Sitting of 4 March 1902

Preamble
The House met at Three of the clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  KINGSCOURT, KEADY, AND ARMAGH RAILWAY BILL (By ORDER).
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. LONSDALEasked the indulgence of the House while he gave his reasons for now supporting the Motion for the Second Reading of this Bill, seeing that in the past he had actively and constantly opposed it. Under the circumstances existing at the time, he believed he was right in the action he, took, and, indeed, he did not in any way regret it, because he had a well-founded belief that he had another and better scheme which his constituents almost unanimously approved. But the facts which justified that opposition no longer existed, and he could not continue to press it; on the contrary, the new facts rendered it imperative that he should support the measure before the House. The Kingscourt, Keady, and Armagh Railway scheme was first introduced to the House of Commons in 1899, and then it was rejected by a Committee on the ground that the line was only required from Armagh to Keady—a distance of eight or nine miles. The promoters had previously had an understanding with the Midland Company of Ireland, under which that Company agreed to subscribe capital to the extent of £50,000, and to work the proposed line for 50 per cent. of the gross receipts. From the inception of the scheme the promoters clearly rel ed on the co-operation of the Midland Company. Primarily the Kingscourt scheme was approved by the whole of the people of the Armagh district, mainly because it offered for the first time the advantage of much needed railway communication, and they preferred it to the Northern Company's scheme because it was a longer line and introduced competition. In 1900 the Midland Company renewed their agreement with the directors of the Kingscourt Company, and at that time he had reason to have implicit confidence in them. He therefore consented to help in the promotion of the Bill, which passed successfully through Committee.
  But, after it had become law, the Midland Company declined to be bound by the arrangement which they had specifically made with the promoters, and, instead, they put forward fresh proposals, one of which was that they should receive 55 per cent. of the gross receipts for working the line. That, of course, would have been absolutely fatal to the
  320
  financial success of the scheme. In thus repudiating an honourable understanding, he held that the Midland Company were guilty of a breach of faith. He did not think so at the time, for he felt that the promoters might have been too hasty in arriving at a conclusion, and. that there might have been some misunderstanding. He also thought it was so obviously to the interest of the Midland Company to carry out this scheme that they could not be otherwise than anxious to take advantage of the opportunity. While his colleagues who formed the majority of the Kings-court directors despaired of coming to any arrangement with the Midland Company, and opened up negotiations with the Great Northern Company, he felt that no effort should be spared to work with the Midland Company, and he consequently opened up fresh negotiations with them, arriving at such a satisfactory arrangement that he was justified in opposing the Bill of last session. In February last year, before the Second Reading of the Bill, he had an interview with the Midland Board in Dublin, being accompanied thereat by representatives of all the public bodies in Co. Armagh, as well as the County Council of Meath—who were all "acting in full harmony with him." Terms were submitted one by one and discussed at length. Instead of contributing £50,000, the Midland Company agreed to subscribe £100,000, and they also undertook to work the line for 50 instead of 55 per cent. of the gross receipts. They further—as security for carrying out the arrangement—agreed to deposit 510,000 by way of penalty in the joint names of the Chairmen of the. Midland and the Kingscourt Companies. These terms were published in the Press the next day, and were never contradicted, and he wished especially to emphasise the fact that the penalty clause was absolutely unconditional. Having obtained those satisfactory promises, he felt justified in opposing last year's Bill to, the utmost of his power, and in the end the measure was thrown out.
  Subsequent events convinced him of the, utter hopelessness of obtaining the co-operation of the Midland Company, and of the fact that it was only by means of the arrangement contained in the present Bill that this much needed railway

  321
  would be constructed. The history of those subsequent events consisted of the starting of a series of new objections on the part of the Midland Company—objections never raised or even hinted at until after last year's Bill was rejected by Parliament. Immediately one point was conceded, another was put forward, it being clear that the object of the Midland Company was to entirely destroy the Kingscourt scheme. They denied, for instance, that the penalty clause was unconditional and binding; they said the £10,000 was only to be deposited as part of the capital, and was to be repaid in the event of the scheme falling through. They asserted further that the deposit was dependent on the assent of their shareholders being first obtained, and they made no effort to obtain that assent, although they had plenty of time. That was the first serious breach of agreement on the part of the Midland Company. Again they raised the point that the contract entered into by the Kingscourt directors for the construction of the line should be broken, although it had been already signed and sealed, and notwithstanding that the Kingscourt Company succeeded in obtaining the necessary concession from their contractor that any or every item of the contract should, in case of dispute, be left to arbitration, the Midland Company were not satisfied and refused to leave the matter to arbitration.
  One condition put forward at the last moment was that the proposed line should be constructed as a double line. He submitted that that was unnecessary and was most unfair, and that it would involve a further expense of £50,000, and that such an increased expenditure on such a small line would be fatal to the success of the railway. Obstacle after obstacle had been placed in the way of the agreement; the Midland Company finally declined to make any agreement, alleging that the Kingscourt Company were taking powers to deal with another Company. Since the rejection of this Bill last year, his co-directors in the Kingscourt Railway Company had worked loyally with him for the purpose of perfecting the agreement which he had come to with the Midland Company, and it was only after every
  322
  effort had been made that they relinquished all hope. He believed this line was urgently required in the neighbourhood and in the district that the railway was proposed to run. It would open up a populous district, where manufacturers, farmers, traders, and others would be for the first time brought into railway communication, and their prosperity thereby increased the advantage would, no doubt, have been greater had the element of competition been preserved, but he had shown the House that it was utterly hopeless that it would ever be secured. He was now convinced that the Midland Railway had never any serious intention of competing; the necessity for the railway was beyond all question. In every way the need of a railway had been expressed, and it was hoped by everybody that the Bill would become law. He hoped that the Bill would receive a Second Reading and that it might be sent to a Committee.
  MR. CARVILLsaid the hon. Member who had just sat down had completely avoided the real question before the House. The question was whether the House would allow a set of promoters to commit a breach of faith. The measure now under consideration was shown to be a gross breach of faith towards a Select Committee of this House, and also a breach of faith with the public, who looked to this House again for the protection extended to them last year. The facts, shortly, were that in 1900 an Act of Parliament was obtained, the leading and overmastering feature of which promised to the people of Meath, Cavan, Fermanagh, Monaghan, Tyrone, and adjacent counties a new railway system which would afford much desired through communication between the south and the north and northwest districts, such through route being an inland and shorter one, and affording long-desired facilities to important agricultural and industrial districts hitherto not developed by such railway accommodation. The existing limited facilities were by the coast line of the Great Northern system through the seaports of Dundalk and Drogheda, and the rates charged on passengers and cattle, which represented the bulk of the trade, were high in the extreme. It was for a. promised reform in these matters that he

  323
  and others were induced to give evidence in support of the Bill, and some twenty-six highly representative witnesses were examined, whose evidence satisfied the Committee, presided over by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Knutsford Division of Cheshire, that an alternative and competitive through route, such as was then proposed, was necessary in the public interest. Among the witnesses examined were Lord Greville on behalf of Meath, Lord Dartrey representing Co. Monaghan, and the agent of the Marquess of Conyngham (Lord Essex), Lord Sheffield, and Sir John Dillon of Lismullen. A table of distances was used by the promoters, and, no doubt, had great weight with the Committee, showing the widespread benefits to be gained by means of the proposed through line. Although the line to be made was only thirty-five miles in length, it was shown that it would bring twenty-three important towns and districts enumerated in this table much nearer to each other, and that the average saving in distance to be effected in respect of these places would be twenty-and-a-half miles. This table was headed by a reference to the saving between kings-court and Castleblaney, which was put down at fifty-eight miles; that was to say, seventeen miles as against seventy-five miles, and between Kingscourt and Armagh the saving was shown to be fifty-seven miles, a reduction from ninety-two to thirty-five.
  Now, the Bill before the House was in principle the very reverse of that which was promised to the public, and which secured the approval of Mr. Egerton's Committee, and it therefore falsified this table and set it at naught in twenty cases out of the twenty-three enumerated, and the present Bill not only denied the promised benefits, but, if tolerated, would indefinitely block the through communication desired by the communities in question. The Bill of 1900 was opposed by the Great Northern Railway Company, who at that time submitted a Bill of their own to the same Committee. Their line was a lengthy zig-zag affair, and was intended to block the district, and it, like the present Bill, proposed) that the all-necessary link between Castleblaney and Kingscourt should be dropped.
  324
  It was nothing less than audacious on the part of the Great Northern Railway Company, controlling now the paper company of the speculative contractor, to put themselves forward as proper parties to be entrusted with the development of any of this district. The Great Northern Railway Company, through its General Manager, Mr. Hews, told a Committee in 1899 in reference to the through communication scheme that—
  "We think it a very objectionable thing for a line to he interposed like this into a district, and we think it is only calculated do mischief."
  He added—
  "It would, like the Belfast Central Railway, keep the Great Northern in hot water."
  Mr. Walkington, a trustee of Darkey Works, produced as a witness by the Great Northern Company, said—
  "Mr. Plews held out a threat that if the Keady people did not support him, and if the Kingscourt, Keady, and Armagh Bill passed, they would have to buy the line, and if they did, they would never make the part to Keady."
  Following this out with a view of showing the real intentions of the Great Northern Railway respecting this district, Mr. Flews estimated the local traffic between Armagh and Keady from all sources at £2,590 gross per annum, and that between Keady and Castleblaney at £2,210—in all £4,800. He was not concerned in exposing the absurdity of the financial proposals in this Bill; he rested his case on a breach of faith towards a Committee of this House, and on the Vote of the House last year. But where would interest be earned for the required capital of £450,000? The Great (Northern were to work the line at 50 per cent., of the gross traffic, which would leave the paltry sum of £2,400 to provide interest on £450,000 capital and debentures. Mr. Hews estimated the actual cost of working this local line would leave his Company at an annual loss of £600 per annum; that was to say, on the Great Northern subscription of £50,000 they would receive no dividend, while they admitted that a loss would be involved in the working agreement entered into of £600 per annum. From these figures and the past conduct of the Great Northern Railway Company towards this district, he submitted that the present proceedings were a sham, having no other object than to secure territory and to prevent its development by any rival

