with a total cultivated area of 95,000 acres, and of this total 5,500 acres were hold by money-lenders. Out of a total acreage under cultivation in these 474 villages over 60,000 acres had passed permanently out of the hands of the cultivator into those of the money-lender whose wretched helots most of them had become. But apart from this permanent alienation the unsecured indebtedness to money-lenders in these three groups of 474 villages is very heavy indeed. Mr. Thorburn estimates it at two million rupees or £134,000 sterling. He estimates the total indebtedness on mortgages in possession, simple mortgages
272
in existence, and other smaller items at over 4,700,000 rupees or £314,000.
Mr. Thorburn investigated twelve sample villages carefully selected holding by holding; he found that out of less than 14,000 acres under cultivation belonging to these villages, 7,000 were alienated, of which nearly 5,000, or 36 per cent. of the entire 14,000 acres were alienated to money-lenders. He states that:—
"In the above twelve villages, out of 742 families, 566 are now practically ruined or heavily involved, and out of the whole 650 families who were at any time indebted, only thirteen had succeeded in extricating themselves, and mainly due to external causes."
I cannot better sum up the indictment which the condition of things suggests against the land system of India than in Mr. Thorburn's own words:—
"It facilitates the passing of the property, of the ignorant many to the astute few, it fostersusury, punishes ignorance and stupidity, and rewards business qualifications and education, a costly thing in India utterly beyond the reach of the peasants."
Two of the greatest authorities who have ever approached Indian problems have estimated the average income of these Indian agricultural peasants at 18 and 20 rupees per head per annum. I fail to find in the data given to us by either Lord Cromer or Lord Curzon any evidence of having deducted the interest to the money-lender from their estimate of income. The entire indebtedness of the Indian peasant can of course only be estimated. From all the estimates I have seen made a fair average appears to be £230,000,000. This comes out at £1 6s. per head of the peasant population. The interest averages at least 12 per cent. per annum, so that 3s. 3d. has to be deducted from the £1 6s. 8d. of Lord Curzon's estimated annual income, reducing it to £1 3s. 5d. per head per annum. If from this £1 3s. 5d. we further deduct the estimate of 1s. 6d. per head for rent, estimated by the noble lord in his budget statement, it reduces the income of the agricultural population of India to £1 1s. 11d., or 263 pennies for 365 days. The estimate given by Mr. Digby, C I. E., in his recent book is ¾d. per day, which is 274 pence. If, therefore, rent and interest to money lenders has to be paid out of Lord Curzon's £1 6s. 8d., Lord Curzon is the worst pessimist of

273
the two, and Mr. Digby is vindicated by the Viceroy himself. I will, however, be on the safe side and stick to £1 6s. 8d. throughout in the argument I am about to detail.
I have somewhat laboured the Punjab inquiry, because it has received the official stamp and approval of legislation, for the result of which we have yet tow lait, as the Punjab Land Alienation Act is only a year old. I will however venture to trouble the House with some extracts from the Report of the latest Famine Committee, which has only just been circulated to members. The Report has been prepared by Sir Antony MacDonnell, whose authority is equal to that of any Indian servant. It says—
"This is the state of things to-day, and while it remains unaltered, indebtedness in the Bombay presidency must continue and increase. We desire to guard ourselves against the supposition that we impute want of care or solicitude for the people's interest to the authors of the Bombay revenue system. The authors of that system were men of ability, humanity and zeal for the public good; and nothing is further from our thoughts than to impugn the excellence of their intentions. What we wish to point out is that their intentions have not been fulfilled. They expected the accumulation of agricultural capital; but their plans did not promote thrift, nor did they conduce to the independence of the ryot. They looked for the capitalist cultivator and we find the saukar's serf. On the extent of the indebtedness of the Bombay cultivators no precise official information, we believe, exists, but there are materials for a probable estimate. We know that the Deccan Riots Commission of 1876 found that 'about one-third of the occupants of Government land are embarrassed with debt; that their debts average about 18times their assessment; and that nearly two-thirds of the debt is secured by mortgage of the land.' We also know that the money-lenders, in the villages visited by the Commission, paid about one-eighth of the whole land revenue—theirproperty having been acquired within the preceding twenty, and for the most part the preceding ten years—while it was notorious that the private transfers of land were, in most cases, not recorded. The Commission of 1891 found that, within the preceding eight years, land paying 10 per cent. of the revenue, in the districts which they visited, had been sold, two-fifths going to the money-lenders: while lands paying 17½per cent. of the revenue had been mortgaged, four-sevenths going to the saukars. In his evidence before us the Chief Secretary to the Bombay Government said that 28 per cent. of the land in Broach had passed into the possession of the money-lending classes; and from a report of the Collector of Ahmedabad it appears that in his district expropriation of the old owners has also made considerable way. Taking all these statements into account, and comparing them with the evidence we have
274
recorded, we think it probable that at least one-fourth of the cultivators in the Bombay Presidency have lost possession of their lands; that less than a fifth are free from debt; and that the remainder are indebted to a greater or less extent. It is unnecessary to retrace here the efforts which since 1875 have been made to remedy this lamentable state of things. Commissions have sat and reported; Acts of the Legislature have been passed and amended; executive action of various sorts has been taken. But, of all, the result has been disappointment. Comparing the statistics of sales and mortgages in the four districts to which the Relief Acts have applied with the corresponding figures in non-Act districts, and weighing the evidence of the witnesses on the point, we form the conclusion that these Acts have done but little substantial good. Indeed, there is positively room for holding—and statistics show—that transfers of property, both by sale and mortgage, have become more frequent in districts to which the Relief Acts apply. We, therefore, think that the time for palliative measures has passed, and that the hour has come for recognising facts as they exist, and for applying those measures which the facts demand, no matter how unwelcome may be the disillusionment that they may bring."
I will not pursue the matter further, I think these terrible sentences are more than enough. What is true of the Punjab is true of Bombay, and what is true of both is true of all India. I ask the House to declare emphatically, in the damning words of Sir Antony MacDonnell, the Lieutenant Governor of the North West Provinces, and his three equally distinguished colleagues in the commission—
"That the hour has come for recognising facts as they exist, and for applying those measures which the facts demand, no matter how unwelcome may be the disillusionment that they may bring."
I stand appalled before the reform of our entire system of Indian Government, which is needed to cope with these tremendous problems. The entire repudiation of debt by the Indian peasant, if such a thing were possible to such patient, enduring, law-abiding people, would still leave them in a condition of things that twenty years would reproduce the same conditions of life. Even freedom from debt would not suffice unless accompanied by a great scheme of irrigation and a thorough readjustment of rent. Let me quote again Sir Antony MacDonnell's Report—
"We ourselves are disposed to think that the assessment in these Deccan districts is a full assessment for tracts where 'the soil is sterile, the climate precarious, a good crop being in some parts obtained only once in three

275
years, and the peasantry, though sturdy and ordinarily law-abiding, are described as utterly uneducated and with a narrow range of intelligence.' But whether the assessment be moderate or full, we have no doubt that it cannot be collected in short years without forcing the ryots into debt. Except in the Panch Maháls, where the land revenue is shown as about 5 per cent. of the produce, this figure being due to the backward character of the people and their primitive methods of cultivation, the assessment in Gujerat is a full one, taking 20 per cent of the produce. Notwithstanding this, the Deputy Director of Agriculture considers that the profits on cultivation in Gujerat are greater than in the Deccan, and we have no doubt that this is so. An assessment of 20 per cent. of the gross produce in a fertile ryotwárí region like Gujerat is not greater than the rents which landlords in many districts of Northern India levy from their tenants for lands of even less productiveness. But, when landlords in Northern India take such high rents, they are obliged to allow suspensions in bad years. We have now stated for each province visited what is, according to the statistics and evidence placed before us, the pressure of the land revenue on the soil. We are aware that in such a complex matter averages are exposed to error; and that the liability to error grows with an increase in the number or diversity of the rates or scales on which the averages are struck. But we have been as careful as we could be in the circumstances, and we feel confidence in the general character of our conclusion. Our general conclusion is that, except in Bombay, where it is full, the incidence of land revenue is low to moderate in ordinary years; it should in no way per se be the cause of indebtedness. But it has been proved by experience in all provinces that the cultivation (i.e. in ryotwárí tracts tile ryots, and in zamíndárí tracts the tenants) fail to lay by from the surplus of good years a sufficiency to meet their obligations when bad years come. In every country the small farmer, whose capital is sunk in his land and his stock, is usually short of ready money when the crops are deficient. This want of ready money is perilously aggravated in India by the total absence of even rudimentary provision to encourage thrift or to secure safe borrowing. Consequently there is in adverse years peculiar need in India for elasticity in the demands made on the cultivator, whether these be revenue or rent. Unless, therefore, provision for suspension and remission of revenue and rent (and in the case of rent for a proportionate relief to the receiver of the rent) be an integral part of the revenue system in any province, the cultivator will be forced to borrow on conditions incompatible with his solvency and independence. The importance of suspensions and remissions of revenue and rent is consequently very great. Even these, however, do not strike at the root of the matter; the true remedy and preventive of indebtedness will be found in the promotion of education; in the development of proper and popular institutions for organised credit and thrift at the very doors of the cultivator; in the removal of the causes inherent in the agrarian system of the country, which force the cultivator into debt; and in the advancement of agricultural
276
efficiency in all its branches. With the question of popular education we are not here concerned, though we cannot pass it by without a recognition of its importance; on the other questions mentioned we proceed to indicate our recommendations under the following heads: Suspensions and remissions of revenue and rent; agricultural banks; the system of granting taqáví loans; organic changes in the existing agrarian system of Bombay, which has led to undue indebtedness; and the improvement of agriculture."
But these facts, if new to some hon. Members, are not new to the Government of India. I have here a "strictly confidential" Minute by a very able and distinguished Bombay Civil servant, Sir J. B. Richey, and I venture to trench upon its strict confidence by quoting one or two passages. And here let me say that I thank the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for India, for his consistent courtesy to Members of this House. He has often shown me confidental documents, and I can say that I have never betrayed his confidence. The documents from which I am quoting were not obtained from the India office, but form part of the library of the late Mr. Bradlaugh. Sir J. B. Richey's paper is of intense interest and is based on "Reports on the economic condition of the masses of the Bombay Presidency." He says that—
"Notwithstanding certain advantages there is a considerable proportion of cultivators whose fields do not yield them a full year's grain supply."
And then, after giving an interesting and striking table, he goes on to say that—
"It aprears that the fields of ten per cent. of the cultivators are not believed to yield a full year's supply, of which very much at any rate, goes to the money-lender."
Ten per cent. of the cultivators of Ahmadabad have only nine months supply. From 33 to 50 per cent. of the cultivators of Kaira have only eight months supply, and after paying their debt only from three to four months supply. In Broach 10 per cent. of the cultivators have only six months supply; and in Surat 15 per cent. for six months supply; and in Panch Maháls the cultivators have only ten months supply.
AN HON. MEMBER: What is the date of that Minute?
MR. CAINE: The date is 1888, and things have not improved since then. In the Deccan—
"Authorities are unanimous that many cultivators fail to get a year's supply from their land. The average holding is 32·4 acres, and the average per head of population is 2·5 acres assessed at 11 annas per acre. The quality and natural advantages of the soil appear to be only one-fourth of those possessed by the Gujerat cultivator, though the acreage is double."
Here is another interesting statement—
"The pressure on land is severe, except in Khandesh, and there must be a large proportion of cultivators who have to look for support to other resources besides their holdings."
In Khandesh 15 to 66 per cent. of the cultivators have only six to eight months supply after paying debt; in Nasik 50 to 80 per cent. have only six months supply after paying debt; in Ahmadnagar 25 per cent. have from six to eight months supply before paying debt; in Poona 33 to 50 per cent. have six to eight months supply before paying debt; and in Satara 20 to 50 per cent. have only from four to eight months supply before paying debt. Then we come to the Konkan.
"Reports are unanimous that many cultivators do not get a full year's supply from their holdings."
I will not trouble the House with further particulars from this confidential document. I will only say that in twelve districts in the Bombay Presidency in the year 1888 over 40 per cent. of the cultivators had yield enough of sustenance for less than eight months in the year. It is little wonder that these wretched people find it hard to pay rent to the State, and interest to the money-lender, who smears every page of this confidential Report with his slimy track, without getting further and further into debt. I will now turn from this confidential document for Bombay to a similar document for the North West Provinces entitled "Inquiry into the economic condition of the agricultural and labouring classes in the North West Provinces and Oudh" and dated the same year, 1888. This is what the collector of Muttra says—
"The condition of the labouring class was distinctly worse. Labourers are less permanent than cultivators; they have less credit and do not easily get loans. And they have no cattle to sell, or grain stock to subsist on, so that the margin between their ordinary life and actual want is a very narrow one. To many of this
278
class the past cold weather has been a very trying one. A very noticeable feature in all the statements is the cessation of any purchases except of absolute necessaries of life. The purchase of cloth is at once suspended in years of difficulty, and the weaver class competes with the rest of the labouring class for any work that may be going. In generally well-to-do villages the excessive rain which spoiled the harvest also knocked down houses, and furnished work in repairing them, but in many cases re-construction was postponed until better times came round. Sickness, too, added to the distress; and when easy earthwork was opened at Brindaban, some fever-stricken people were noticed who could hardly carry even quarter-filled baskets."
I could quote similar statements from a score of confidential Reports, but will content myself with quoting from one more only, containing the replies from various Local Administrators in 1887. I have given details from Bombay and Northern India; I will just give one sentence from the Central Provinces. I may say in passing that I do not select the worst passages by any means, but rather only those which most fairly demonstrate the truth. Here is a Report from the province of Damoh which is 27,000 square miles in extent equal in area to all Scotland, without the islands—
"A considerable number of the smaller tenants would seem to be hard pressed, though the Deputy Commissioner makes no mention of any cases of distress, and it is probable that the expenditure has been understated. As in Saugor the number of tenants indebted is very large. Out of 684 tenants in 21 villages, on less than 520 were found to be in debt. Of 44 tenants whose circumstances were inquired into by the District Superintendent of Police, 39 were in debt, the total number of debts aggregating 9,405 rupees on a total rental of only 759 rupees. The case of 19 tenants questioned by the Tahsildar of Hatta was similar, 12 were in debt, owing altogether 1,555 rupees on a rental of 492 rupees. Mr. M'Minn found 72 out of 77 tenants questioned by him to be in debt, 70 owing more than a year's rent. On a rental of 980 rupees the total debt was 14,492 rupees.
Now, these Reports do not refer to the famine districts at all. It is a fair statement of the permanent condition of the poor people whose cause I venture to plead in this House to day. The present Government of India, through Sir A. MacDonnell's Report, and in many other ways, have officially admitted the evils resultant from its system, and have begun tentative reforms. But, as Mr. Thorburn says—
"For more than 70 millions of the sufferers it is too late for any change of the system to be beneficial."

279
These words ought to be burnt in letters of fire on the hearts of the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for India, and the Viceroy, as well as on the heart of the right hon. Member for East Wolverhampton—for Liberal Administrations are as much to blame as Conservative Administrations, and it is very far from me to wish to make this a party question.
I cannot pass from this part of my subject without some reference to the chief evidence of the horrible poverty of the agricultural people of India, the evidence of recurring famine with ever-increasing intensity. These famines are the eruptions of the smouldering volcano of Indian poverty, and the inevitable result of all the causes of poverty to which I have been referring. From cradle to funeral pyre, the life of the Indian peasant is one prolonged, never-ceasing struggle for something to eat. He has no time to think of anything else. Forty millions of them are hungry all the time; 50 millions more are often hungry; and none of them ever get anything better to eat than the coarsest cereals and vegetables, kept down by a little highly-taxed salt, and a few cheap condiments. The whole of these 90 millions are worn by the most carking of all cares—debt they can never pay. When scarcity comes upon them it is little wonder that they lie down and die in heart-broken millions. These famines, when they come, are met with courage, generosity, and skill, and the way in which the Indian Government has brought its system of relief to the highest point of efficiency, obtains the gratitude, and has won the admiration of the world at large. It is now time that the Administrators of India, the choicest men this great Empire can furnish, should address themselves to famine prevention, and this House should refuse no help or encouragement. The Secretary of State for India, in the resolution before the House, invites approval of the several recommendations made in the Report of the Famine Commission. These are excellent in principle, and propose suspensions and remissions of revenue and rent, the establishment of Agricultural Banks; organic changes in the existing agrarian system of one province of India, Bombay; and
280
schemes for the improvement of agriculture. If these are honestly and generously carried out, no doubt much good will result. But at their best they are only palliatives which may relieve the patient for a time, but only postpone the hour of final dissolution. It is certainly a time for suspension and remission of rents, but the recommendations fall lamentably short of what is needed.
I would like to emphasise to the House that one great feature of all these Famine Reports is, that we cannot but feel that the authors would like to go a great deal further than they do; but they are practical men, and only make such recommendations as can be immediately and honestly carried out.
Let me read from page 96 of the "Famine Commissioners Report."
"It is necessary to lay down the degree of calamity which calls for relief and the degree of relief suitable. It is desirable to fix the relief point low in order to secure that enquiry is made in all cases of extensive crop failure; but, ordinarily, we think relief will not be required when there is half a normal crop."
Then with regard to suspensions, par. 282 says—
"In the case of widespread crop failure relief should proceed from the general to the particular. In such a case general estimates for homogeneous tracts, or groups of villages, or larger territorial areas should be made, and upon these estimates uniform suspension should be worked out."
"If the calamity is local and isolated, relief should proceed, on the other hand, from the particular to the general. Field to field inquiries should be made, and suspension follow the result of such inquiry."
The House will at once see that these recommendations are exclusively palliative, they involve before they can be applied, the existence of calamity, or widespread crop failure. They do not touch the fringe of prevention, and no recommendations are made which reach the root causes of recurrent famine, the rack renting of the Government, and the clutch of the money lender, which exhaust the peasent in times of prosperity, while keeping them just alive for future exhaustion in times of calamity and crop failure by grudging suspensions and remissions. I must in passing justify the epithet of "rack renting" as applied to the Government of India. The amount of land revenue received out of these starving peasants

281
by the Government of India in 1889 was 23,981,000 tens of rupees, in 1892 it was 24,905,000 tens of rupees, in 1895 it was 26,200,000 tens of rupees, in 1897 it was 25,683,000 tens of rupees, in 1898 it was 27,459,000 tens of rupees, in 1899 it was 25,800,000 tens of rupees. During the five years 1889–1894 the average land revenue was 24,500,000 tens of rupees; during five years 1895–1900 the average was 26,000,000 tens of rupees. But let the House note carefully that during the last five years occurred the most disastrous famine in the history of India. I will read to the House the Secretary of State's own description of it.
"The Secretary of State says that 15 millions sterling had to be found by the Government of India for famine relief alone. During the five years in which the famine years are included the Government squeezed out of the land from which the famine stricken peasants had to get their food, five millions of pounds more than they were able to get during the preceding five years when there was no famine at all!"
An apt illustration of the coarse old proverb, "What is got over the devil's back returns under his belly."
We are asked to approve the recommendations of Sir Antony MacDonnell's Commission. Let us do so by all means, but in doing so let the House further record its opinion that the time has come to be done with palliatives, and realise in Sir Antony's own words—
"That the time has come for recognising facts as they exist and for applying those measures which the facts demand, no matter how unwelcome may be the disillusion that they may bring."
In making his financial statement last August, the Secretary of State for India said—
"Since the territories of the East India Company passed over to the authority of the Crown, I doubt if any Secretary of State has been able to make a more satisfactory statement than it will fall to my lot to unfold the surpluses of income over expenses are large, continuous and progressive."
These surpluses which give the noble Lord such reasons for pride are one of the main causes of that poverty of the Indian peasant which, like those surpluses, is large, continuing, and progressive.
I must now pass on to the second part of my Amendment. I hope I have established to the satisfaction of the
282
House that the poverty of the Indian peasant is real and chronic. Is it steadily increasing in volume and area? I may almost claim to have already established this proposition, as I have gone along. It is of vital importance that we should know, with the full authority of the Secretary of State for India, whether the Indian agricultural population is or is not, getting steadily poorer. There is a steadily increasing school of Indian politicians who, for the last thirty years have been insisting that there are two Indias—British India and Indian India—that the former gets richer and the latter gets poorer year after year, and that India is being slowly, but surely, "bled to death." The "Isaiah" of this school of thought is Mr. Dadhabbai Naoroji, and its "Jeremiah" Mr. William Digby. C.I.E. Mr. Naoroji was once a Member of this House, and has left behind him a fragrant memory and deep respect for his earnest, unselfish devotion to the people of the land of his birth. Mr. Digby is a man of authority on this question, with a long record of Indian famine experience, who received his Companionship of the Indian Empire as a reward for eminent service in Madras famine administration.
Mr. Digby has recently published a book of 650 pages, entitled "'Prosperous' British India," which, whatever may be thought of its conclusions, deserves the attention of every Indian politician, from the Viceroy and Secretary of State downwards. Although this school of Indian thought has not attained the consideration it deserves in this country, whose ideas of India are mostly formed from military novels and melodramas, at the Missionary meeting, or from Mr. Rudyard Kipling's works, it has obtained a passionate support from educated India, especially that section which is identified with the Indian National Congress. Mr. Digby's book formulates it into a definite charge. It may be summed up in a single statement, upon which Mr. Digby stakes his entire case—that the income of the Indian people per head per day in 1850 was two pence, in 1880, on the authority of Lord Curzon and Sir David Barbour it had fallen to three-half-pence, and in 1900 it had fallen to three

283
farthings. Mr. Digby professes to rest his case entirely on authoritative Government statistics, and in his book constitute a formidable indictment of our Indian Administration, and whatever we may think of his conclusions, he undoubtedly furnishes material for the proper study of the subject and the formation of our own conclusions. But, I do not commit myself to any of Mr. Digby's statements, premisses, or deductions—with thousands of other Indian politicians I wait with eager interest the reply the Government of India is bound to give, and which I hope may come from the noble Lord himself to-night. I sincerely trust that he may be able to rout Mr. Digby, and make mince meat of his terrible indictment. If he can, no one will be more pleased than Mr. Digby himself. I cannot bring myself to such precise charges as these formulated by this important school of thought, nor can I always accept either its premises or its conclusions. But viewed broadly, it has truth on its side, and I have found it impossible to doubt, as the result of independent inquiry, that the chronic poverty of agricultural India is steadily on the increase, and if not turned backwards will in time result in the bankruptcy and ruin of our Indian Empire. I am at any rate satisfied, that every famine leaves some part of India permanently poorer.
Let me put the Secretary of State himself in the witness box—He said last August in this House, with regard to the recent famine—
"Putting aside the misery, privation, and the mortality inflicted upon humanity alone by this awful visitation, the property lost to the agricultural community in Western India is estimated to be not less than £50,000,000 sterling."
What is the value of his five million surplus in face of this frightful admission? Of course, compared with 1895, the agricultural people of India are poorer by fifty millions. It would take more than fifty millions to restore the famine districts to their old prosperity, and enable them to pay the rents which are needed for Budget surpluses and to meet the recurring demands of the money-lending cormorant. There is another evidence of increasing poverty among the Indian peasants in the fact, that the net area
284
sown with crops in India has diminished during the last five years. In the five years, 1890 and 1894, the average area was 192 millions, in the five years, 1895 and 1900, the average area was 188 millions, and the drop in the year, 1899 and 1900 was from £196,000,000 in the previous year to 180 millions. Of course this is accounted for by the famine. I quote it only in corroboration of the noble Lord's estimate of 50 millions material loss. During the last five years the Indian agriculturist was the poorer by the crops of 22 millions of arable land, an area equal to that of two-thirds of all England. Perhaps the most serious loss is that of cattle, which cannot be replaced except by the growth of time and the acquisition of fresh wealth for their purchase. Four million cattle died in the recent famine. It is a pathetic detail of this loss, that a London hide merchant told me the other day that the Indian hides had greatly depreciated on the market, because so many of them had four holes in them—pierced by the shoulder and hip bones as the wretched animals slowly starved to death. I will not labour this point by many other evidences which are apparent proving the paralysing impoverishment of the recent terrible famine which has left the Indian peasantry, in one way and another, a good hundred millions poorer than they were five years ago. We have, however two authoritative statements with regard to the income of the agricultural population to which I have already made slight reference, which opposed to the views of Mr. Naoroji and Mr. Digby, declare that this income in 1900 was 20 rupees per head, while in 1882 it was only 18 rupees and both estimates have been prepared from the same data. Let me read to the House a few sentences from Lord Curzon's speech in Council on the Financial Statement of the year, 1901, on the 27th March last—
LORD CURZONsaid—
"I have had worked out for me from figures collected for the Famine Commission of 1868, the latest estimate of the value of the Agricultural production of India, the calculations of 1880 showed an average Agricultural income of Rs. 18 per head. If I take the figures of the recent census for the same area as was covered by the earlier computation, I find that the Agricultural income has actually increased…