  325
  Company. It might be said that what he was stating was ancient history, but he would now read something quite fresh. At the meeting of the shareholders of the Great Northern Railway on 13th February Mr. Garstin, a Director of the Line, of Louth, and a large shareholder, said—"
  "He had considerable doubt as to the expediency of the line from Castleblaney to Armagh. It was necessary only for the protection of the Great Northern line. The £50,000 to be contributed would certainly water their stock, but the terms of the agreement were favourable. He doubted if the line would ever be made, and they need not be disturbed if the Bill came to grief. The expediency of securing themselves was the reason for the Bill."
  The Chairman, in replying, said—
  "with regard to Mr. Gaistin's observation, his mind would not be very uneasy as to the Armagh and Keady line. Mr. Garstin considered that if the line were not made it would not hurt them, and if it were made they would not get much out of it, but on the whole they would protect the interests of their Company."
  That was the latest information on the subject. He submitted that Parliament, in refusing a Second Reading of the Bill last year, declared that it would not countenance a manifest juggle, and in following a similar course now it would be only respecting itself, while at the same time it would be protecting the public from the altogether unnecesssary costs of another Parliamentary inquiry. In his opinion the case was, last year, fairly and fully submitted, since when there was not a single factor changed and the broad point that Parliament last year, with all the necessary facts before it, acting with the advice and guidance of the Chairman and the three other Members of the Committee of 1900, decided, was that not only had a breach, of faith been committed, but also that an existing Railway Company distinctly interested in blocking a district, rather than honestly carrying out the complete scheme approved of by Mr Egerton's Committee, could not be a safe party to entrust with the execution of either all or any of the authorised public works in question. He thought it important to remember that when the Act in question was obtained, an Act which it was now sought to artfully transform, the Select Committee stipulated, and the promoters agreed, that for a term of ten years from the opening 'of the line there should be no sale, and the
  326
  Chairman, the hon. Member representing the Knutsford Division of Cheshire, added—
  "I think it is the opinion of the Committee that the Great Northern are not to have a linger in the Kingscourt if possible."
  Notwithstanding that condition, the promoters of the line were found to have been negotiating with the Great Northern Railway Company four days after the passing of the Bill.
  He was rather curious to see what hon. Member, this year, would stand up for the Great Northern Railway Company, and what case he would try to make. In anticipation he could think of nothing except that it might be suggested that if the Bill were thrown out the people of Keady would lose a present chance of getting a railway. He had shown what that chance was worth, but if any hon. Member said that the railway to Keady might be made, his answer was that the interests of Keady were not to he allowed to prejudice and damnify the future prospects of the whole country lying between the unimportant point of Keady and the innumerable other districts that had proved their case for through communication with Dublin. It might be said for Keady that half a loaf was better than no bread, but he said there was no half loaf in question, not even a crumb. But if Keady could get, say, a slice, why should the other ninety-nine slices of this imaginary loaf he turned into stone as against the infinitely more important places that were demanding that justice to all should be done, and that the House should not be influenced by the consideration of Keady alone and bring bitter disappointment and serious permanent loss to innumerable districts elsewhere. There might also come up, as there did last year, an argument on behalf of the monopolists of Belfast. The only backers, in fact, that the Great Northern had in Ireland were in Belfast or in outposts set up front Be fast, like Dunrick and Drogheda, which were on the Great Northern coast line, and which were naturally opposed to an inland route. He should like to tell the Belfast representatives that in their own community there was great difference of opinion as to the tactics of the Great Northern Railway Company, for last year, when this House declined to

  327
  be led by the advocates of railway monopoly, two of the leading Belfast newspapers in most outspoken language hailed with approval the decision of this House when it declined to help the Great Northern to defeat the completion of a through route between Armagh and Dublin. He hoped hon. Members, especially on the Conservative side, who opposed the Second Reading of the Bill last year would not be induced to imitate others in the policy of slate cleaning. He hoped, rather, for their own credit and in the interests of justice they would adhere to the clear principle for which they voted last year, and that every lion. Member would stick to his gun, giving as his final answer on the question, "What I have said, I have said." He begged to move "That the Bill be read a second time this day six months."
  MR. M'GOVERNsaid he desired to second the proposal of his hon. friend for two reasons. The first was that the Bill, if passed, would give a monopoly in the north of Ireland to the Great Northern Railway, and the second was that a large district in South Monaghan and East Cavan would not be able to secure railway accommodation at all. He would respectfully appeal to hon. Members not to reverse the vote of last year. The Bill was rejected last year by a very large majority, and there was no reason whatever why the House should now pass it. He asked hon. Members to enter a protest against the Great Northern Company coming to the House year after year and putting poor people to the expense of opposing their projects. Hon. Members representing English and Scottish constituencies had no idea of what the Irish railways were. In England and Scotland there was competition; in Ireland there was no competition. If hon. Members passed the Bill, they would be doing an injustice and an injury of which they had no notion. The hon. Member for Mid Armagh had put forward no argument in favour of the measure. Last year the hon. Member was very eloquent against the Bill; he was now equally eloquent in its favour; but he had forgotten to mention that outside his own constituency not a single public body in any of the districts affected had passed a Resolution in favour of it. He trusted, therefore, the House would again reject
  328
  the Bill, and put an end once for all to the attempt to monopolise railway traffic in the north of Ireland.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the, end of the Question to add the words upon this day six months.'"—(Mr. Carvill)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  (4.5.) COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid that he also executed a peculiar manceuvre in connection with last year's Bill. He signed a Whip in opposition to the Bill, and then spoke and voted in its favour. When he signed that Whip he confessed he had not carefully gone into the history of the question. When he went into it, however, he formed the decided opinion that if the Great Northern did not make the railway from Castleblaney to Armagh, no railway would ever be made at all. When he found that the Midland Railway had absolutely refused to carry out its promises, he saw very clearly that the object of that Company was that no railway should be made at all. The district concerned was at one time populated by a manufacturing population; it wanted a railway, and when he found that the Midland Company would not make it, he changed his tactics and voted for the Bill. The hon. Member for Newry ought not to have devoted himself to slating the Great Northern Company; he ought also to have shown to the House that if the Bill were thrown out the Midland Company would carry out its pledges. But he did not attempt to persuade the House that the Midland Company had any intention whatever of making the railway. The House had now to decide whether the railway was to be made or whether it was not. It mattered little which Company made the railway, but he was perfectly certain, as the inhabitants of Armagh were perfectly certain, that unless the Great Northern Company made the railway it would not be made at all. That was the reason lie supported the Bill last year and the reason why he supported the present Bill. His hon. friend last year believed entirely in the bona fides of the Midland Company. He did not know when the Bill was discussed last year that his hon. friend had previously had an interview with the chairman and directors of the

  329
  Midland Railway Company, at which they had promised great things. His hon. friend fell a victim to the glamour of the chairman. His hon. friend was perfectly persuaded that the Midland Company had a bona fide intention of building the railway. In the short speech he made last year he warned his hon. friend to beware of the bona fides of the Midland Company. The result proved that he was correct, and his hon. friend now acknowledged that he was wrong. His hon. friend having defeated the Great Northern Bill, had a further interview with the directors of the Midland Railway Company. What was the result? They at once picked holes in the agreement, and laid down propositions which they could not possibly fulfil. His hon. friend had, however, been converted, and new supported the Bill, as he supported it, because he believed that a railway through the district would be of immense value to a large population, and that it would not be built unless the Bill were given a Second Reading and sent to a Committee.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,)said that on behalf of the Government he did not propose to take sides as between either of the two combatants. He only wished to support the appeal of his right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade, and also of his right hon. friend the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant last year, that the Bill should be allowed to go to a Committee. It was admitted on all hands that the district required railway accommodation. The valley was once prosperous: but that prosperity could only be brought back by means of railway communication. Four Bills had been introduced since 1899, but, for one reason or another, the result was that railway accommodation had not yet been provided. He thought if the appeal of his two right hon. friends last year to give the Bill a Second Reading had been listened to, all the circumstances could have been investigated. Hon. Members were not in a position to express a definite opinion on the wisdom of the scheme. The House was not the proper place to enter into the details, and he therefore
  330
  asked the House to pass the Second Reading and send the Bill to a Committee.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that the history of this Bill was the history of the discredit of Irish railways throughout the country. It possessed all the wealth, all the-loyalty, and all the dishonesty of the Kingdom. The two great trunk lines, one on the East Coast, and the other in the centre of Ireland, lying ten miles apart, agreed, on the principle of European Powers, to have "spheres of influence"—those were the actual words of the agreement—and that in the belt of land which intervened between their lines neither should construct a line, with the result that all the factories in. this district, which at one time were prosperous, had to pay 5s. or 6s. a ton more for their coal than if they had had a line through their district. Coal was as necessary for their existence as the atmosphere for the existence of human beings. At last another Company, independent of these two potential powers, oscillating between the two, tried to get one to out-diddle the other. Either great Company was willing to cut the throat of the other and sacrifice the interest of the country, neither cared what happened in the intervening belt, and for years and years each of them did a series of competitive swearings which would do credit to the highest efforts of an alibi witness at the Old Bailey. All the time these poor people were gasping their lives out for want of railway communication. He agreed with what had been said by the hon. Members for Govan and Newry about preferring the glittering shadow to the actual substance. If the Midland Railway would take up the Bill he would give them his blessing, and if the Bill were read a second time he would suggest that the Committee should give the Midland Company an opportunity to fulfil their obligations; but when a Gentleman like the lion. Member for Mid Armagh got up, with all the experience of the Midland that lie had, and, took the action that he had, it proved the hope lessness of expecting that Company to come forward to guarantee the loan, without which the line could not be built. This Company had put forward

  331
  the same statements this year as humbugged the hon. Member for Mid Armagh last year. If they were willing to find the capital, why did they not call a meeting of their shareholders and get the necessary warranty? Then, if they came before the Committee, they would be bound to find the £100,000 required. The Second Reading of the Bill would not preclude the making of the new road at the hands of the Great Northern Company, but it would give the Midland Company, if it was honest, which he did not believe, the opportunity of finding the £100,000. The interests of Keady and the interests of the district generally should not be sacrificed to the brilliant shadow of the through route, and he hoped the Bill would be read a second time. The Government should also consider the whole question of the railway policy in Ireland.
  MR. WILLIAM MOOREsaid it was perfectly true that large and important interests were involved in this matter. But the action of the Government last year in giving the control of a certain section of this new route to the Great Northern Railway had effectually prevented a through route being made in this district. He supported the Second Reading.
  MR. FIELDexpressed the opinion that local interests ought not to be allowed to over-ride the general interests of the country. The hon. Member for Mid Armagh was between the devil and the deep sea. As a director of the Company he last year opposed this Bill, but his constituents wanted it, and he could not help himself; he was bound to support it. But those who had regard to the whole commerce of the country could not allow a small line like this to be built, and thereby prevent a large through route being opened in the future. Keady and Armagh had obtained a Bill authorising them to build this line; they were supposed to be an independent Company, and they were the persons supposed to build it. Instead of doing so, directly they obtained Parliamentary powers they went and tried to sell this thing, first to the Midland and then to the Great Northern Railway. These gentlemen had, in his opinion, come to the House and obtained
  332
  these powers on fraudulent pretences. When they got powers to build the railway they had no intention of carrying out the work. They went about offering to sell to the other companies in order to get the best terms they could. He submitted that no body of gentlemen had a right to come before a Committee of this House stating that they were going to build a railway when they had no intention of doing so. He was not prepared to take the Attorney General for Ireland as his authority in regard to railway matters. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be peculiarly ignorant of the ways of railway companies in Ireland. They were superior to the right hon. Gentleman. The House was asked to pass this Bill and lay down a principle which was entirely subversive of the interests of commerce in Ireland. He respected the action of the hon. Member for Mid Armagh, who brought forward the Bill. He saw the difficulty the hon. Member was in, but he trusted the House would carry out the behests of the Committee upstairs.
  MR. McVEIGHsaid that the promoters of the Bill did not come to the House with clean hands. When the Kingscourt line was authorised the Company agreed that they would not allow the railway to be sold when built. They gave repeated assurances that they were able to find the capital, and to carry out the undertaking, but after obtaining the Bill under false pretences, they went cadging from one Company to another to supply them with the funds. The Attorney General for Ireland had asked the House to allow the Bill to go to a Second Reading. That was a very proper attitude for a lawyer. There had been Committees on this Bill until he thought the House was sick of them. He thought lawyers had got more out of the Kingscourt and Armagh Railway than would have built two railways. He was not surprised that the Attorney General should be anxious to secure for his brother lawyers a continuance of the golden harvest they had had. They were not all lawyers. The principle had been laid down by this House that the Great Northern Company of Ireland should not be allowed a monopoly over this district. If the House passed the Second Reading of the Bill, they would not only stultify

  333
  themselves, but also inflict serious injury on the entire district proposed to be served by the railway.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): I have done my best to consider the statement circulated by the parties for and against the measure, and there are two things that I have learned. The first is that hon. Members of this House, who ought to understand the matter, have changed their opinion of it since last year and secondly, it is perfectly clear that the subject ought to be referred to a Select Committee. My only object in rising is to ask whether we have not sufficiently discussed the matter, and whether we may not now take the division.
  MR. KENNEDYrose to address the House, and
  MR. CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, because he was of opinion that the House was prepared shortly to come to a decision without that Motion.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. KENNEDYsaid he desired to intervene in this debate for the purpose only of presenting to the House the County Meath side of the question now before it. The County Council of Meath, of which he was Chairman, had passed a resolution asking this House not to consent to the proposed abandonment of the line of railway between Kingscourt and Armagh, and their reason for passing that resolution was that they believed if the Great Northern Company got the powers which they sought under this Bill they would be bound in their own interests to prevent the lower half of the Kingscourt and Armagh Railway being made, so as to avoid a connection with the Midland Line from Kingscourt to Navan. Now, the people of Meath looked upon this connection as necessary to the future commercial and industrial prosperity of their county. They had in County Meath but one industrial centre, namely, at Navan; here they had a large corn milling trade and one
  334
  of the too few woollen factories in Ireland. It was therefore of great importance that they should have a direct railway connection, extending beyond their own borders and especially with the inland northern counties. Now this; was just what they had not got, though they had a more than usual supply of railway lines at Navan; indeed, that town was known locally as the Crewe of County Meath, but if hon. Members turned to the map which had been issued by his hon. friend the Member for Newry they would see that of five lines leading from Navan no less than three terminated within County Meath, or at its borders, and failed to connect with the industrial centres of the adjoining counties; one of these lines terminated at Athloy on the borders of West Meath, one at Oldcastle on the borders of Cavan, and one, that with, which they were concerned, at Kingscourt, also on the borders of the North. Therefore, while they were most anxious to preserve the policy of the open door in their commercial relations with the North of Ireland, they found themselves brought by two lines of railway in sight of the land of promise, and then they were left in the wilderness. He asked the House was this the way to encourage the only struggling industries in County Meath which were endeavouring to hold their own against tremendous odds at the town of Navan? He would appeal to the House to pause before giving a decision which would for ever close to Navan industries the open door of the North. No doubt there was much in the argument that they had not availed themselves of their opportunity in past years to give effect to the Act of 1900, but the Midland Railway now promised to subscribe £50,000 to the construction of the railway so authorised, and to work it for 50 per cent. of the receipts: in this fact they saw a prospect of that line being constructed, but they might ask why had they not done so before now? He held no brief for the Midland Company; he was disposed to say, "A plague on all their railway companies," because between them they were strangling the struggling industries of the country: but he understood that the Midland Company felt themselves hitherto prevented by some private

  335
  agreement made between themselves and the Great Northern Company, by which they bound themselves not to encroach on what they impudently call their respective territories for a certain number of years. That agreement would, he understood, expire this year or next, and then the Midland Company would be free to construct this line. While he felt the House would properly condemn this principle of companies taking upon themselves any right to restrict the development of railway enterprise, he asked hon. Members whether they would not be putting a premium on such undertaking
  by allowing the Great Northern Company to avail themselves of this contraband agreement with the Midland Company to preserve their monopoly in the North of Ireland, and he would therefore ask the House to withhold their consent to the Bill now before the House to enable them to evade the pernicious effects of the agreement referred to.
  (4.46.) Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 263; Noes, 76. (Division List No. 56.)

  AYES

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex.F.

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Hain, Edward

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hamilton, RtHn LordG (Midd'x

  Allhusen, Augustus HenryEden

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  HamiIton, Marg. of (L'nd'nderry

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Arnold-Foster, Hugh O.

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Arrol, Sir William

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Harwood, George

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitzroy

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Denny, Colonel

  Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.)

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Helder, Augustus

  Balcarres, Lord

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Henderson, Alexander

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Balfour, Rt HnGeraldW. (Leeds

  Doughty, George

  Hobhouse. Henry (Somerset,E.

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Holland, William Henry

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Dunn, Sir William

  Howard, John(Kent, Faversh'm

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. SirWilliam Hart

  Howard, J. (Midd.,Tottenham

  Beach, Rt. Hn.SirMichaelHicks

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Hozier, Hon.James HenryCecil

  Bell, Richard

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Bignold, Arthur

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants,W.)