285
and that the average per head is Rs. 20, or 2 Rupees higher than in 1880."
The Viceroy appeals to his critics to hold their judgment in suspense. I have held my own judgment in this matter in suspense for many a long year past, waiting for some serious attempt to destroy adverse criticism, and reassure me with regard to such fierce critics as Messrs. Naoroji and Digby, but it does not appear. These gentlemen deluge us with data culled by them from Government sources which seem to justify their horrible and depressing pessimism. At last the Viceroy speaks out. He tells us that the average income of the agricultural population has risen during the last 20 years from 18 rupees per head to 20.
I may remind the House in passing that my criticisms of to-day are based entirely on the Viceroy's estimate of 20 rupees, but he himself blows on his own data. He says—
"I do not say these data are incontrovertible. There is an element of the conjectural in them."
So there were in the figures of 1880, the uncertainty in both of them is precisely the same. There is nothing conjectural or uncertain about Mr. Digby's data. There is a robust certainty, an arranged deliberateness, a total absence of conjecture that is at any rate refreshing and intelligent, however right or wrong may be Mr. Digby's conclusions, on which I make no comment and to which I do not commit myself. But I have a right to ask the noble Lord how long he expects us to hold our judgment in suspense. He gives us no help in our efforts to arrive at the truth. Here, in the Viceroy's speech, are two important documents referred to, for one of which Lord Cromer and Sir David Barbour are responsible, and for the other of which the present distinguished Viceroy himself is responsible. One was prepared in 1882, the other in 1901. These data are declared with the emphatic authority of the Viceroy himself to show that the income of the Indian peasant is progressive, not retrogressive. But these data are treated as a close secret and refused to us, yet the Secretary of State expects us to accept his "ipse dixit" and rest content. The first of these important documents, prepared by Sir David Barbour and
286
adopted by Lord Curzon is 20 years old. It was asked for in Parliament in 1893 and refused. I asked for it last week. Let me read to the House my Question and Answer—
Mr. CAINE: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will lay upon the Table of the House and circulate to Members the note by Sir David Barbour, R.C.S.I., entitled "An Inquiry into the Incidence of Taxation in British India, 1881,"which is the authority upon whom Lord Cromer rests his statement in British India was 18 rupees per head of the population: and has he yet received a copy of the official memorandum prepared for the Viceroy of India from figures collected for the Famine Commission of 1898, showing the latest estimate of the value of agricultural production in India from which the Viceroy, in a speech to his Council on March 28th, 1901, estimated the average agricultural income per head at 20 rupees; and if so, will he lay it upon the Table of the House and print it for circulation as a Parliamentary Paper.
REPLY. To the first part of the hon. Members' Question my answer is that, as has already been stated in answer to a question in this House in the year 1893, the Note to which it refers is of a confidential nature, and was based on information which is now from 20 to 30 years old. For these reasons I do not think it expedient to present it to Parliament. (2) In reply to the second Question I have not received a copy of the memorandum referred to, and I must consult the Viceroy before I can reply to the Question. (3) There is a long and voluminous report on an inquiry instituted by Lord Dufferin before 1888 into the Agricultural population, and I propose to publish this."
The noble Lord says the memorandum is of a "confidential nature," but Lord Cromer describes it as based on figures collected by the Famine Committee of 1880 and published in 1882. What on earth can there be "confidential" in such as this? His other reason for referring to it is that it is from 20 to 22 years old. But it has been brought up to date by Lord Curzon's treatment of it, who has constructed a document of his own on precisely the same lines and declares that as a result of the compression of the two, that the Agricultural income was actually increased, and that the average per head is 20 rupees, or two rupees higher than in 1880.
The Secretary of State actually confesses to having never seen the memorandum on which Lord Curzon bases this estimate, although it is a year or two since it was completed—yet the publication of these two documents is a vital element in

287
this controversy and if the data upon which they are based to justify the conclusions drawn, the Naoroji-Digby school which is always proclaiming to the world the sad and increasing poverty of the Indian cultivator would be put out of business once and for all. I am glad we are to have the inquiry instituted by Lord Dufferin in 1888, but if it is to dispel the arguments of the pessimist, it appears to me a great pity we did not get it in 1889, twelve years ago. I again press upon the noble Lord the prompt publication of these two all important documents. If they are conclusive to Lord Curzon, they should be conclusive to us all. Let me in a single point demonstrate to the House how impossible it is to judge of the soundness of the comparison of these two estimates of twenty rupees in 1901, and eighteen rupees in 1882 without the data on which they are based. The moment I read Lord Curzon's speech I asked myself and I now ask the Secretary of State for India if he had taken into account the difference in the purchasing power of the rupee at the two dates? A rupee to an Indian peasant represents so much food, it has no other meaning to his mind. I now ask the noble Lord to turn to page 321 of the last issue of the Indian Statistical Abstract where there is set out a table showing the variation from 1873 to 1900in the average annual retail prices of seven food grains at selected centres. He will find the prices are based on the 1873 prices, which are represented throughout at 100, and in the following years the variations are shown as so much below or so much above 100. I will give the House the figures of the year 1881, which I understand to be the year on which Sir David Barbour and Lord Cromer's estimate of eighteen rupees of income is based, and those of 1898, on which Lord Curzon has based his estimate of twenty rupees, and his consequent declaration that the peasant is better off by two rupees per head per annum to-day compared with twenty years ago. In 1881, rice was 97, wheat 101, jawar 94, bajra 98, ragi 99, gram 106, and barley 97. In 1898, rice was 157,wheat 145, jawar 131, bajra 130, ragi 174, gram 135, and barley 111. These figures show that the price of these grains was far higher for Lord Curzon's year than for Lord Cromer's year. Rice was higher 60 per cent., wheat 44, jawar 39, bajra 32, ragi
288
75, gram 42, and barley 21. Taking the average throughout grain foods which absorb 60 per cent. of the peasants expenditure were just 45 per cent. higher at the time of Lord Curzon's 20 rupees than they were at the time of Lord Cromer's 18. I will strengthen and endorse these figures by comparing the five years of 1800–1884, Lord Cromer's period, with the five years, 1896–1900, Lord Curzon's period, and taking not single years as I have just done, and as these two great authorities have also done, but periods of five years. For 1880–1884 rice was 132, wheat 103, jawar 97, bajra 103, ragi 105, gram 102, and barley 97. For 1896–1900 rice was 170, wheat 164, jawar 160, bajra 170, ragi 169, gram 178, and barley 157. Taking the average throughout, the five years of Lord Cromer's period are 6 per cent higher than the 1873 prices, and Lord Curzon's five years are 67 per cent higher than 1873 prices, and 61 per cent higher than Lord Cromer's. I cannot, of course, press this rise in price universally as showing the increase of poverty. There is the counter consideration of how far the agricultural people of India are benefitted by high prices of this produce. But that is not very far. The small farmer parts with his grain to the bunya, or moneylender, who fixes his own price, while the agricultural labourer who buys from the bunya pays the high price, for it must be remembered the tables are based on the average annual retail prices. Then I ask the House to consider what an advance of 60 percent in the price of food means to the millions of people, afflicted by drought, whose own crops have failed, and who must buy their food. These figures and consideration, demonstrate very forcibly the utter worthlessness of such a statement as Lord Curzon's, unless accompanied by the data which enables him to arrive at it. In my use of Lord Curzon's statement, I give him credit for having taken this and everything else into account, for the case is bad enough for all my purposes without discounting it in any way.
I think it worth while to have submitted these figures to the House for the further purpose of showing, that side by side with increasing poverty, that increasing poverty is made worse by enhanced prices of the necessities of life. I hope the noble Lord can tell us definite-

289
ly if Lord Curzon's has taken these enhanced prices into consideration, or whether they form one of those elements of conjecture and uncertainity which he warns us his data possess? I hope I have succeeded in convincing the House that there is good reason why it should adopt the first part of the Amendment, I should have moved—had opportunity been given—that the poverty of the Indian people engaged in agricultural pursuits has not only become chronic, but is steadily increasing in volume and area. I fear I have wearied hon. Members in the process, but the subject is one of such vast importance that I must continue to beg their indulgence while I deal as briefly as possible with the second put of my proposal.
I ask for a new policy with regard to Indian poverty—its prompt relief by a diminution of civil and military expenditure, and a policy of prevention in place of a policy of palliation. I do not think it ought to be expected from anyone who has not free access to all the information possessed by the Government that he should formulate a scheme by which famines may gradually become impossible and the poverty of the people decreased, but there are some self-evident fact which any student of Indian sociology can state. I believe nothing permanent can be effected until the moneylender difficulty is solved, and a great progressive scheme of irrigation established. Drain, debt, and drought are the root causes of both poverty and famine, which are the inevitable outcome of permanent poverty in a country dependent on stored water. Debt, drain, and drought, therefore, are the three devils which had to be exorcised, and a vast sum of money will be needed to effect their destruction. The House will note that in my Resolution asked for no remission of taxation. To try to deal with these three devils by a remission of the salt tax, agricultural banks, suspensions or remissions of the Land Tax, and schemes for the improvement of cultivation is simply holding a candle to the three devils. These things are all well enough in their way, as palliatives, in the meantime, but they are only eau-de-Cologne and a fan; when a blue pill and a black draught are wanted. Drain, Debt and Drought—Drought, Debt, and Drain—get rid of these, and India's prosperity
290
will begin. It never will while they remain in possession. Money alone will get rid of them. India's taxation produces noble surpluses, in spite of heavy famine expenditure. The last two years, takon together, show cash surpluses of 4¼ millions sterling. During the same two years, there was famine expenditure of £9,000,000. Therefore, but for this abnormal expenditure, those two years would have shown surpluses of nearly £14,000,000, or £7,000,000 each, and I understand that this year will fall not far short of that amount. But it is far better that these surpluses should go to the prevention of poverty by a wise, large, progressive, and permanent scheme of irrigation, than be merely shared out in annas and pice by the abolition of the sale tax, great as such a boon would be, and largely as cheap salt would help to diminish cholera and other epidemics. £5,000,000 a year wisely spent on irrigation works and torage tanks, would, in 20 years, make drought and its result, famine, impossible for India. But apart from famine expenditure, the Government have got the money in their surpluses. Last year about £6,000,000 was spent on railways, and I think, speaking roughry,—I have not the figures by me—three-quaters of a million on irrigation.
LORD G. HAMILTON: Rather more.
MR. CAINE: I only wish to say that it ought to have been just the reverse. Railways may be good for famine relief, but irrigation is good for famine prevention.
Debt, however, is the bigger problem. The Indian peasantry is hopelessly bankrupt. Even under improved conditions induced by the destruction of famine caused by drought, they would still be in the permanent clutch of the usurer. Why should not the Government take the bull by the horns, pay off the money-lender everywhere on just and equitable terms, prohibit the alienation of land, and resettle the land tax on equitable terms, taking good and bad years into account, including (wherever it can be borne) the interest on the cleared debt, remitting it once for all where it cannot be borne on the holding. That appears a formidable

291
scheme, but its details would be as nothing to the finest civil service in the world. It is a formidable scheme. It requires £200,000,000 to carry out. But what is £200,000,000 to us? We have voted it with a light heart for a war. What is £30,000,000 on irrigation works to us? We have a Bill before the House to spend £40,000,000 on the water supply of London. Why not spend a smaller amount on the great reform in India? But I have not long since said that the total debt to moneylenders is £230,000,000. I believe an equitable settlement would bring it out at far less. Wherever usury has been enforced, and the interest charged has been excessive, it would be only fair to take the excess into account as capital repaid, and pay only whatever balance was then due. I believe that £200,000,000 in hard cash would buy up every agricultural debt in India. Borrow the money at 3½per cent of the money-lenders themselves by issuing Government stock for whatever the settled claim might be, and so get rid of the debt, and keep the interest in India to be spent in the villages by the money-lenders. It would add £7,000,000 to Indian annual expenditure—true; but it would give prosperous peasants able to pay their taxes in place of a nation of bankrupt, and hungry wretches who, unless this is done can pay neither debt, interest, nor taxes. But the Imperial Exchequer ought to bear the whole of this burden, for we are year by year robbing India by forcing upon her exchequer expenditure that ought justly to be borne by ourselves far beyond the interest needed to clear out the money-lender at once and for ever. I will not labour out all the items; they are fully set out in the minority Report of the Royal Commission on Indian Expenditure, of which body I was a member. I will touch on only two or three.
A year ago, in moving an Amendment to the King's Speech, I called the attention of the House to the fact that there were 28,000 troops borne on the Indian establishment, which had been borrowed by the British Government, employed in South Africa, China and Hong Kong, the Mauritius, Singapore, Ceylon, and Juba land. Some
292
have gone back, but the Secretary of State informed the House last week that there are still some 20,000 outside India to-day. For over two years, probably running to three, from 20,000 to 30,000 troops, British and native, for whom India has paid all the capital charges of recruiting and transport, and whose maintenance is a permanent charge on India, have been employed in service, in foreign countries where India has no particular interest, and in a colony where Indians are treated more like dogs than fellow-subjects, Britain paying only the wages and food of the men while thus employed. So far as the necessities of India are concerned, she could safely dispense altogether with these 30,000 troops. They are simply a reserve force of the British Army, planted upon India to the relief of the British taxpayer, quartered in India as a reserve force for the defence of the British Empire in the East, from Cape Colony to Peking. Common equity demands, if the Indian Army is to be kept at its present numbers, that one-seventh of its cost should be borne on the British estimates, one-seventh of its numbers being treated as a reserve of the British Army, quartered in India for convenience, and with a special view to service in the Eastgenerally. Apart, however, from this simple act of equity, the Indian Army is kept at its present strength, not for the maintenance of law and order, for which less than one-half would suffice, but because of that foolish dread of Russia, to appease which, more than anything else, the Indian taxpayer has been drained to the verge of utter bankruptcy. But for this Russian bogey, all the military needs of India could be met with less than half the present expenditure, £7,000,000 or £8,000,000 would be set free for peaceful enterprises, and every reform that I have suggested could be set strongly afoot, with a generous remission of taxation to accompany them on their journey of blessing. No reasonable politician in this country now believes that any Russian Government would be so mad as to embark on such a ruinous adventure as the conquest of India, to take upon its already overburdened back the additional burden

293
of the poorest country on the face of the earth, exposed to the sea attack of the strongest navy on the seas. As long ago as 1877, Prince Gortchakoff declared that the idea of the conquest of India by Russia was a perfect impossibility, and, if practicable, an act of supreme folly. Russia has her own civilising mission north of he Himalayas, as Britain has south of the Himalayas, and it would be an act of suicidal madness or either to cross that boundary to invade the other. There is no fear of Russian invasion for 100 years to come, even if Russia desired it, and, even if there were there is no need for such a British occupation of India as is meant by 75,000 troops. The reduction of that garrison to 50,000 would still leave it as strong as it was the year after the Mutiny, and India is now peaceful, law-abiding, and intensely loyal to British over-rule. The cost of these 25,000 British troops would mean £3,000,000 a year set free for the enrichment of the peasant. If it is still thought fit to continue them in India for possible service in the East and China, it would be an act of simple justice to give India an annual grant of £3,000,000 for their maintenance. But if they were withdrawn, what matter? Have we not just thrown 250,000 soldiers into the Cape? It would be as easy to throw them into India, and have them there for twelve months, before Russia could cross Afghanistan with an army worth the name; and such an effort on the part of Russia would mean hopeless financial ruin to her Government before a shell conld be fired at Quetta or Peshawur. For downright political idiocy, commend me to the Russian bogey. It is the most inveterate prejudice which ever dominated a sensible people; Lord Salisbury himself has called it an "antiquated superstition." I wish he would clear it out of the mind of the Secretary of State for India, of his Viceroy, and, if possible, of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton. Like many other superstitions, it is a murderous one. It has slain millions of the poor, patient, starving people of India during the last 30 years, and depleted Indian resources of £300,000,000 which, spent for the
294
benefit of the Indian peasant, would have saved every famine of the last twenty years. When India is governed by reason instead of by prejudice, the sun of her salvation will arise, but never before.
I will not labour the question of military and civil expenditure further than by a short reference to possible economies in the higher civil service. There are, roughly, altogether 8,000 Europeans in the Indian civil service, receiving in salaries and expenses over £5,000,000 in the year, while 130,000 Indians receive half a million less, about £4,500,000. Of the 8,000 Europeans, the employment given to fully 3,000 might with justice and efficiency be given to natives of India, who would be glad to do the work at salaries that would effect a saving of quite half a million sterling. What is the use of the vast, costly, and elaborate system of University Education in India if the graduates are practically shut out of the national careers which in this country are taken up by our own graduates? The Indian civil service is fenced against the sons of that country by monstrous and impossible conditions for the great bulk of them, and Parliament ought, without delay, to tear these, fences down. But another half a million might be saved to India out of the £2,000,000 spent on superanuation allowances and pensions. The bulk of Indian covenanted civilians retire after twenty-five years of service, of which four are furlough. I would extend the service to thirty-five years, with five years furlough, before retirement on full pension was permitted. When the twenty-five years was fixed, residence in India was a different thing from now. Everything that can make life easy and healthy in the Indian, climate is now provided for the Civil servant. When he gets furlough he can go to a dozen fine sanatoria in the hills, or can run home in twelve days from Bombay to London. At 50 he comes home for good, with £1,000 a year pension, and, if he has been reasonably prudent, savings of £10,000 or so. I never see men who carry their years so well, or who are fitter for hard work at their age. They make themselves useful on City Companies as directors, they are valuable

295
public men on the London County Council; they come into this House, and work in line with the most industrious of us all. Such names as Sir Richard Temple, Sir George Campbell, Sir William Wedderburn, and Sir George Balfour, are reminders of this to those who like myself have had twenty years experience of this House. Sir Charles Elliott is Chairman of the Finance Committee of the London School Board, and Sir Henry Bliss is an Alderman of the London County Council. Ten years more work in India would hurt none of them. It is sheer folly to withdraw them in the prime of life at their richest period of experience, in the very summit of their capacity.
I could easily indicate another million of money which could be got from other economies, and an equitable readjustment of charges between the British and Indian Exchequers, but they are all set out in the minority Report of the Indian Expenditure Commission prepared by Sir William Wedderburn, Mr. D. Naoroji, and myself, and I must content myself by referring hon. Members who may desire to look further into the matter to that report. I hope, Sir, that I have been able to indicate the possibility in such economic reforms as I have touched upon of securing from the existing financial resources quite enough money to restore the agricultural people of India to a reasonable and permanent prosperity. I thank both parties in this House for the kind and courteous consideration which they have given to a long, and I am afraid, a rather dull speech. I do not attach myself to extreme views upon this question, to which I have made frequent reference, nor do I agree with all their conclusions. I do hope, however, that I have said enough to convince the House that the poverty of India is terrible, chronic, and progressive, and that it ought to be dealt with in the most drastic way possible.
LORD G. HAMILTON: I am a little reluctant to interpose at so early a stage in the debate, because I know I may prevent my hon. friends who wish to take part in this debate from addressing the House, but the hon. Member for Camborne has spoken at such length and made so many suggestions that I feel bound to interpose at this early period of the debate. I
296
agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is no question more worthy of the attention of this House than the material condition of the masses of our fellow-subjects in India. I have more than once stated my opinion that our main claim, our only claim, to rule India is the belief that we can improve the material prosperity of those who live within its borders; and if it can be shown that we have failed in that duty, and that that material prosperity has deteriorated, there is a flaw in our title to govern India which cannot easily be remedied or effaced. what does that mean? It affects the credit of every section of the nationalities who sit in this House. It affects England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland; and speaking as an Irishman, I am disposed to think that there is no part of the United Kingdom which has more contributed to the foundation of our Empire in India than Ireland. An indictment such as that which the hon. Member has just delivered means, if it be true, that we have failed in India to a terrible extent. For nearly half a century India has been under the control of the Crown. This nation has had in its possession the greater part of India for more than a century. We have during that time established peace from one end to the other of that country. We have established equality between race and creed, justice between man and man.
MR. CAINE: Not between Englishman and native.
LORD G. HAMILTON: We have established, in spite of the denunciation by the hon. Gentleman, the lightest system of taxation which exists in Asia. We have spent hundreds of millions in developing the material prosperity of the country, assisted by the most modern science and civilisation. We have offered every inducement to the best products of our public schools and Universities, and of our social system to go out and take part in the military and civil administration of India; and we have selected the very ablest men that political and Parliamentary life could produce to put at the head of that Ministerial hierarchy. If the result of all that has

297
been that we have done harm rather than good to the people whom we wish to benefit, the failure has been, indeed, a great and fundamental one. On what does the hon. Gentleman base his allegation? I agree at once that India is very poor. I admit that one section of the agricultural community are becoming more and more in debt, and that we have had two of the most terrible droughts of which history has a record; but I absolutely deny that the material condition of the country has fallen back during the last few years, or that India is poorer or more wretched than she was twenty or thirty years ago. The hon. Gentleman at the end of his speech alluded to past surpluses. I may say that there is every prospect of an equally big surplus this year. The hon. Member is a man of business, and I put this simple question to the hon. Gentleman, whether the income of an individual or a community could steadily augment year by year and yet the one or the other become poorer and poorer by the process as it goes on.
MR. DILLON: Yes, certainly. It is the case in Ireland. The public income is increasing by millions.
LORD G. HAMILTON: The taxation in India has remained stationary, and it therefore becomes an impossibility that the community can become poorer and poorer while the income is steadily increasing.
MR LOUGH: There have been new taxes.
LORD G. HAMILTON: There have been no new taxes imposed since I have been in office; the only alteration in the financial and fiscal system has been a reduction in customs. If I wished to describe the material condition of India by comparison, I might liken it to this great metropolis, this City of London. It might seem at first sight that there is little resemblance between that great dependency and this great city, the centre and capital of the richest Empire in the world. No one will deny that within the last twenty years London has made most extraordinary strides in the wealth and attainments and habits of its population, and
298
in all the outward attributes of material prosperity. It has increased in income in rateable value—or, tested by any gauge economic science can suggest, there have been great strides in material advance. And yet it is but a few years back that those interested in social subjects were startled by the statements in Mr. Charles Booth's well-known book in which he analysed the conditions of the people of London, classifying them according to their incomes, their wealth and poverty, including those who were in receipt of Poor Law relief, those who were in chronic want, and those who, from time to time, had difficulties in obtaining the necessities of civilised life. The result of his investigations, minute and elaborate, was that he estimated not less than 30 per cent. of the population of this great city were in a condition equivalent to pauperism. So it is that you may have two different sets of economic phenomena attached to the same community, separate and not affecting each other; you have a community in the aggregate wealthy, and increasing in prosperity and all the outward attributes of material wealth, and yet at the same time inside that community there may be a dense mass of poverty. And such I believe to be the condition of India. I believe we have, on the whole, improved, substantially improved, the condition; but there is still a dense mass of poverty, which let us do all we can to mitigate and alleviate. Now the hon. Gentleman spoke of palliatives, which he rather ridiculed.
MR. CAINE: No.
LORD G. HAMILTON: Well, he wished to dismiss them for the future and have recourse to drastic remedies to get rid of drought and debt. Now, has the hon. Gentleman, or have any of those who have worked with him, ever thought or attempted to realise what drought in India means? Has any human being belief in the power of mortal man to stop drought in India?
MR. CAINE: You have done much by your schemes of irrigation, so far as they have gone.
LORD G. HAMILTON: Yes, where you have great rivers, perennial rivers, whose sources are in great glaciers outside India, in the immediate neighbourhood of those rivers it is possible to avert the effects of drought when no rain fails. But take the rest of the country. You have two Asiatic peninsulas not far from each other—the peninsula of Arabia and the peninsula of India—in very much the same latitude, not dissimilar in area and dimensions. Arabia is in the main a great sandy desert, inhabited by a few nomads who eke out a miserable existence by preving on each other. India has a population within its borders of a fifth of the human race, and yet in productive years they live there cheaper than in any other part of the world. What constitutes the remarkable difference between the two peninsulas? Rain. It is quite true that poverty and famine may arise from different sources, from war, or a state of affairs little short of war, from oppression, over-taxation, from unwillingness to cultivate because those who sow are not sure they will reap, indifference and ignorance; but in India one cause alone since the British Government have had control has caused famine, and that is drought. No doubt if you could elevate the people to a higher standard there might be less distress and greater power of resistance to drought when it comes; but even if the hon. Member were to carry out all the schemes—mad schemes I will call some of them—he has mentioned to-night, if you bring up the people of India to a standard of comfort such as no European nation has over attained, if for ten years no more rain fell than the recent average, no mortal power could prevent India from becoming an arid and depopulated desert.
What does drought mean? It is not a question of food; the scarcity of food in a district affected by drought is the least of the evils with which the Government of India have to deal. There is nearly always a sufficiency of food in India to feed all the people within its limits, and owing to the development of the railway system the British Government are able, no matter what part of the country may be
300
affected, to pour in sufficient food to maintain the people of the district. But 80 per cent. of the people of India are agriculturists; they depend upon agriculture; and when drought sets in over any large portion of India for any lengthened period all employment ceases, all wage-earning power goes, industry is paralysed, and the whole community is affected; the means of transport cease, the cattle die, vegetation disappears, and for one person who dies from want of food, many, many more die from bad water. In this country, with all our variety of employment, if, in a winter, frost is prevalent continuously for a month, six weeks, or two months, agricultural work fails and great depression is caused, although we have an elaborate system of poor relief. But think what it is in India, when all employment ceases, when no one is able to obtain employment or earn a livelihood. If, during the past year, a larger number of persons have been in receipt of famine relief in distressed districts, this is not due to deterioration in their physical condition; but it is due to the unparalleled duration and intensity of the last two droughts with which we have had to deal. And the evidence that we have, both in the Report of Sir Antony MacDonnell and in previous Reports, shows that the people have sustained and faced the recent disaster with less loss of life, more courageously, and more effectively, than they did any previous visitation of less severity for many years back. In the last great famine before the two which the hon. Gentleman referred to, which occurred in India in the year 1876–77, the mortality was far greater than in either of the later disasters. And the Reports show that the people who were on relief were of a higher social standing than those who sought relief during the recent famine, and that far more land then went out of cultivation than has recently been the case. Therefore, I think I may fairly contend that, so far as famine is concerned, we have conclusive evidence that the people are better able to sustain the terrible infliction imposed upon them by drought than they were before.
And when, in addition to that, we take the tests which are applied to