  Jackson, Rt. Hon.Wm. Lawies

  Bill, Charles

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Blake, Edward

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Fenwick, Charles

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. SirJ. (Manc'r

  Joicey, Sir James

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Jones,David Brynmor(Swansea

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Bowles, T. Gibson(King's Lynn

  Fisher, William Hayes

  KennawayRt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Brassey, Albert

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Kinloch, Sir JolinGeorge Smyth

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Fitzroy,Hon Edward Algernon

  Knowles, Lees

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Labouchere, Henry

  Brown, Alexander H.(Shropsh.

  Flower, Ernest

  Lambert, George

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Bull, William James

  Foster, Philips. (Warwick, S. W

  Lawson, John Grant

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Lecky,Rt. Hn. William Edw. H.

  Caldwell, James

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Campbell,Rt.Hn.J.A.(Glasgow

  Garfit, William

  Leese,SirJosephF. (Accrington)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary(St. Albans)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Gilhooly, James

  Lewis, John Herbert

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

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

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Cavendish, V. C.W. (Derbyshire

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop

  Long, Col. CharlesW (Evesham)

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. (Birm.)

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

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.

  Chamberlain, J. Austen(Wrc'r)

  Gorst, Rt. Hon.Sir John Eldon

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Chapman, Edward

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Lowther, Rt. Hon. James(Kent)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Macartney, Rt. HnW. G. Ellison

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Stanley,Hon. Arthur(Ormskirk

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Pilkington, Lieut. Col. Richard

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  M'Crae, George

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M Taggart

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  M'Iver,SirLewis(Edinb'rgh,W

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  M'Killop,James (Stirlingshire)

  Purvis, Robert

  Sullivan, Donal

  M?Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Randles, John S.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Rankin, Sir James

  Talbot, Rt.Hn. J. G. (Oxf'dUniv.

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Thomas Alfred(Glamorgan,E.)

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Maxwell,Rt HonSirH E(Wigt'n

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie(Dumfries)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (D'mfriesshire

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Vincent,Col. Sir C.E.H(S'effield

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Renwick, George

  Walrond Rt.Hn. Sir WilliamH.

  Mooney, John J.

  Ridley,Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Walton, John Lawson(Leeds,S.)

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Ritchie, Rt Hon. Chas. Thomson

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire)

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Welby,Lt.-Col. A. C. E(Tannton

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Round, James

  Welby, Sir CharlesG. E. (Notts.)

  Morton,Arthur H. A.(Deptford)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Whiteley, George(York, W. R.)

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Rutherford, John

  Whiteley,H. (Ashton und.Lyne

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Murray, Rt. Hn A. Graham(Bute

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Williams,RtHnJ Powell-(Birm.

  Myers, William Henry

  Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Schwalm. Charles E.

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

  Norman, Henry

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Seely, Maj J. E. B. (Isle of Wight

  Wilson,J. H. (Worcestersh.,N.)

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

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

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

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  O'Dowd, John

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford,East)

  Wylie, Alexander

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Smith, H. C(N'rth 'mb. Tyneside

  Young, Samuel

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Smith,James Parker(Lanarks.)

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Spear, John Ward

  Sir James Haslett and Mr. John Gordon.

  Parker, Gilbert

  Spencer, Rt. HnC.R. (Northants

  NOES

  Abraham,William (Cork, N.E.)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Abraham. William (Rhondda)

  Hayter,Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Reddy, M.

  Allen, Charles P. (Glouc.,Stroud

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Hope, John Deans (Fife,West)

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Black, Alexander William

  Joyce, Michael

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Boland, John

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Burns, John

  Langley, Batty

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Cameron, Robert

  Levy, Maurice

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Lundon, W.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  McVeigh, Jeremiah

  Tennant, Harold John

  Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow)

  M?Govern, T.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen,E.)

  Crean, Eugene

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Thomas, F. Freeman- (Hastings)

  Crombie, John William

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Wallace, Robert

  Cullinan, J.

  Murnaghan, George

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Delany, William

  Murphy, John

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Nolan, Col.JohnP.(Galway,N.)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

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

  Wilson,Fred.W.(Norfolk,Mid.

  Evans,SirFrancisH.(Maidstone

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

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

  Ffrench, Peter

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Field, William

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  O'Mara, James

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Pickard, Benjamin

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Mr. Carvill and Mr. Carew.

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Price, Robert John

  First four Resolutions agreed to

  RATHMINES AND RATHGAR URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  The following Notice stood on the Paper:—"That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they shall arrange to have the urban district of Rathmines and Rathgar divided into four wards."—(Mr. Field.)
  MR. SPEAKER: The Instruction of the hon. Member is not in order, being irrelevant to the Bill.
  MR. MOONEYsaid he did not wish to stand between the House and the next business on the Paper, which he knew was most important, but he hoped the House would bear with him for a few minutes on a matter of great local concern to his constituents. Judging by the past history of the Rathmines and Rathgar Urban District Council, it seemed to be a wholly necessary and desirable precaution that this instruction should be passed by the House of Commons. This was a Bill which sought to confer various powers upon the Rathmines and Rathgar Urban District Council, and not the least important portion of the Bill was the portion dealing with finance. Under Clause 38 of the proposed Bill, the Council sought powers to borrow, in excess of their present powers, sums of money amounting in the aggregate to £114,000. At the present time the Council had borrowed up to the limit of its borrowing powers a sum of money amounting to £453,403. The valuation of the township was £152,637. The amount of debts due by this Council as officially given was £338,439. At the end of March, 1899, the total amount of loans outstanding in connection with money borrowed for local purposes in London averaged £1 7s. 7d. in the £ on the valuation. In Rathmines it averaged £2 10s. in the £; that was 84 per cent. more than in London, one of the greatest and wealthiest cities in the world. In other districts in England, the debts of the local authorities averaged £1 13s. 4d. in the £Rathmines and Rathgar exceeded that average by over 50 per cent. If the position were to be examined by the test of population, the debts incurred for local purposes in London averaged £11 Os. 3d., and outside London £8 7s. 6d. per head. The ratepayers in Rathmines were committed to an average
  340
  debt of £11 16s. 5d. per head of the population. That was, each individual owed 10s. 2d. more than the Londoner, and £3 8s. 11d. more than each member of the English population excluding the Metropolis.
  Now he came to the causes from which had arisen this deplorable financial condition. This Council had, in the past, made blunder after blunder. Their estimates were unreliable, and their financial policy had been unsound. They had robbed Peter to pay Paul, and if they continued in the future as they had acted in the past, they would eventually place themselves in a financial position which would, to say the least of it, be unenviable. And while this Council was, in this extraordinary financial position, they proceeded to launch upon the most extravagant expenditure. They had built a Town Hall, the cost of which no one had been able to discover. Had two, alone of their former estimates—those for electric lighting and for water—been carried out according to the estimates furnished and recommended for adoption by the ratepayers, the Council would have saved the township £5,300 a year,. or 8d. in the £ on the valuation. But, what happened? The electric lighting, though estimated to cost at the outside £50,000, had already cost £71,000, and. by this Bill they sought to expend a. further sum of £40.000, bringing up the amount to £161,000—or three times the original estimate. Again, take the water works contracts. They had a water supply cheap and plentiful at their very door, but still they started off to obtain an independent supply of their own, and with what result? The original estimate was for £1.00,000; but up to the present the water supply had cost £215,000, and this Bill contemplated a further expenditure of £15,000, bringing the total expenditure for water works up to £230,000, or £130,000 more than the original estimate. Judging, therefore, by the past history of this Council he thought he was justified in proposing that some limit should be placed upon their extravagance, and that the unfortunate ratepayers, who, even if this Bill was limited, as he proposed to limit it, would still be saddled with a debt equal to three and a half times their valuation.

  341
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it lie an Instruction to the Committee on the Rathmines and Rathgar Urban District Council Bill that they shall limit the amount of money to such a sum, to be borrowed under Section 38 under each head, as shall not exceed the amount of the estimate upon which the contract is made."—(Mr. Mooney.)
  MR. FIELDsaid he could not quite understand why private Bills, which dealt with large sums of public money, should be easily dismissed without consideration. The questions involved in the present Bill were very important to the ratepayers of Rathmines and Rathgar. It had been argued that no petitions had been lodged against this Bill, but that was for the reason that petitions were so expensive. The reproductive loans borrowed by the Urban Council of Rathmines and Rathgar amounted to £259,000, and these would not produce enough in the present generation to effect any material reduction in taxation. But the unproductive loans reached the vast sum of £122,000, which, he thought, was a sufficient burden. Since 1885 the Council had borrowed on an average £27,500 per year, which involved under the headings of interest and sinking fund an annual payment of £2,500 more than the total revenue of the township in 1881. The Council had exhausted their present borrowing powers, which amounted to £453,200, which entailed a payment of £17,000 per annum in interest; and now it was proposed to increase this enormous sum by £114,000 additional. A large number of ratepayers objected to the proposals in the Bill as useless and extravagant, and they condemned the Council's estimates as utterly unreliable.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS (Mr. JEFFREYS,)said he felt bound to oppose this mandatory Instruction. It was of a very unusual kind. He would remind the House that the Committee upstairs had full powers to consider all these financial arrangements. Although the figures had been carefully brought before the House by both the hon. Gentlemen, it was impossible for the House to follow them, whereas the Committee upstairs would have an opportunity of studying
  342
  them in detail, and of coming to their own conclusion. If this instruction were carried, it would limit the discretion of the Committee, for they would have no power to do anything except fulfil the Instruction. No doubt all these financial proposals would be carefully considered by the Committee. He would remind the House that this Bill had been unanimously approved by the Rathmines and Rathgar Urban District Council, and a so at a meeting of the ratepayers and residents of the neighbourhood. He could not help thinking that after the discussion in this House the Committee would carefully consider what had been brought forward by the two hon. Members, and he hoped the Motion for the Instruction would not be persevered with.
  MR. MOONEYsaid that in view of the statement made by the Deputy Chairman of Committees he begged leave to withdraw his Motion.
  Motion by leave withdrawn.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 62 COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 62 has been complied with, viz.:—
  Great Central and Midland Railways (South Yorkshire Railways) Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