301
other countries as proof of financial or material prosperity and apply them to India, we find that, notwithstanding these terrible local visitations, every branch of the Revenue, except land revenue, is improving, that the powers of consumption and the powers of production outside the distressed areas are steadily increasing, that all branches of indirect taxation are also improving, and that the exports and imports—particularly those which relate to the masses—are increasing in volume. Is not that clear and indisputable evidence that on the whole, notwithstanding the deplorable effect of recent droughts, the community of India is prosperous and her economic condition is slightly improving and not deteriorating?
It always seems to me that there is no country about which it is more dangerous to indulge in generalities than India. The history of India is unique; no country has a history like it. So far as her history goes back, it has been a record of one succession of invaders pouring down from the mountains and settling in the plains below, and there is not one solitary instance of those settlers ever returning to the mountains. They have gone on pushing the people they have found on the plains lower and lower down the peninsula. And so it came to pass that there is a mosaic of races, and of creeds, and of religions, and a variety of customs in immediate contiguity one to another which cannot be found in any other part of the world. And this being the case, it is most unwise for anybody to generalise from the individual experience which we obtain from any one particular locality and to try to apply that experience to the rest of that great continent. India is not inhabited by one race and one nationality, but by many races and many nationalities. And the ordinary life of the agriculturist in India is so dull and monotonous that little interest is taken in their lot in ordinary times. It is only when they are suffering some great affliction, some terrible natural visitation such as the recent droughts, that in this country and elsewhere people's interest is excited, and then all their attention is concentrated on the particular afflicted spot. Those who are interested go to the most distressed portions of the affected districts, and
302
they generalise upon their microscopic experience in a limited area, and attempt to apply that to the whole of the great continent.
The hon. Gentleman spoke at great length upon the indebtedness of the agriculturists, and he gave the House clearly to understand that that indebtedness is due to rack-rent.
MR. CAINE: Partly.
LORD G. HAMILTON: The hon. Gentleman did not quote fairly, because he must have known that Sir Antony MacDonnell, in his Report, lays down exactly the reverse. I do not wish to weary the House at this late hour with too many extracts from persons of unquestioned authority, but the unpleasant feature concerning the indebtedness of the agriculturist in India is that it does not arise from over-assessment or too heavy land revenue; it results from light land revenue. If we had so taxed the agriculturist that he could not get a livelihood out of his holding, the money-lender would not advance large sums on a security that was of little value. It is to the fact that we have given this asset of great value to the great agriculturists, and to the fact we have also, by the alterations which we have effected in the law, given the money-lender facilities that he never had before, and security which he never had before, that we must attribute this great increase in indebtedness. I have on more than one occasion in this House ventured to express my opinion that, as regards the future of India, the most serious difficulties that this country can have to encounter are not inherited with the system of native government which we took over or inherent in that system, but they are of our own creation.
MR. CAINE: Hear, hear!
LORD G. HAMILTON: I quite agree with the hon. Member, that we were in too great haste to try to apply Western ideas to India. But when the hon. Member made his speech, he repudiated those ideas. It seemed to me to be a speech which, in Indian history, will almost rank with the speech recently made at Chesterfield;

303
it is cleaning the slate. He has wiped out all those doctrines and all those little principles which, when he first came into Parliament, were inseparably associated with the political Party to which he belongs. I have always thought it was a great misfortune—
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Does the noble Lord imply that any speech has been made at Chesterfield or elsewhere, professing to dispense with all the doctrines of the Party to which the speaker belongs?
LORD G. HAMILTON: The right hon. Gentleman is no more an authority on the speech made at Chesterfield than I am. Neither of us was present, and we both read it. As I read it, it was a repudiation certainly of most that the speaker had previously professed, and an intimation that he could carry on our policy better than we can ourselves. I could quote phrase after phrase in that speech, which is conclusive evidence in favour of the contention I have just put forward. The hon. Gentleman belonged, I think, to the strict school of political economy when he first entered this House. He has, I think, very properly given expression to the unwisdom of trying to govern India, and above all, to regulate her land system, by a strict application of the rigid principles of political economy. What Sir Antony MacDonnell points out (and this is also what the hon. Gentleman points out) is that the authors of the land revenue system in Bombay considered that the best way to
"Excite the cultivator to independence and to create agricultural capital" was "to exempt him as much as possible from the pupilage and surveillance of Government officers."
There was, it was said—
"An obvious advantage to get land out of the hands of cultivators unable to pay their way and to transfer it to cultivators with more capital….As the customs and native revenue systems of India are adverse to land transfers, it is therefore all the more necessary to adopt measures for giving them effect. Accordingly," said Sir Antony, it was decided that there should be no interferance by Government officers with the people, and that no inquiries should be made regarding the financial condition of the cultivators. Thus things were left to take their own course, and the result was—as invariably happens when an ignorant and improvident peasantry can dispose without
304
restriction of valuable rights in land—that the cultivators sank deeper into debt, and that their property began to pass out of their hands."
What was the origin of the indebtedness? It was the low assessment of what Sir Antony points out was a very valuable property. But it is not only the authority of Sir Antony MacDonnell to which I can refer the House. No man has given expression more strongly to this idea of the imprudence of the cultivator before he knows how to make use of the value of land paying so low an assessment, than Mr. Thorburn. Mr. Thorburn delivered a very remarkable lecture on this very question a short time ago to the Fabian Society; and he pointed out, as one of the causes of these people being reduced to the necessity of alienating their lands, the encouragement we had given to the money-lender by a low assessment. I am not finding fault with the money-lenders, for they are as essential to the cultivatorsas their spades or the ploughs. But an advantage was given to the money-lenders by the system of low assessment, and the increased facilities which under process of law, they have obtained for recovering the money they advance. Mr. Thorburn compares two communities, one in native and the other in British territory, where the conditions are the same, except that the land assessment in the native territory is double the assessment in the British territory; and he remarks that the cultivators in the latter case are indebted, partially expropriated, and utterly miserable in the grip of the money-lenders and of our "system," while their brethern in the other village, although poor, were unindebted, the sole right-holders in their villages, and each of their villages is still a vigorous self-governing community. He adds that he does not give these instances as a plea for high assessment, but as a proof that, until our system is thoroughly reformed, the lighter the rating of land the easier was the road to ruin. There is a gentleman who took a very active part in the management of the famine in Northern Bombay—a man of large experience and great humanity—Mr. Lely—and he made a remarkable speech in the Council of the Governor of Bombay. He took the trouble to go to

305
village after village and ascertain the exact amount of indebtedness of a certain number of the cultivators with the view of ascertaining if it was in any way due to assessment; and he shows in the most conclusive way that it not only had nothing to do with the Government assessment, but that none of the indebted ever pretended that it had. The first case was that of 65 families holding 152 acres assessed at 810 rupees. They had run up debt amounting to over 24,000 rupees, at the rate of 161 rupees of debt per acre. They had incurred these debts for dinner parties on the death of various members of their families, for dowries and other marriage expenses. It was found that 33 per cent. of the land in one district had passed into the hands of money-lenders. Mr. Lely's subordinate paid a visit to a village where the people were known to be heavily in debt. He got them all together to the number of 46. All were in debt. Of these 36 had borrowed for marriages and 32 for funeral feasts, 11 for cultivation purposes, six for building new houses, and two who owned no land previously had borrowed in order to buy. In no instance was Government assessment even mentioned as a cause of the debt. The rack-rental of which the hon. Member spoke—
MR. CAINE: When I spoke of rack-rent I bracketed with it the money-lender.
LORD G. HAMILTON: The hon. Gentleman talked of rack-rent, and that the poverty of the people was due to their inability to pay the assessment.
MR. CAINE: I know I did, with good reason; but when I spoke of rack-rent I bracketed it with the money-lender.
LORD G. HAMILTON: Indebtedness to a money-lender or a mortgage on land is not rack-rent.
MR. CAINE: I bracketed the two together.
LORD G. HAMILTON: Whether the hon. Gentleman intended it or not, the obvious inference from his speech was that it was in consequence of the land
306
revenue being too high that these people were in debt.
MR. CAINE: It is perfectly certain that I bracketed the two together most carefully. I spent a quarter of an hour of my speech referring to the money-lender. I said that, in five years during famine, the rent was one and a half million rupees a year more than when there was no famine.
LORD G. HAMILTON: Then the hon. Gentleman does not allege that the indebtedness is due to the Government assessment being too high. The indebtedness of the cultivator I have shown not to be at all due to the land revenue being too high. I always speak with great reserve in regard to this land assessment. It is very difficult for anybody like myself to be able to express a strong opinion as to whether or not the gross produce taken is too little or too much; but this much is absolutely certain—that there is no connection whatever between the indebtedness of the people and the amount of the land revenue; for in those cases in which the land revenue is the lowest the, people are more in debt. But I admit that there is one defect in our system which can be remedied. In certain parts of the country the Government insists on being rigidly paid at certain periods, and, although this system is mathematically easier to the occupiers, it does, perhaps, help to getting them into trouble. A discussion once took place between a native and a land revenue officer, and the officer pointed out that the system of insisting on regular payments was mathematically correct and better for the occupier. But the native replied that he once had a brother who had to cross a broad river, and he found mathematically that on the average it was only 3ft. deep; but, unfortunately, he was drowned in the first hole of 7ft. into which he fell. Now, Sir, I think there is wisdom in that reply, and the Government propose to introduce greater elasticity into the system of the payment of land revenue where it is required. Now, Sir, I pass on to that part of the hon. Gentleman's speech in which he dealt with the poverty of India.
MR. DILLON: Are you going to do anything with regard to the power to borrow?
LORD G. HAMILTON: I was going to group together all the remedies we propose to introduce. Recently a law has been passed with reference to the Punjab, whereby the power of alienation has been greatly restricted, and a power has been given to the Courts in certain cases to review and look into contracts under certain conditions. A Bill of almost the some character was passed for the Bombay Presidency recently, and it is proposed to introduce legislation of a similar character in certain other parts of India. Now I come to the difficulty of proposing or carrying through legislation of this character. We have created in India under our system a great interest in the money-lenders. We have educated and turned out a number of University men every year with no means of livelihood unless they become lawyers or newspaper writers, or attach themselves to the money-lending crowd; and although these gentlemen and the papers they represent are always attacking the Government as regards the poverty of India, the moment we attempt to curtail the powers of the money-lenders they turn round and do their very best to prevent such legislations passing into law. And I think that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne will find that many of those with whom he associates are not in agreement with him.
MR. CAINE: That makes no difference whatever to me.
LORD G. HAMILTON: I quite admit. Now, Sir, I turn to the cause of poverty in India. The hon. Gentleman estimated in English pence the average income which the peasant or labourer in India enjoys. I do not myself attach very much importance to these hypothetical calculations of what is the average income of any body in a great country like India, as they are largely based on supposition. I declined to produce certain documents for which the hon. Gentleman asked, because they are old history, and I doubt whether they would do much to elucidate some of the problems which the hon. Gentleman attempted to touch; but these figures do show, and show very clearly that, although the movement has been slow, it has of recent years been upwards, and on the whole, the average income
308
in India has increased, but very slightly. The hon. Gentleman asked what can a man do on an average income of 1½d. a day? The hon. Member must remember that food in India is extraordinarily cheap. It has never paid any outside country, even during the worst famine and even when prices were highest, to import food into India, and during the recent famine relief in the Central Provinces a man doing a good day's work could be kept in good condition on a penny a day when the price of food was above its normal rate. I was looking through some Papers the other day, which were prepared in Lord Dufferin's time, and I came across a statement, which I believe to be absolutely true, as to what a man can do on an income of six rupees a month. That is 96 pence, and it gives a man a little more than 3d. a day. Any one in receipt of this 3d. a day and being the head of a family consisting of not more than four, could give his family every day three meals of rice or millet, and fish, if near the coast, and butcher's meat once or twice a week; but there would be no milk or butter or cheese for the children. If you wish to draw any conclusion from the average income of the inhabitants of India, you must look a little into the vital statistics of the country. In India the birth-rate and the death-rate are higher than in Europe. Life is shorter. The result is that infants form a far larger proportion of the population than they do in Europe. In this country one-seventh of the population is taken to be of school age, but in India one-seventh of the population are under the age of five, and two-fifths are under the age of 14, so that only three out of every five are adults. That must be taken into consideration in calculating the average income of the whole population, because it is obvious that the amount of food that an infant requires is very much less than what is necessary for an adult doing hard work. But Sir William Hunter, distinguished writer though he was, fell into the error—in making his statement about so many millions of people being always in want of sufficient food—of basing his calculation upon the assumption that every one in India was an adult and required the food necessary for an adult.
MR. CAINE: I did not fall into that mistake.
LORD G. HAMILTON: No, but you quoted him.
MR. CAINE: Yes, I quoted him but not on that point. I quoted him on another point altogether.
LORD G. HAMILTON: I have now dealt with the two main propositions of the hon. Gentleman—the poverty of the people and the indebtedness of the agriculturists. I have shown that to say that we can by the drastic proposals which he suggested, or can by any human effort, make rain fall in India, is absurd.
MR. CAINE: I never said that.
LORD G. HAMILTON: The hon. Gentleman said that we have got to get rid of drought.
MR. CAINE: I spoke of preventing drought by irrigation, and not by rain-conjuring.
LORD G. HAMILTON: You cannot get rid of drought by irrigation. That is an exploded fallacy. How can you have irrigation-works in a locality the water supply of which depends upon the local rainfall? If the local rainfall fails, your irrigation work fails. Yet that elementary proposition, which is common-sense, never will be faced by those who talk of irrigation as a remedy for drought.
MR. CAINE: I did not suggest the irrigation of lands above the level of rivers, but irrigation by the storage of rain. If the noble Lord had ever been in India he would have seen the old and now disused tanks which had been used for storage purposes hundreds of years ago.
LORD G. HAMILTON: No doubt there are certain places where irrigation is an effective remedy against the absence of rain. That is wherever you have rivers whose sources are beyond the local rain-
310
fall. But wherever you have rivers depending on local rainfall, irrigation is no remedy against drought. Tank irrigation and well irrigation may provide against a drought of a few weeks or months, but it is no avail against a visitation from which India is now suffering. We have appointed a Commission of the highest reputation, which is investigating the question of irrigation, and it will, I hope, before long, make its Report. But I think it is absolutely certain it will never put forward the preposterous idea that a great part of India can be made secure against drought by irrigation.
I have detained the House longer than I intended on these points. But, although I cannot in any way fall in with the suggestions of the hon. Member, we have a programme of improvements and alterations and arrangements which, if less ambitious, will, I hope, prove quite as useful as the suggestions advanced by the hon. Member. Mr. Dutt, a gentleman well known in India, sometime back addressed a number of letters to meand Lord Curzon on the subject of land assessment. His proposals have been carefully investigated; and the Government of India have issued in reply a resolution which I am sorry I did not receive in time to lay upon the Table of the House, but which willvery shortly be published. That resolution effectually disposes of a great many of Mr. Dutt's allegations, but it also makes certain reecommendations which I hope will be of great utility to agriculturists in the future. The resolution points out that a permanent settlement, which has been proposed as a remedy against famine, is no protection against the incidence or consequences of famine. It shows that:
"In areas where the State receives its land revenue from landlords, progressive moderation is the keynote of the policy of government, and that the standard of 50 per cent. of the assets is one which is almost uniformly observed in practice, and is more often departed from on the side of deficiency than of excess."
It also points out that—
"In areas where the State takes the land revenue from the cultivators, the proposal to fix the assessment at one-fifth of the gross produce would result in the imposition of a greatly increased burden upon the people."
It demonstrates—
"That over-assessment is not, as alleged, a general or wide-spread source of poverty and