  PRIVATE BILLS (PETITION FOR ADDITIONAL PROVISION) (STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the petition for additional provision in the following Bill, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, viz.:—
  Metropolitan District Railway Bill.
  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

  The Clerk at the Table announced the navoidable absence of the Chairman of Ways and Means.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TRAM-WAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS).
  Petition for Bill; referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
  WHITECHAPEL AND BOW RAILWAY BILL.
  Petition for additional provision; referred to the Examiners of petitions for private Bills.
  CHARD GAS BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  MIDLAND RAILWAY BILL. [By ORDER.]
  Read a second time, and committed.
  MILITARY LANDS PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BELL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  FAREHAM GAS BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  STANDING ORDERS.
  Resolutions reported from the Committee:—

  1. "That, in the case of the London County Council (Subways and Tramways) Bill, petition for dispensing with Standing Order 129 in the case of the petition of the Promoters of the Piccadilly and City Railway (No. 1) Bill [Lords]' against the Bill, the said Standing Order ought to be dispensed with."

  2. "That, in the case of the Tyneside Tramways and Tramroads Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with; that the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill, provided that Tramway No. 4 and Tramroad No. 9 be struck out of the Bill."

  3. "That, in the case of the Halifax Corporation Bill, petition for additional provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with; that the parties be permitted to introduce their additional provision, if the Committee on the Bill think fit."

  344

  4. "That, in the case of the Rhymney Railway Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with; that the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill, provided that Clause 5 be struck out of the Bill."

  5. "That, in the case of the Hove, Worthing, and District Tramways petition, the Standing Orders ought not to be dispensed with."

  Report to lie upon the Table.

  SELECTION.
  Mr. HALSEYreported from the Committee of Selection, That they had selected Mr. John Wilson (Falkirk) to be a Member of the Parliamentary Panel of Members of this House to act as Commissioners in pursuance of the provisions of The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

PETITIONS.
  COAL MINES (EMPLOYMENT) BILL.
  Petitions in favour From Barlborough; Hanley (Nos. 1 and 3, Deep Pit, and Racecourse; Grange; Burslem; Sneyd; Wet Earth and Dee Eye; Wheat Sheaf; Pendlebury (two); Newton (two); Whitwick; International; Garw District; Glyncymmer; Hazel Slade; Coppice; Old Coppice; East Cannock; Jeromes; Henllys Vale; Quarry Bank; Rishton; Town Bent; Rose Hill; Netherton; Darby End; Pontllanfraith; Rockingham (No. 1); Writhlington; Kilmersdon; Huish Pit; Foxcote Pit; Braysdown; Ludlow's Pit; Camerton; Clandown; Tyning Pit; Wallsall Wood; Aldridge; Ibstock; Ellestown Coleorton; and, Old Hill Collieries; to lie upon the Table.
  COAL MINES (EMPLOYMENT) BILL AND MNES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  Petition from Pendlebury, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Southport, and Independent Methodist Churches; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  Petition from Acton, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  MIDWIVES BELL.
  Petitions in favour: From Oxford, West London, and Edgbaston; to lie upon the Table.
  MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Hanley (Nos. 1 and 3 and Racecourse); Grange; Burslem Brownhills; Deep Pit; Sneyd; Newtown (two); Dee Eye; Garw; Wheat Sheaf; Pendlebury (two); Ystradgynlais; International; Barlborough; Whitwick; Glyncymmer; Old Coppice; Cannock Chase; Brereton; West Cannock (No. 3); Lochgally; New Tredegar; Clandown Pit; Camerton; Ludlow's Pit; Huish Pit; Writhlington; Rishton; Windy-gate; Wemyss; Tillicoultry; Clackmannan; Kilmersdon; Braysdown; Tyning Pit; Darby End; Devon; Alloa; Alva; Quarry Bank; Pontllanfraith; Silkstone; Barnsley; Rockingham (No. 1); Walsall Wood; Varteg; Netherton; Old Hill; Aldridge; Gilfach; Darran; Ellistown; Coleorton; Ibstock; Town Bent; and Higher Ince Collieries; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC HOUSES (HOURS OF CLOSING) (SCOTLAND) ACT (1887) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Dundee; Ferintosh; Fort William; Seafield; and, Edinburgh; to lie upon the Table.
  ROYAL DECLARATION.
  Petition from Herne Bay, against alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Blackpool (four); and Leytonstone (two); to lie upon the Table.
  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR (TRIAL OF COMMANDANT KRITZINGER).
  Petition from Rochdale, for clemency; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  RAILWAYS ABANDONMENT.
  Copy presented, of Report by the Board of Trade respecting the Bexhill and Rotherfield Railway (Abandonment)
  346
  Bill and the objects thereof [pursuant to Standing Order 158A]; referred to the Committee on the Bill.

  EVICTED FARMS (IRELAND).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 18th February; [Mr Dillon]; to lie upon the Table.
  ARGENTINE REPUBLIC (No. 1, 1902).
  Copy presented, of Report by the Hon. E. Scott on the Welsh Colonies in Chubut [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  AMERICAN MAIL SERVICE.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 24th January; Sir John Leng]; to lie upon the Table.

  COMMISSION OF THE PEACE (IRELAND).
  Returns ordered, "for each county, city, and borough in Ireland of the names of the persons holding the Commission of the Peace, and giving the date of appointment of each such Justice, and, so far as can be ascertained, the designation, profession, or occupation of each such person at the time of his appointment to the Commission of the Peace, stating at the foot of the Return for each county, city, and borough, so far as can be ascertained, and with such accuracy as is possible, in the absence of any official record, the aggregate number of such persons that are Protestants, specifying their denominations, the number that are Roman Catholics, and the number that are members of any other religious denomination, and the number of such persons that are of each such designation, profession, or occupation, so far as the same can be ascertained."
  "For the whole of Ireland, of the number of such persons of each religious denomination that are of each such designation, profession, or occupation, so far as the same can be ascertained."
  "And of the number of such persons usually resident in such county, city, or borough (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 397, of Session 1895)."—(Mr. Patrick Aloysius M'Hugh.)

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  (5. 20.) QUESTIONS.

    South African War —Weekly List of Surrenders and Prisoners.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs): I beg to ask the Secretary

    347
    of State for War whether the weekly lists of surrenders and prisoners furnished by Lord Kitchener are confined to fighting burghers, or whether they include persons who, either from age or otherwise, are not capable of effectively bearing arms.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): As far as I am aware, the lists are confined to fighting burghers.

    Klerksdorp Disaster.
    MR. JAMES O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state the actual number of the forces engaged at Klerksdorp when Von Donop's convoy was captured; and if he will state the reason why so many details of different companies and different battalions were comprised in the British forces; will he say whether all the wagons and carts captured were empty; what has become of the guns; and whether any account has reached him of the fate of the remainder of the force besides the 653 men already accounted for.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY,): I have no information beyond what has already been published.

    Boer Hostages on Trains.
    MR. HENRY J. WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the agreements of the International Conferences on the Rules of War at Brussels in 1874, and at the Hague in 1899, that any compulsion of the population of occupied territory to take part in military operations against its own country is prohibited, that non-combatants are entitled to be treated as prisoners of war, that the tasks imposed on them shall have nothing to do with military operations, he will give instructions that the compulsory placing of non-combatant Boers upon military trains which are liable to attack by the enemy shall no longer be persisted in; and, if not, will he explain why this should not be done.
    LORD STANLEY: Will the hon. Member kindly refer to the reply to a Question put by him on the 6th February,† to which I have nothing to add.

    Remounts—Selection.
    MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what steps have been taken to remedy Lord Kitchener's complaint of the 15th January that some of the horses arriving in South Africa were not well selected, and some were arriving in bad condition.
    LORD STANLEY: We are carefully dealing with all the points involved, but I cannot make a full statement in answer to a Question.
    MR. LAMBERT: Can the noble Lord say why it is that after the war having lasted two years the officers employed on this duty do not select horses properly?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That does not arise out of the Question.

    Meat Contract—Captured Boer Cattle.
    MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, in view of the numbers of cattle and sheep reported as having been captured by the troops in South Africa, the authorities will consider the advisability of modifying the Bergl contract for frozen meat, so as to enable the utilisation of the captured herds as a supply of fresh meat.
    LORD STANLEY: As I have already explained to the House, the captured cattle are retained and will be issued as required. Provision is made for this in No. 8 of the Conditions of the Contract.

    Comforts for the Troops—Missing Parcels.
    MR. FENWICK: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he is aware that parcels containing clothing and other articles, posted on 30th September and 20th November, 1901, and addressed to Trooper Rutherford Spence Ogle, of the 14th Company Northumberland and
    † See (4) Debates, cii, 513.

    349
    Durham Yeomanry, in South Africa, have not yet been delivered; and whether he can state why these goods have not been delivered.
    LORD STANLEY: I am not aware of this matter. The hon. Member should address any communication he would like to make on the subject to the Officer in Charge of Gilts, Cape Town, if the parcels were sent through the Staff Embarking Officer at Southampton, or the General Post Office if they were posted in the ordinary way.
    MR. FENWTCK: But why will not the War Office inquire? Why should Members be put to the trouble and expense of making inquiries as to what is evidently a dereliction of duty on the part of the War Office?
    [No answer was returned.]

    War Office—Correspondence Delays.
    COLONEL SADLER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to complaints that letters sent to the War Office respecting arrears of pay are not replied to promptly, and, having regard to the delay that sometimes must occur in settling up the pay of Yeomanry and Volunteers returned from South Africa, whether he will direct that explanations be sent to each person concerned.
    LORD STANLEY: I am not aware that complaints have been made that letters to the War Office on the subjects mentioned have not been replied to promptly since the special steps taken. If my hon. and gallant friend will give me definite particulars, I will have inquiry made.

    Essex Regiment—The French Imperial Eagle.
    MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Essex Regiment will now be permitted to carry the badge of the French Imperial Eagle on their uniform and accoutrements.
    LORD STANLEY: The matter is under consideration.

    Under Age Enlistments.
    MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the fact that purchase of discharge from the Army is in the meanwhile stopped, and to the consequently large number of boys enlisted under the regulation age of eighteen, whose parents are unable to assist them, he will consider the advisability of amending the soldier's attestation paper, Army Service, B. 265, so that the liability to a punishment which is at present only applicable to the giving a false answer to the last seven questions put to the recruit may also apply to the question as to his age.
    LORD STANLEY: It was, I think, explained to the hon. Member last session that, as a man's actual age is held not to be a matter within his personal knowledge, it is not considered possible to take proceedings against him for a false answer.

    Yeomanry Commissions.
    Mk. FULLER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, with reference to instructions contained in War Office Order No. 0070/2860, of 28th January, 1902, requesting Yeomanry officers to resign their commissions and to ask for new commissions under the provisions of The Yeomanry and Militia Act, 1901, the War Office intends to dispense with the services of such Yeomanry officers as feel themselves unable to fulfil the conditions of the said Act, but who are at the same time willing to continue their service under the old conditions.
    LORD STANLEY: When the reports from the various regiments have been received, my right hon. friend will be able to make a complete statement on the subject.

    Ilford Rifle Range.
    MR. FREDERICK WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if the rifle range at Ilford, in Essex, which has been for many years in existence and has been of service not only to Essex but to Metropolitan Volunteers, has been closed on account

    351
    of the action of a few residents in the neighbourhood; and whether the War Office intends to take action under the Defence Act to prevent the definite loss of this range.
    LORD STANLEY: No, Sir. This range was closed on the recommendation of a special Board of officers, on account of its being, in their opinion, unsafe. The reply to the last paragraph is in the negative.

    Army Expenditure—Contribution of India.
    MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will give the amount paid by India to the War Office or Home Government for the home charges of British soldiers for the years, 1898, 1899, 1900, and 1901, respectively.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): The charges are as follow:1897–8, £1,260,324; 1898–9, £1,277,246; 1899–1900, £1,112,314; 1900–01 (estimated net charge), £1,116,163.

    British Forces in India.
    MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the strength of British infantry, cavalry, and artillery, exclusive of garrison batteries, in India at the end of the years 1898, 1899, 1900, and 1901, respectively.
    LORD STANLEY: No, Sir. It is not considered expedient to give these figures.

    The Chinese Regiment.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state when the decision was taken to raise the numbers of the Chinese regiment to 1,514, when the decision was taken to disband the regiment, and why the House is now asked to vote 1,082 men for the regiment.
    LORD STANLEY: Authority was given to recruit up to twelve companies on 23rd November, 1900. As to the disbandment, no final decision has as yet been made

    Transport—Demurrage and Time Charter Hire.
    MR. M?KENNA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the debate of next Monday, and of a promise made by him last June, he will lay upon the Table in the course of the present week a Return of all sums spent in payment of demurrage and of time charter hire of steamships (under charter to the Government for the purposes of the South African war) in respect of time when these vessels were not actually engaged in loading, transporting, or discharging.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): As a large part of the transport work during the war has been carried out by the Admiralty, I will ask leave to answer the hon. Member. I am unable to trace the promise to which he refers, but I shall be able, before the debate on Monday, to furnish him with a Statement showing the amount spent in payment of demurrage. I cannot at present undertake to give an adequate reply to the second part of the Question. The compilation of such a Return as that asked for would take a long time, and when furnished would be misleading, as many of the ships were detained for military purposes, and not on account of any difficulty connected with the discharge or reception of the troops or horses they conveyed. Transports on time charter have not been engaged for the conveyance of stores.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is it the case that the Admiralty has the arrangement of the freights from foreign countries to South Africa?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I said a large part of the work was arranged by the Admiralty. A portion is done by the War Office, as the Return will show.
    MR. M?KENNA: When may we expect the Statement?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Before Monday.
    MR. WKENNA: I should like it Friday.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I think I can do that.

    Sugar Bounties Conference.
    MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government can now make a statement regarding the conclusions arrived at by the Brussels Conference on sugar bounties; and when Papers relating to the subject will be presented to Parliament.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,) (for Lord CRANBORNE): His Majesty's Government cannot make a statement on the subject while the Conference is still sitting.
    MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a Question of which I have given private notice, and which arises out of statements which have appeared in the Press regarding the proceedings at the Sugar Conference, namely, I whether His Majesty's Government will; undertake to afford the House an opportunity of discussing the question before this country is committed to any international obligations which would involve any limitation of that absolute freedom in the matter of preferential trading relations within the British Empire, which freedom was secured at the instance of all our leading colonies by the denunciation of the German and Belgian Treaties in 1897.
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Any obligation entered into at the Sugar Conference on behalf of this country will, of course, be subject to ratification at a considerable period after the Convention has been concluded, and there will be ample opportunity for their consideration by this House.

    Flogging in Jamaica.
    MR. BAYLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, with reference to his statement in the House on 15th August, whether Law No. 21 of 1901,
    354
    passed by the Jamaica Legislature last July, authorizing the arrest and imprisonment, without sworn evidence, of persons suspected to be in unlawful possession of agricultural produce, and allowing flogging as a punishment after a second conviction, has now been considered by him and received the Royal Assent.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have advised His Majesty to disallow the Law referred to, and it has been disallowed accordingly.

    Answers to Colonial Questions.
    MR. DAVID THOMAS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if, in view of the importance of and interest taken in matters relating to the Colonies, he will cause the answers to questions addressed in this House to his Department to be promptly placed in the library, as is done in the case of Questions addressed to the Foreign Office.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The difficulties of extending the existing facilities have been explained on more than one occasion, and I do not see my way to acceding to the request of the hon. Member, although I shall always be happy to show any particular reply to any Member asking for it.

    Handcuffing of Convicted Anti-vaccinationists.
    MR. BAYLEY: On behalf of the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that two working men, who were arrested by the Belper police on Thursday last for default under the Vaccination Acts, were handcuffed on their way to prison, although they offered no resistance; whether it is usual to handcuff prisoners under such circumstances; and, if not, whether he will instruct the police on the matter.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE): Two offenders against the Vaccination Acts were in the first instance handcuffed in order to be taken to prison, but the handcuffs were afterwards removed. The Chief Constable of the county has expressed his regret at what

    355
    happened, and has given instructions that handcuffs are not to be used in future in such cases.

    Government Licensing Bill.
    MR. DAVID THOMAS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can now say definitely when the Second Reading of the Licensing Bill will be taken.
    MR. RITCHIE: I am not able to say.

    Day and Evening Schools Sanctioned by Local Authorities.
    MR. ALFRED HUTTON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will inquire of the County Councils, and other local authorities concerned, how many day and evening schools they have sanctioned under the Act of 1901, and under what terms and conditions; and whether he will print the replies in a Return.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GRANT LAWSON,): My right hon. friend could not undertake to obtain the information desired by the hon. Member.

    Homes for Pauper Children in the Camberwell Union.
    MR. FLOWER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can state the reasons why the Department have refused sanction to the Camberwell Board of Guardians to erect five additional cottages for the accommodation of children under their control; and can he explain why the Department advised the Guardians to send these children to the condemned Sutton Schools, seeing that the cost per week per child at Sutton is 12s. 10½d., and on the scattered home system 8s. 9½d.
    MR. GRANT LAWSON: The Camberwell Guardians applied to the Local Government Board for sanction to hire five additional houses to be used as scattered homes for children. Sanction to the application was not refused, but it was pointed out that to increase the existing number of homes by these five, which were situated in different parts of the parish, would add materially
    356
    to the difficulties of effective supervision. Hence it was suggested that additional provision for children should be made by boarding out those eligible, or by increasing the accommodation at the Central Home. The children who, it was intimated, should, pending this provision, be removed to the schools at Sutton, were only those in the workhouses who were healthy and of school age. It was evidently very undesirable that any such children should remain in the workhouse. The Board have since been assured by the Guardians that the homes would have thorough supervision, and in these circumstances they have decided to sanction the proposed hiring, on the condition that the number of homes in the parish is subsequently reduced to a maximum of thirty-one.