311
indebtedness in India, and that it cannot fairly he regarded as a contributory cause of famine."
It precedes that—
"For the future the Government of India will be prepared, where the necessity is established, to make further advance in respect of (1) the progressive and graduated imposition of large enhancements; (2) greater elasticity in the revenue collection, facilitating its adjustment to the variations of the seasons and the circumstances of the people; and (3) a more general resort to reduction of assessments in cases of local deterioration, where such reduction cannot be claimed under the terms of settlement."
We have, in addition, a number of reforms in various stages of progress. We have an inquiry into railroads, by which we hope to get better returns than hitherto; I have already referred to the Irrigation Commission; and we have also a Commission on Education which, we trust, will result in more intelligence and wisdom to those who occupy land. We have also proposals in hand for trying the experiment of agricultural banks; and we have legislation in preparation which will extend our legislation as regards restriction upon the alienation of property. In addition to these reforms, which may appear humble and small alongside, the proposals of the hon. Gentleman, we have realised a larger surplus this year, and we hope for a very large surplus next year. We have balanced the advantages of remitting taxation with the advantages of making large advances of loans in distressed districts. I will not anticipate what the statement of the Finance Minister may be, beyond saying this—that the distressed districts will have a prior claim upon the surplus. If one reviews the financial and material conditions of India, much as we must deplore the misery and the loss inflicted by drought and famine during the last few years, one cannot deny that Indian finance has exhibited a stability and a recuperative power that nobody beforehand could have believed it possessed. We have fought this famine with ten millions sterling from revenue, and yet we have realised surpluses amounting to many millions; and it is impossible to doubt, considering the calamitous effect produced both on agriculture and industry in the parts affected, that elsewhere India has made progress. I
312
believe the wise policy which we have adopted for many years past of annually spending large sums of money on reproductive works, and the wise policy—the wisdom of which may be quite as much attributed to the Bench opposite as to this—of establishing a stable system of currency for India, have borne good fruit, and that we are slowly improving our position. I think it is no small feat for a Government such as that of India to have been able successfully to weather two such agricultural and financial storms as have recently fallen upon us. That India has been able, unaided, without loss of credit, and without increased taxation, to bear the full financial brunt of these disasters, and at the same time to emerge from the ordeal with a large realised surplus, is an indisputable proof that the mass of the people have benefited from British rule. At the same time we must never forget that India is a very poor country, and that there is within it a large proportion of the population whose standard of comfort and livelihood is below the level of the most backward of European nations; and this fact should always be present to us when we discuss Indian finance, and especially when we have to consider the arrangements which have to be made between the Imperial and the Indian Exchequers. Looking back, I think, therefore, we have every reason to be thankful. We have in hand a number of reforms which I trust will relieve the intensity of the distress caused by famine. We have tested and gauged every part of our system of administration. We have had the strongest and the weakest parts of our system of relief tried, and the very severity of the ordeal has caused to be initiated and expedited a number of reforms and benefits of a far-reaching character. Those reforms and those benefits will be under the control and direction of a Viceroy of boundless energy, knowledge, and tact, and great as have been the sufferings inflicted on India during the past two or three years by natural causes, I am sanguine enough to hope and believe that the memory of those disasters in the mind of India will be associated rather with the benefits which these disasters have expedited than with the sufferings which the people have endured.
MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: As I am fully aware that several hem. Members desire to speak to-night, I will be very brief. We shall all be glad to hear the views of the hon. Member for Exeter, who always speaks with authority on India and on every other question he touches. The noble Lord delivered, as he always does, a very interesting speech, but I cannot regard it, as in any sense a reply to the arguments and facts submitted to the House by hon. friend. The noble Lord began his speech by saying, as he had said a good many times before, that India is the lightest taxed country in Asia; but the question of the lightness of taxation depends entirely on the capacity of the taxpayers to bear it. When we remember the very small income, which it is admitted on all hands the great mass of the people of India have, the taxation cannot be regarded as light; and in my judgment, at all events, it is very heavy indeed. The noble Lord then referred to a comparison between the state of London and that of India—between what is generally known as "the submerged tenth" in this country, and the people of India. If there is a submerged tenth in this rich country, he seems to think that it is not very strange that there should also be a submerged portion of the population of India; but there is all the difference in the world between a submerged tenth and a submerged eighty per cent. as in India; and therefore London and India stand in totally different positions.
It is somewhat remarkable that we are tonight—a Government night very early in the session—debating an Indian question. That I think clearly proves that there is a general concensus opinion, not only on this side of the House, but on the part of the Executive Government of the day, that the question raised by my hon. friend is of great and serious importance. It is important in two ways. It is of vital importance to the great mass of the people of India, and I consider it also of real importance to this country and to the Empire at large. The noble Lord admitted that India, taken as a whole, was a very poor country. I suppose that the fact that he did not in any way refer to the estimate of the average income of the
314
population of India, given by Lord Curzon last March, means that he agrees with that estimate and that no change has come over his opinion regarding it. To my mind, the question of the average income in a great country like India is a very difficult question to get at. I agree with the noble Lord that it is, perhaps, not very wise to lay down dicta in regard to these matters, unless we have very full and accurate information on the subject; and the first point that I should like to press on the Government is that they should, through the means which they have at their hands, get at what can be reasonably regarded as accurate information on these points. What we want is truth, and for my own part I cannot see why we, as Members of this House, should not be put in possession of the methods by which the officials of the Indian Government arrive at the various estimates they make. A Permanent Under Secretary for India, about 25 years ago, if I remember aright, pointed out in a despatch or memorandum that one of the greatest difficulties in approaching Indian problems was the lack of accurate information; and, Sir, I hope that one of the results of this debate may be to create a greater and more ready disposition on the part of the Government of India to supply this House and the country with the needful facts in regard to the serious position of the great mass of the agricultural population in India. This question is an important one to India. I do not think the noble Lord has succeeded in disproving the main statement of my hon. friend, namely that things are not getting better but rather worse, for the great mass of the population of India in regard to their resources and material condition. I should like, if I may, to endorse what was said when the Indian Budget was being discussed last August by the hon. Member for Exeter, as to great importance of stimulating Indian industries. It is quite plain that so far as the resources of the land are concerned in India, we have about reached the limit—the full limit—of possible production, and if we are to increase the wealth of India substantially it must be by doing all in our power to develop

315
continually the natural resources of the country. I have not time to-night to go through item after item; if I had I think I could show the House that during the time of our rule in India, the policy of the Government, well intentioned no doubt, has been such as to practically paralyse the internal industries of the country. But it is absurd for any hon. Member to get up in his place in the House of Commons and state that it is not possible to very greatly increase the wealth of India through its industries, trade, and commerce. This question is important not only from an Indian standpoint but from our own standpoint. We are proud of India. We have given to India, as the noble Lord has said, our best during the last century; the life of India and our life are inter-blended in the closest possible way; and anything that is of interest to India must be of real importance to the House of Commons and this country. I am glad that we have to-night this opportunity of discussing this serious phase of Indian life, and my concluding words will be that, in looking forward to the future, our rule in India must rest upon the contentment and confidence of the great mass of a population. The Government of India is well-intentioned. I do not grudge a single penny that is spent on it. The only point with me is whether the money is spent in the best possible way for the development and improvement of the interests of that great continent. In looking forward to the future, is it not plain, from the standpoint of international policy, that there will be a growing importance in the position in the East of the various great Powers of Western Europe? Somebody has said that the pivot around which the history of the new century will turn will be the East, and not the West. Perhaps that is true; I think to a large extent it is. If it is true, is it not of the utmost importance that we should in every way possible strengthen the bonds between this country and India, and make it plain to the world that we will see see India through her various great difficulties? I am not a pessimist. Things are bad in India in many respects; but they can be made better,
316
and I believe that the only way in which they can be made better is by taking steps which will gradually—the thing cannot be done at once—improve the material condition of the agricultural population of that great continent.
SIR EDGAR VINCENT: I agree cordially with the last speaker in what he has said with regard to the foundation of British rule in India—that it must repose on the contentment of the Indian people. I also sympathise with his position in urging the Government to increase the facilities for industrial development, and to open, to the fullest extent, the avenues for capital. The House will, I am sure, be unanimous in congratulating the hon. Member for the Camborne Division on having brought forward this subject. Whether we agree in his conclusions or not, whether the result of the debate be in consonance with his desires or the contrary, I am convinced that he has rendered a public service in ventilating the ideas which he has brought before us. The question of the increasing impoverishment of India must be faced. If the conclusions which the hon. Member has arrived at be correct, it is clear there is something radically wrong with our system of government. If they are incorrect, it is the duty of those who have some acquaintance with the subject to put forward their views and correct his miscalculations. In the hon. Member's speech there was a considerable amount of quotation of figures and tables, but almost all the figures he brought forward were not positive, not figures of fact, but estimates or conjectures. He gave various tables, drawn up by different administrators of India at various periods, professing to state the average income of the ryot per day. I agree with the Secretary of State in attaching very little importance to these hypothetical statements, by whomsoever they may be prepared.
MR. CAINE: They are on the authority of the Viceroy. I know of no higher authority.
SIR EDGAR VINCENT: Whether they are approved by the Viceroy or by Major Baring (now Lord Cromer), these estimates are pure conjecture. I confess I view with regret the absence from the hon. Member's speech of positive figures relating to the trade and development of India. The hon. Member has put forward, with moderate feeling, the views of a large class of writers on Indian matters, whose main propositions are that the condition of the agricultural population of India is bad and steadily becoming worse, and who support those statements by reference to estimates made at various periods. They bring forward, first of all, the estimate of 1850, giving the average daily income of the Indian agriculturist at 2d. They then refer to an estimate of Sir David Barbour and Lord Cromer, made in 1882, which gives the daily income at 1½d.; and they complete the series by an estimate which they frame themselves, giving the income at ¾d. The estimate of 1850 is, so far as I am aware, not based on any positive figure, and has not been brought forward by any authority of weight or consideration. When we come, however, to the estimate of 1882, it is a more serious matter, and I shall say more later respecting the value to be attached to it. But I would say this at once, that the use to which it has been put appears to me to be altogether unfair. Those who had used it have stated in various places and frequently that this estimate is fallacious and exaggerated. But they have then proceeded to prove the increasing poverty of India because their present estimate of the annual income does not come up to the estimate of 1882—which they declare to be fallacious.
Upon what is the present estimate based? Mr. Digby, in his very voluminous work on the subject, states that the reports from the various provinces go to show that the average income does not now exceed 22s. per annum. The hon. Member gave us a slightly different estimate, which he quoted from the Viceroy, of 26s. 8d. But from both those estimates an amount has to be deducted on account of the richer portion of the population, so that the total average income which is arrived at comes down to between 13s. and 14s. per annum. Mr. Digby admits that this amount is not sufficient to afford sustenance, even on the barest scale, for more than eight months in the year, and that he allows nothing
318
whatever for the purchase of clothing and other necessaries. But this physical difficulty, this seeming impossibility, does not dismay him. He explains it in the following manner: That the entire population, which numbers 230,000,000, is fed for four months in the year, and clothed entirely throughout the year, by the beneficence of the money-lenders. I say "beneficence" advisedly, because Mr. Digby does not hesitate to say that these facts and figures refer not to one particular period, not to one district which is affected by famine, but that they apply everywhere and in all times. I believe the House will consider that a more probable explanation of the difficulty is that the data on which the estimate is formed are totally fallacious, that it is not supported by any single certain figure, and that throughout the whole calculation the only positive element is the unwavering malignance with which Mr. Digby distorts evidence to the discredit of his countrymen. ["Oh."] I may perhaps be pardoned if I do not go at length into the methods by which Mr. Digby arrives at his figures, which are in large part supported by the hon. Member for the Camborne Division. What he says is worth some consideration, however, because it shows how totally erroneous the basis of the whole estimate is. I quote from his work. He says—
"I have multiplied the land revenue the necessary number of times in order to arrive at the money value of the produce of the soil. Proceeding on the assumption that the Government revenue is intended to bear a definite ratio to the produce of the soil."
This is a very extraordinary system to work on. The very moderation of the land tax becomes a factor in the impoverishment of the people. The less the tax, the greater the poverty of the taxed. This basis excludes the well-known fact that before the produce of the soil is estimated for revenue purposes a large deduction amounting in many cases to 25 per cent., and in some cases to more, is made by the revenue officers to avoid any danger of over-taxation. There is also the well-known and admitted fact that every allowance is made by the revenue officers of the Government for improvement, the result of the special industry of the agriculturalists, and that definite allowances are made for poorly