    Wye Conservancy By-laws.
    SIR JAMES RANKIN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered the new by-laws and scale of licences proposed by the Conservators of the Wye and sent to the Board of Trade on 18th January last for confirmation; and, if so, when will he be able to announce his confirmation or otherwise of these new by-laws and licences.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The Board of Trade have now given their approval to the new by-laws and the scale of licence duties for nets as proposed by the Wye Fishery Board. The question of duties for rod licences has been reserved for further consideration.

    Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway—Millwood Tunnel Accident.
    MR. BELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the accident which occurred in Millwood Tunnel, on the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway, on Friday last, through the breaking of couplings, and whether he proposes to hold an inquiry into the cause; if so, will he inquire whether the train was drawn by the new class of engines hauling heavier loads, and whether the couplings and the guard's brake power have been correspondingly increased.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Boar d of Trade have received the statutory notice of the accident referred to. I propose to order an inquiry to be held by an inspecting officer, whose attention will be directed to the terms of the hon. Member's Question.

    Railways (Prevention of Accidents) Act, 1900—New Board of Trade Rules.
    MR. BELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received any objections to the revised rules issued by the Board of Trade in January last, under The Railways (Prevention of Accidents) Act, 1900; and can he state when will the rules come into operation.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I had hoped these rules might have been settled without appeal to the Commissioners, but, as a matter of fact, eleven notices have been given to the Board of Trade under Section 3 of the Act of 1900, requiring the Board to refer objections to the Railway and Canal Commissioners, and the Board are, by the statute, obliged to refer such objections. Steps will be taken to make the proper references as soon as possible. The rules cannot come into operation until the Commissioners have decided upon the objections.

    Influenza Epidemic—Suggested Inquiry.
    MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if, in view of the spread of the influenza epidemic and the uncertainty that prevails as to its causes and conditions, he will consider the appointment of a small Commission of experts to investigate and report upon the subject.
    MR. GRANT LAWSON: The causes and conditions of influenza have already been investigated by the medical staff of the Local Government Board, and by experts employed for the purpose; and two lengthy Reports on the subject have been issued by the Department. In these circumstances it does not appear to me that any good results would follow from a further investigation of the kind suggested by my hon. friend.
    MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE: Is it not a fact that it is some years since the last
    358
    special Report on this subject was published by the medical officers of the Local Government Board?
    MR. GRANT LAWSON: Yes; some years ago—1891 and 1893. Two Reports were issued.

    Parliament Buildings—Sanitary Condition of the House.
    DR. FARQUHARSON: Will the Government take into consideration the desirability of reappointing a Select Committee of the House to take expert evidence as to the general sanitary condition of the House?
    MR. GRANT LAWSON: I do not think that comes within my Department. It is rather a matter for the First Commissioner of Works.

    Atmosphere of the House.
    MR. RUTHE RFORD: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if he will make arrangements whereby a sample of the atmosphere of the House during its sitting could be taken for the purpose of analysis and report thereon.
    THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,): I have given directions that this shall be done.
    DR. FARQUHARSON: Will the Government re-appoint the Committee of the House which formerly inquired into the drainage and sanitary arrangements of the House generally?
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: The Committee which last session inquired into the accommodation provided for hon. Members has recommended its own re-appointment, and this matter could be referred to that body.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to have a sample of the atmosphere placed in the tea-room?

    Illicit Distilleries.
    MR. O'MARA: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state how many illicit distilleries were discovered in Scotland

    359
    and Ireland respectively during the period of the last Returns available, and what was the average reward paid in respect of each country; will he say on what principle these rewards are assessed, and whether any facts have come to his knowledge during the inquiry which he promised last session which explain the large sums received in the past by the Royal Irish Constabulary in respect of these discoveries of illicit stills.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN): The latest figures in my possession are for the year 1900–1. There were in that year 2,008 seizures in Ireland and only one in Scotland. I am unable to say what was the average reward paid in these cases; but a new scale of rewards was adopted in November last as a result of the enquiries made by me, under which rewards for the seizure of small quantities of spirits and wash and of isolated articles, such as still-heads, worms, etc., were abolished, and the amount of the reward for larger seizures was reduced and some further modifications made in the pre-existing practice. I shall carefully watch the result of these changes.

    Postal Organisations—Interviews with the Postmaster General.
    CAPTAIN NORTONI beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, seeing that the Postmaster General, in reply to the Postmen's Federation, stated, on 12th December, 1901, that any representations with respect to certain subjects, and any request for an interview with respect to the grievances of any particular class, should be made by those who were directly concerned, he is now prepared to receive a deputation from the unestablished auxiliary and assistant postmen.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General is not aware that any application has recently been made by auxiliary and assistant postmen for an interview with him. Should such an application be received it shall be duly considered, and an interview granted, if it appears likely that any useful purpose will be served.

    Members of Parliament and Free Postage
    MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that in many foreign legislatures the Members enjoy the privilege of free postage; and whether the authorities will consider the advisability of allowing Members free postage whilst performing their duties in this House.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The privilege of franking letters was withdrawn from Members of the Legislature in this country by Act of Parliament, and the Postmaster General is not prepared to recommend legislation on the subject.

    Dewsbury Post Office.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he has received complaints as to the insanitary arrangements of the Dewsbury Post Office, particularly in the postmen's department; and, if so, what improvements, if any, are to be made.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No complaint has been received of insanitary conditions at the Dewsbury Post Office; nor is any scheme of improvement in contemplation at present. The lease of the office will not expire till 1906.

    Pay of Junior Telegraphists at the Manchester Post Office.
    MR. GROVES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, if he can see his way to recommend an increase in the pay of the female junior telegraphists in the department at Manchester, and in that of the male junior telegraphists of the same town, who entered prim to October, 1901, so as to place them on the same scale as those who have entered since that date.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General is not at present prepared to entertain the proposal indicated by the hon. Member. The increase of pay allowed to male learners at Manchester during the last few months is regarded as a temporary measure only,

    361
    and affords no ground for a permanent addition to the wages of the established staff. The female telegraphists are not affected in any way.

    Irish Department of Agriculture—Schemes for Benefit of Rural Workers.
    MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can explain what steps the Department of Agriculture proposes to take to extend its advantages to rural workers; will he state the nature of the schemes, if any, which the County Councils may formulate for fostering cottage industries and disseminating technical and agricultural knowledge amongst tenants of labourers' cottages and plots; and will he say in what directions the Department intends to assist the rural labouring population.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): My right hon. friend, in replying to the hon. Member's previous Question of the 25th ultimo, indicated generally the lines on which the Department approves of the application of the schemes of County Councils to rural workers and rural conditions. To that reply† the Department has, at present, no further statement to add.

    Housing of Irish Labourers.
    MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, having regard to the fact that complaints are being constantly brought under his notice of the conduct of inspectors appointed by the Local Government Board to hold inquiries into improvement schemes for housing Irish labourers in respect of their decisions on individual applications, whether he will request the Local Government Board to issue instructions to their inspectors directing them to determine every labourer's representation on the evidence offered in support of it.
    MR. ATKINSON: Some complaints have been made to Government from time to time of the rejection of individual applications for cottages. All such complaints have been carefully investigated, and I do not think that in any case it
    † See preceding Volume, p. 1028.
    362
    has been shown that the Inspector has rejected an application on insufficient grounds. Moreover, having regard to the very large number of applications that have been dealt with by the Inspectors, the complaints received have been relatively few in number. It is the duty of the Inspectors, when holding their local inquiries, to hear not only the evidence in support of every application, but also any evidence that may be forthcoming in opposition to it, and the recommendations are determined according to the evidence adduced and to the various interests involved.

    Drainage of the River Suck.
    COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if many occupiers on the banks of the Suck are paving to the State a sum for drainage charges considerably larger than the annual value of the improvements effected by the Suck drainage on their holdings; if such a fact is not within his personal or official knowledge, would he obtain a Report from the Irish Board of Public Works on the subject; if he is aware that the original expenditure on the Suck drainage was largely increased by the state of the law on compensation for mills; and, considering the excessive charges and the fact that large portions of the counties of Galway and Roscommon already help through the rates the occupiers of the drained area, would he in some way alleviate the present condition of the occupiers of the banks of the Suck, either by a contribution from the Treasury or by extending the time of payment.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. The unproductive expenditure is borne by the proprietors, and the charge on the occupiers is based on the actual increase in the value of their holdings, as determined after a local inquiry held in 1895, at which all the parties interested had an opportunity of being heard. The compensation paid for milling interests was considerable, but it did not affect the annuity chargeable on the occupiers. The hon. and gallant Member will find a full account of the circumstances in the 63rd Report of the Commissioners of Public Works (C 7819 of 1895.)