319
situated districts and for land of inferior quality. So that, reviewing the whole of the argument on this portion of the estimate, I would say that the Government deliberately under-estimates the produce of the soil, and it is on this under-estimated valuation that the larger part of the contention of Mr. Digby is based, and that he arrives at the figure of ¾d. per day as the average income of the agriculturist.
I now come to another portion of the question, viz., whether the impoverishment of the Indian population, its indebtedness, is or is not due to the system of land tax which is in force. The hon. Member for the Camborne Division stated that in his judgment by far the most important part of the question was the indebtedness to the ryots, and he quoted £230,000,000 as the nearest estimate he could make of the present amount of that indebtedness. That figure seemed to strike him with dismay. But, although it is the first time it has been brought to my notice, it appears to me to be a subject, not of dismay but rather of comfort, because £230,000,000 does not exceed one year's revenue, even on the basis which the hon. Member himself selected. I believe I am correct in saying that there is hardly any country in Europe which, as a State, does not owe considerably more than one year's revenue; and I believe that I shall be borne out by those hon. Members who have a profound knowledge of the agricultural districts of this country when I say that the larger portion of the agricultural population in this country, and certainly the landlords, owe considerably more than one year's revenue on an average.
MR. CAINE: But they do not live on a penny per day.
SIR EDGAR VINCENT: We are dealing with a big country, and we must comprehend these figures. It appears to me that these figures mean nothing unless they are taken into account and considered with regard to the vast extent of our territory in India. As to the argument that the
320
agricultural population in India require relief in time of famine, and the contention which has been urged that this weakness is due to the high assessment of the land tax, it appears to me to be totally disproved by facts in connection with the recent famine in the central provinces. It is in evidence, in the Report of the Famine Commission from which the hon. Gentleman has quoted briefly, that a very small proportion of those who sought relief belonged to the ryot or agricultural and farming class. Almost the entire number of workers in the relief camps consisted of the labouring class who are not directly affected by the amount of the land assessment, and it is further stated in that report that in no district, even of those most severely affected, does the number of ryots seeking relief exceed more than 10 per cent. of their total number within the district. Another circumstance which leads me to disconnect the question of assessment from the liability to famine, is the extreme disproportion between the small amount of the land tax and the amount of loss which is caused by one of these visitations in India. It is perfectly fair to argue from the statistics that no attenuation of the land tax could make a perceptible difference to the liability of the population to famine, or could affect, except in a very minor degree, their sufferings under those conditions.
Respecting the indebtedness of the ryots, various proposals have been made to remedy this state of affairs. I have already given reasons for thinking that undue importance has been attached to this, but I am so far in sympathy with what has fallen from one or two speakers, that I look forward with great interest to the experiments which are being made in the Punjab with regard to the agricultural banks, and also with respect to the experiments which have already been set on foot for restricting the power of alienation among the ryot class. I believe that great benefit may be derived from limiting, judiciously and prudently, the power of transfer and mortgage to individuals either of the same race or tribe as the original proprietor; or, at

321
any rate, of excluding from those transfers and mortgages men of the non-agricultural class. There can be no doubt that the creation of a small landowning class, not capable themselves of tilling the land, with no special knowledge of it, is not a desirable thing in India. This question of the value of land in India is so involved that it is almost impossible to do justice to it in the short time at my command, but I would venture to say that the history of the land revenue in India does conclusively show that the present Government are levying a distinctly smaller proportion of revenue from Zemindars than any previous Government. At the end of the last century the established proportion of ten-elevenths of the total net produce of India went to the Government, and there was only one-eleventh left. That proportion has been gradually altered during the course of the last century, and now the average proportion of the produce taken by the Government does not in any case exceed 50 per cent. and in some districts only 40 per cent. as compared with ten-elevenths which was taken a century ago.
There are several figures which will bear out this contention, and the most important of them is that the selling value of land in almost every district in India not recently affected by famine is steadily on the increase. I have been at some pains to take out figures relating to this question, and I find that the lowest selling value in any district of large area is 20 times the annual assessment of the land tax; this obtains in Bombay and some parts of Madras, but in other parts of India, particularly in Northern India, the ordinary selling value of land is between 50 and 70 times the annual assessment of the land tax. That appears to me to be a conclusive argument as to the moderation of the claim made by the Government upon the Zemindars, and similar conclusions maybe formed in respect of the ryots. The Secretary of State for India was absolutely correct when he said that diminutions of land revenue in these Eastern countries do not, as a rule, to a very large extent benefit the real agricultural class. The effect of them
322
is rather to establish an intermediate class between the Government and the cultivator, who do not treat the ryot with the same consideration as the Government treat him, and who do not assist the general system of land working in the country.
I pass now to the recommendations of the Famine Commission, and to that Report which the hon. Member for Camborne has made such frequent extracts from. In his recommendations the hon. Member has altogether omitted most of the advice given by Sir Antony MacDonnell. The main subject of that advice was, in the first place, that practical education should be given to the ryots to teach them to husband their resources, and to provide in good years something to set against bad years. The second important recommendation of the Famine Commission is one to which I hope the Secretary of State for India will direct very special attention, and it is that in the administration of the land revenue in India there should be greater elasticity, and more readiness to meet the requirements of the situation in years of want and famine. This brings me to a recommendation which I had the honour to submit to the House on a previous occasion and which appears to me to lie very deeply at the root of many of the difficulties which now beset the Indian Government. I believe that in the past—in some cases—the action of the Government in regard to land revenue has not been satisfactory, and I attribute this reluctance to suspend or remit taxation on the part of the Government to one inherent cause, and that is the financial condition of the Government itself. They are not altogether exempt from the financial weaknesses which characterises the system. Like many other people the Government are too much inclined in years of prosperity to spend up to the hilt and divide all their profit between increase of expenditure and diminution of revenue. I believe their action would have been very different in regard to land revenue, if they had been in a state of assured financial ease. It would then have been in their power to act without the fear, that by so doing they

323
would endanger the balance between revenue and expenditure. I believe that a new departure in Indian financial administration would conduce most powerfully to ease the situation between the Government and the cultivator. Hon. Members will ask me whether it is in the power of the Indian Government to create a reserve fund of sufficient volume and sufficient money to do this. I answer that question very positively in the affirmative, and I say that no moment can be more favourable than the present one for commencing the policy which I advocate.
We have heard from the Secretary of State for India that he anticipates a considerable surplus of revenue over expenditure, and he has stated that with the Government of India, he is considering in what proportion they will divide that surplus between reduction of taxation and increase of expenditure. I would venture to suggest to him a third way which I believe is better than either of the others which have been suggested, and it is that the Government should maintain their present state of taxation until the surpluses have accumulated into a sufficient and considerable reserve, and I would urge that a portion of this, at least, should be kept in gold, and another portion of it in non-Indian securities. I cannot repeat too often that the position of India is altogether different from a financial point of view to other European Governments. The Indian Government have infinitely greater fluctuations of revenue than obtain in Europe, and they have to meet demands for increased expenditure far more considerable than fall to the lot of most European Ministers. They have not the resources which Ministers in this country have used so freely, of increasing rapidly the taxation of the country. But further, I believe that every one who has knowledge of Indian administration will agree with me when I say that any large or sudden increase of taxation in India is impossible. That being so, I say that the wisdom of Indian administrators will be shown in the courage with which they depart from the ordinary financial laws, and with
324
which they strike out a new path by creating for India special financial resources, capable of meeting the emergencies which constantly arise. I hope the House will pardon me if I have spoken of the recent suggestions respecting the impoverishment of India with some warmth of feeling. There are two features in connection with this subject which have excited in me the liveliest feelings of indignation. The first is the attempt from which the hon. Member for Camborne dissociated himself—the attempt to asperse the high reputation of the civil servants of the Indian Government—a class of men to whom the Empire owes much, and who have given an example of probity and justice to the whole world. The second feature is the hypocrisy which sets forth tables and figures in pseudo-scientific forms under the mask of statistical accuracy—tables and figures which have no real value, and which no expert can examine for an hour without detecting their utter worthlessness. But they are so framed and so set forth that they may affect the judgment of the unwary. [An Hon. Member: There are no others.] There are the official figures of the Indian Government, which are positive figures. The other figures are mere conjecture, but they affect the judgment of certain people and by affecting it they damage the fame and the credit of the Governors of India and they create in the place of peace and order, a dangerous spirit of resentment, suspicion and unrest.
DR. SHIPMAN: I should like to express my sympathy with the lucid and graphic speech made by the hon. Member for Camborne, because I represent a constituency which had in this House one of the greatest authorities on Indian questions—Mr. Bradlaugh. I listened very patiently, without any expert knowledge, in order that I might receive some information on this great subject, and I received a great deal from the hon. Member for Camborne. I then listened very carefully to the speech of the noble Lord, and I must say the impression made on my mind was that the hon. Member for Camborne had drawn

325
rather a moderate picture of the distress in India. I admit that the noble Lord alluded in glowing language to the material prosperity of India, but that prosperity related to India as a whole. He could not point out that the great majority of the inhabitants of India were at all prosperous, and with a candour which we must all admire, he admitted everything the hon. Member for Camborne said with reference to the wide-spread poverty of the Indian people. You may give reasons why you fail, but there remains this one great fact that you have failed in your rule in India. [Cries of "No."] Hon. Members must remember that there is this fact which you cannot deny—the fact of the terrible poverty of millions of the people of India. Certain reasons have been given why that poverty exists. I for one believe to a great extent with the noble Lord who said that we were too hasty in trying to govern India according to Western ideas. I assume that he meant British ideas. That has been the curse of more lands than India. It has been the curse of Ireland that we should persist in ruling that country according to British ideas. May I suggest that it is not too late to clean your slate. The noble Lord alluded to a certain speech which was delivered at Chesterfield. What he said was to me an example of how a speech like that could be misunderstood unless it was read in the right spirit. The noble Lord read the speech in a Conservative spirit. We should seek the co-operation of the Indian people. We know that India is a sort of nursery for the intellect of this country. The noble Lord confessed with a certain amount of sorrow that the best intellect of this country had gone to India and had signally failed. If we find that our intellect is of so little use in India, let us try the hearts of the people of India themselves. My suggestion is that we should have fewer British going over to India and bringing back a great deal of the material wealth of the country, and that we should look to the Indians themselves for co-operation in the Government. I think if we did so we should be able in the course of time to speak more heartily of the blessedness of British rule in India.
MR. JOSEPH WALTON: I think the Government is to be congratulated on giving the House so early in the session an opportunity of considering what measures should be adopted to avert famine in India, and what can be done to promote the prosperity of the country. I may be allowed to pay my tribute to the hon. Member for Camborne on his most moderate statement from his point of view of the position in India, and to the noble Lord for the sympathetic and statesmanlike way in which he approached and considered the subject. The special object of tonight's debate is to consider the recommendations of the Famine Commission for the benefit of the agricultural population of India. It is with pleasure that I note in the official Report evidence of the utmost care which has been taken by those composing the Commission in considering and dealing with this most important subject. There is evidence that they have considered the matter in an impartial manner, and hon. Gentlemen fearlessly stated the conclusions at which they have arrived. With the majority of these conclusions, which we understand from the resolution moved by the noble Lord, His Majesty's Government are prepared to recommend and carry out, I am in cordial sympathy. The financial condition of India to-day is, as we have heard, exceedingly good. Notwithstanding the expenditure of £10,000,000 in the last three years in famine relief, there has been a surplus of many millions on the income over the expenditure.
What I would urge upon His Majesty's Government is that the main thing to be grappled with is the getting rid of the money-lender in India. What the Government ought to do is to clean the slate of the cultivators of the land in India of the incubus of the money-lending class, and to that end the most practical suggestion in the Famine Commission's Report is their recommendation for the establishment of agricultural banks, coupled with the creation of co-operative mutual credit associations in the different villages of India, so that instead of having to pay enormous rates of

327
interest for the money they require to the lender, the cultivators may be able to obtain money through the agricultural banks at reasonable rates of interest, which would alter altogether their position, and convert a state of privation and poverty into a state of comparative prosperity. Not only is it desirable to deal thus with the agricultural interest in India, but there are other ways in which the general prosperity of the country can be decidedly promoted. First amongst these comes the further extension of irrigation works, and now that we know that there will be a substantial surplus in India, I would urge upon the noble Lord, the Secretary of State, that a largely increased amount should be spent on irrigation works. The irrigation works already in existence earn an average dividend of seven per cent., and even on the ground of finance alone, it is most encouraging to the Government to proceed with this work, which, by supplying water to the arid areas of India, would enable hundreds of thousands to settle in India where they would not be subject to privations by reason of serious droughts. Some doubt was expressed as to the wisdom of railway construction. There is abundance of evidence in the Famine Commission's Report that the railways were of enormous benefit in dealing with t the recent famine in India. The existence now of railways, which in bygone years did not exist, was of great service to those who had to deal with the famine in India. I speak with personal knowledge of their devotion and self-sacrifice in dealing with it. I came through part of the famine area two years ago, and I have recently had an opportunity in the Bombay Presidency of talking over this matter with one who was for many years a most respected member of this House, and other officials in that Presidency, where unfortunately, the loss of life during the recent famine was enormous. I found that they felt most painfully their want of success in some
328
respects in dealing with the recent famine in the Bombay Presidency, and that they were only too ready to adopt the recommendations of this report or other suggestions which would enable them to be more successful in meeting the difficulty they may be confronted with, if there should be a renewal of famine in the district.
It being Midnight, the Debate stood adjourned.

OLD AGE PENSIONS BILL.
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—NEW PROCEDURE RULES.
On the motion for the adjournment of the House,
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The House will remember that a consultation took place at Question time as to the day when the discussion of the new rules should begin. I then stated, and I think I am not wrong in saying that it was the general sense of the House, that I thought it was unreasonable on the part of the Government to say that the debate should end on Friday, and that, if Thursday and Friday were not considered sufficient, the discussion would have to begin on Tuesday, though I was most reluctant to interfere with the rights of private Members. No arrangement was come to at the time, but I have since been given to understand both by the Leader of the Opposition and by the Leader of the Irish party that there is no disinclination to conclude the debate by 12 o'clock on Friday. I therefore feel that I should not be justified in interfering with private Members' business to-morrow, and the Resolutions on the Paper will therefore come on in the ordinary course.
Adjourned at Five minutes after Twelve o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL [H.L.],
  Presented and read 1a.
  CHARING CROSS, HAMMERSMITH, AND DISTRICT ELECTRIC RAILWAY (No. 2.) BILL [H.L.]
  Presented and read 1a.
  EDGWARE AND HAMPSTEAD RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  Presented, and read 1a.
  KINGS' ROAD RAILWAY (PUTNEY EXTENSION) BILL [H.L.]
  Presented, and read 1a.
  LIVERPOOL CATHEDRAL BILL [H.L.]
  Presented, and read 1a.
  MARGATE CORPORATION WATER BILL [H.L.]
  Presented, and read 1a.—
  BAKER STREET AND WATERLOO RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  Presented; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
  BRADFORD-ON-AVON GAS BILL [H.L.]
  Presented; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
  GREAT NORTHERN AND STRAND RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  Presented; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
  GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY (No. 2.) BILL [H.L.]
  Presented; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
  NATIONAL TELEPHONE COMPANY (KINGSTON-UPON-HULL) BILL [H.L.]
  Presented; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
  NATIONAL TELEPHONE COMPANY (MANCHESTER AREA) BILL [H.L.]
  Presented; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
  PLYMOUTH, DEVONPORT, AND SOUTH-WESTERN JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  Presented; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
  SOUTH EASTERN AND LONDON, CHATHAM, AND DOVER RAILWAYS BILL [H.L.]
  Presented; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
  SUTTON BRIDGE DOCK BILL [H.L.]
  Presented; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
  SWINDON UNITED GAS BILL [H.L.]
  Presented; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
  TAFF VALE RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  Presented; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
  WEARDALE AND SHILDON DISTRICT WATER BILL [H.L.]
  Presented; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
  WEST AND SOUTH LONDON JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  A petition of President, &c., of St. George's Hospital, praying for leave to present a petition, praying to be heard by counsel against the Bill, although the time limited by Standing Order No. 92, for presenting such petition, has expired; read, and ordered to lie on the Table; and Standing Order No. 92 to be considered to-morrow in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said petition.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ARMY.
  Return showing the numbers of troops and horses that have embarked for South Africa from 1st January, 1900 to 31st December, 1901.

  RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.
  Returns of accidents and casualties as reported to the Board of Trade by the several railway companies in the United Kingdom, during the nine months ending 30th September, 1901, in pursuance of

  159
  the Regulation of Railways Act (1871); together with reports of the inspecting officers, assistant inspecting officers, and sub-inspectors of the Railway Department to the Board of Trade upon certain accidents which were inquired into.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION (PROCEEDINGS.)
  Return for the month of November, 1901.
  MISCELLANEOUS, NO. 1. (1902).
  Reports from His Majesty's representatives in foreign countries respecting the methods of taking divisions in legislative assemblies, and the number and duration of the sittings.

  TRADE REPORTS.
  1. Miscellaneous Series, No. 572, Würtemberg (higher, middle, and lower schools).
  2. Annual Series, No. 2741, China (Ssumao and Mengtse).
  Presented [by Command], and ordered to lie on the Table.

  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1889.
  Abstract of accounts for the University of St. Andrews for the year ended 30th September, 1901, being the annual report on the state of the finances of the university under the provisions of section 30 of the Act: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.
NEW BILLS.
  PLUMBERS' REGISTRATION BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for the registration of plumbers—Was presented by the Lord Glenesk; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday next. (N° 8.)
  LIGHT LOAD LINE BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to supplement the law relating to load lines on merchant ships—Was presented by the Lord Muskerry; read 1a; and to be printed. [N° 9.]

  VACCINATION ACT, 1898, AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Vaccination Act, 1898—Was presented by the Lord New-
  160
  ton; read 1a; and to be printed. [N° 10.]

  Meat Supplies for the Troops in South Africa.
  Earl CARRINGTON: My Lords, I beg to ask the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for War what portion of the meat supplies for the British troops in South Africa has been procured from Argentina; on what authority was the statement made that Australia and New Zealand were unable to furnish adequate supplies of meat for this purpose; and whether the contracts from the Argentine cannot be cancelled in view of the protests of the Premiers of New South Wales and New Zealand.
  The UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord RAGLAN): My Lords, there has been no statement as to the insufficiency of Australia and New Zealand to meet the requirements of the troops in South Africa, and no contract has been made for the supply of meat from the Argentine. Perhaps it may be agreeable to the noble Earl if I give him the information I have been able to obtain as regards the history of these contracts. Hitherto the arrangements for the supply of meat to the army in South Africa have been made by the military authorities on the spot. They have included three consecutive contracts with the Cold Storage Company, the last of which will not expire until the 31st of March next. These contracts, as usual, have contained no stipulation as to the sources from which the meat should be drawn, but, of necessity, a very large portion of the supplies has consisted of frozen mutton from Australia and New Zealand. It is believed that, in the course of the two and a third years during which the contracts have been running, a certain amount of Argentine beef has also been supplied, but as the contracts have been worked entirely at the front it would be difficult to say in what proportion. In November last the Secretary of State decided, after consulting Lord Kitchener, that in view of the more settled state of affairs the time had come when an attempt should be made to secure a wider competition for

  161
  this important supply. Tenders were therefore invited by advertisement and otherwise, not only in South Africa, but also in this country and in the Colonies of Australia and New Zealand. No steps were taken as regards the Argentine. The tenders were made returnable in this country, in order, amongst other things, that the Colonies might have the opportunity of putting their offers through the various Agents-General, and that the Secretary of State might be in possession of all the circumstances before the new contract for the supply from the 1st of April next was entered into. In the interests of the Colonies, it was specially announced that offers by cable would be considered. Only three tenders were received, which provided for the distribution of the meat to the troops. This is an essential part of the contract, which is not for the supply of meat only, but for its distribution to the troops on the spot. The lowest of these was from a firm working in association with a syndicate having close and intimate connections with Australia and New Zealand. The Secretary of State, after satisfying himself fully as to the financial standing and general capability of the first named, accepted their tender.
  The original tenders, as usual, contained no stipulation as to the sources from which the meat should be drawn, the condition being merely that frozen meat and fresh meat should each be supplied at a price to the satisfaction of the military authorities. Before, however, the contract was finally signed, an undertaking was obtained in writing to the effect that, as far as possible, the supplies should be drawn from Australia and New Zealand in preference to the Argentine. Anything further than this would have unduly hampered the contractors in the execution of this most important contract, and, if inserted as a condition when tenders were invited, would probably have resulted in a very large increase in the prices quoted. It will be seen that there were no grounds for any protest from New South Wales and New Zealand; but that, on the contrary, everything has been done which reasonably could be done to encourage the
  162
  supply of meat from British Colonies. If the prices charged are reasonable, they should furnish the bulk of the requirements under the coming contract.
  EARL CARRINGTON: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for his statement, which will be received with great interest and satisfaction, not only in this country but in the Colonies. As he has been so good as to give me such full information, I would ask him if he can supplement that information by answering the following Questions. If it is not convenient to answer them now I will give notice, but I should be much obliged if he would let the House know what is the contract price per 1b. in the Government contract with the South African Supply and Cold Storage Company, which, as the noble Lord knows, made a million of profit on the transaction last year. I should also like very much to know what is the contract price with Messrs. Bergl & Co., the company taking the present contract. No doubt the noble Lord is aware that Mr. Bergl is the person who, on May 22nd, 1901, was fined £10 at the Liverpool Police Court for selling meat falsely described as coming from New Zealand, and that on that occasion the Magistrate observed:
  "The fact that the tin label 'Prime Canterbury' attached to the lamb was a misrepresentation and a false trade description."
  The noble Lord has told us that the contract made no stipulation as to the place of origin, and I understand him to say that the undertaking in writing by the contractors in this last contract that Colonial meat should, as far as possible, be imported, was made before the protest of the Prime Ministers of New Zealand and New South Wales was received.
  LORD RAGLAN: So I am informed.
  EARL CARRINGTON: I should be glad if the noble Lord could give me an assurance that this was put into the original contract, and not inserted after the protests that were cabled out from the Premiers of New South Wales and New Zealand. If he is not disposed to answer these Questions off-hand, I beg to give notice that at the next sitting of

  163
  your Lordship's House I shall put them on the Paper.
  LORD RAGLAN: I shall be glad to have notice of the Questions.

  BETTING.
  The evidence taken before the Select Committee from time to time to be printed, but no copies to be delivered except to members of the Committee until further order [No. 11.]

  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE. (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY): My Lords, this Order has been regularly moved as a Sessional Order, but I think your Lordships will agree that as it has to be renewed every session it had better be introduced into the Standing Orders.
  Moved, as a new Standing Order: All petitions deposited at the Office of the Secretary for Scotland, pursuant to General Orders in favour of or against a Draft Provisional Order shall, on transmission from the Office of the Secretary for Scotland, be received as if duly deposited in favour of or against the substituted Bill.—(The Earl of Morley.)
  Agreed to: The said Order to be added to the Roll of Standing Orders; to be numbered 189a; and to be printed. [No. 12.]

  CREMATION BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to order); Amendments made; Bill recommitted to the Standing Committee; and to be printed as amended. [No. 13.]
  House adjourned at five minutes before Five o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.