    Dublin Post Office—Corcoran Defalcations.
    MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if, in the Corcoran defalcation case, any person implicated by reason of neglect, or assumed neglect, of official duties, was allowed to make confidential reports regarding others similarly circumstanced; whether confidential reports were entertained on mere disciplinary matters, and also on the intelligence of the Dublin staff.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Reports were obtained from all officers who it was considered could throw any light on the matter, and all these reports were fully considered. Confidential reports were received and considered on the subject both of the conduct and the general intelligence of the officers concerned.
    MR. NANNETTI: Were persons implicated in any way allowed to make confidential reports regarding others similarly circumstanced?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Reports were obtained from every one who it was thought could throw any light on the matter.
    MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if, since the Controller, Dublin Sorting Office, has only made good £10 of the £1,600 Corcoran defalcations, the remaining £1,590 is to be treated as a dead loss to the Revenue.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The net deficiency was £1,545 7s. 7½d., and this sum has been charged to the Vote for losses by fraud and default, etc. Against this loss there is a considerable set off in the shape of the forfeited pension rights of Corcoran and the reduced salaries payable owing to the disciplinary measures taken by the Postmaster General.

    Banbridge Post Office Pilfering Case.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster
    364
    General, whether a detective officer of the Post Office actually caught an employee in the Banbridge post office taking money, the property of the Postmaster General, out of the drawer of another assistant in the same office; and, if not, can he say in what other way was the charge of pilfering brought home to the officer who was recently dismissed from that office.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The officer who has been dismissed was seen to place her hand in a counter drawer belonging to another officer; and subsequently confessed to having taken money from it. I may point out that when a supplementary Question was put to me yesterday I gave a different version, and this demonstrates the danger of putting such Questions without notice.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: As the point in question was included in the original Question, but deleted at the Table, I think it shows the danger of altering the Question as handed in. May I ask why this person, who was practically caught in the act of taking the money, has not been prosecuted?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I answered that Question yesterday† I have no further information.

    Riverstown (Tipperary) Postmastership.
    MR. REDDY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he can state why one James Ferns, of Birr Urban District, in the King's County, and a rent warner to a landlord, was appointed to the position of postmaster in Riverstown, in the county of Tipperary, having regard to the fact that this man was living outside the village in a different county and province to that in which the vacancy occurred.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The appointment to the sub-office at Rivers-town has not been conferred upon Mr. James Ferns, but upon his wife, Mrs. Elizabeth Ferris. She was the only suitable candidate for the vacancy.
    † See page 187

    Rock Angus Lights.
    MR. SAMUEL YOUNGI beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he received from the Down County Council a resolution, accompanied with a memorial list of wrecks and loss of life, urging the necessity for having Rock Angus lighted; and whether it is the intention of the Government to recommend the lighting of this spot at the entrance of Strangford Lough, in view of the casualties which have taken place at this spot in the absence of a light.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have received from the Down County Council the resolution and memorial urging the necessity of a light on Rock Angus. The question was, I understand, considered some time ago by the Commissioners of Irish Lights, who were of opinion that the light was not one that should be provided at the expense of the General Lighthouse Fund, and further that the proposed light by itself would not be sufficient to make it safe for vessels to navigate the lough by night.
    MR. SAMUEL YOUNG: Has the Board of Trade any control over the General Lighthouse Board?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is no part of the business of the Board of Trade to initiate proposals for lighthouses.

    New Procedure Rules.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state why the proposals of His Majesty's Government relating to the procedure of the House, which were ordered by the House on the 7th February to be considered, have,since been so changed, in a new and altered statement thereof, as to omit the proposal in No. 3 to take Questions at 7.15 p.m., immediately after the interruption of business at an afternoon sitting; and whether, seeing that proposal No. 7 still prescribes that Questions shall not be taken until after the interruption of business at the afternoon sitting, he can say when it is now proposed that Questions shall be taken.
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The mention of the hour named for the interruption
    366
    of business at the afternoon sitting has been omitted from Resolution No. 3 in the White Paper, because it appeared better that that Resolution should not contain anything anticipating our proposals with regard to Questions, which would better be considered as a whole in a subsequent Resolution.

    Resolutions of Ways and Means.
    MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, seeing that the introduction of certain Resolutions in Committee of Ways and Means, of which the House knows nothing until they are read from the Chair, is productive of inconvenience, formal notice of such Resolutions will be given, except in regard to Resolutions moved on Budget night., and any other Resolutions in respect of which public inconvenience or injury may be caused by the premature disclosure of the Government's intentions.
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I think that the terms of the Question do not sufficiently recognise that the introduction of a Resolution in Committee is only a preliminary stage, like the introduction of a Bill; the whole matter to which the Resolution relates being, like an ordinary Bill, open to discussion on the Second Reading of the Bill which is authorised by the passing of the Resolution. Therefore, I do not see the necessity for the proposal of the hon. Member, which would be productive of much greater inconvenience than the present system, if, as I apprehend, it led to the multiplication of opportunities of debate on the same subject, which are already so numerous as considerably to impede the proper conduct of our business in this House.

SUPPLY (ARMY ESTIMATES)
Order for Committee read.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOIL WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): I rise with some feelings of regret in view of the fact that I have for the second time to introduce to the House a very heavy war Budget, and

367
still more, perhaps, because numerous circumstances have occurred in the past year which make it necessary for me to trespass at some length upon the indulgence of the House. I cannot help rising also with some feelings of satisfaction; because when the day arrives to unfold the scheme which the War Office may have adopted for the year which is to come, we relieve ourselves of a great deal which is embarrassing in our ordinary work. It has been said, I believe, of troops in action that there is no time so trying as that which is spent waiting under a heavy fire without being allowed to return it, and certainly that is the position the War Office occupies before the country for 364 days out of the year. We are continually under attack; and the day on which our statement for the year is made is one which I welcome in this respect—that it enables us, at all events, to take the initiative—I will not say the offensive—in the action. Sir, I do think it is most important, amidst the great number of subjects which jog each other for our consideration when we are carrying on a great war, and also the re-organisation of our Army at home, that, at all events on one occasion, there should be an opportunity of studying great problems without obscuring them by minor details, when we may leave criticisms to take their course, when we may discuss our organisation from a broad and national standpoint, and not have Party motives imputed to us. I ask for the indulgence of the House tonight. I shall not abuse it, for I do not propose to enter into any of those controversial points with regard to the war which are raised in subsequent Motions and which are present to all our minds, except so far as they affect the military programme of the Government and the progress of our military preparations. And, Sir, it is not necessary for me tonight to speak simply as one having a brief for the Department, or as representing the Government, when I ask, as I do ask, that I may be heard, in placing our military policy before the country, as pleading for more consideration in some respects than we have yet had given to us.

ARMY REFORM.
In the first place, I cannot help looking back to what was said on the same
368
occasion a year ago. We sketched then a very considerable measure of reform, which it was anticipated would affect, and is affecting, every department in the organisation of our Army. I do not say that anything which has occurred has given us reason to go back in any respect on that programme. Our experience for the year has fortified us in the position which we took up. But I must ask for some measure of consideration if, under the special circumstances of the year, we are not able to show that our progress has been as great as it otherwise might have been. It must be obvious that any measure of reorganisation carried out in time of war is subject to considerable limitations. We have not only had to consider the war which has been carried on, but a number of circumstances—which I do not propose to discuss or to argue upon —every one of which has made a heavy strain on the time of this House and upon the energies of the Department, have intervened since last year to seize upon our attention and to modify in some respects what we could do for the organisation of the Army. I only name these subjects to recall them to the memory of the House.

CONCENTRATION CAMPS.
When the Army Estimates were introduced in the current financial year, the concentration camps had, practically, not been established. I think the oldest of them was only a few weeks old. In the course of last year there grew up a population, under the immediate control of the War Office for many months, amounting in the end to nearly 150,000 human beings, a population not inconsiderable in comparison to any Continental army, and as great as many large English towns. And this large body of people had to be sheltered, clothed, and fed, as far as circumstances enabled us to do it, under the immediate control of the Department which I administer. I do not propose—we have a Motion on the Paper—to say anything with regard to that administration, though perhaps I may be pardoned if I allude to one of the last official acts which, before it became possible to transfer these camps to the control of the Colonial Office, it fell to my lot to carry out—that was to

369
appoint a Committee of ladies to inspect them. The appointment, I think, has been fully justified by the report of the Committee. It shows not only, I think, great grasp of the subject, great clearness, great promptitude, and great devotion, but it indicates their claim as ladies to undertake a work for which they were peculiarly qualified, and they deserve, I think, the gratitude of all Members of this House.

MARTIAL LAW.
Then, Sir, last year Natal was under martial law, though I think very few, Members of the House were conscious of it. In the Cape Colony only a few districts had recently been put under martial law at this date last year. Since that date it has been necessary to put nearly the whole of the Cape Colony under martial law. The discussions with regard to martial law—I make no complaint—have again largely occupied the attention of Parliament, and have naturally drawn fully on the resources of my Department. Then we have had also the provision for prisoners of war in five different dependencies or colonies of the United Kingdom. I put aside altogether the discussions which have taken place on such subjects as the removal of officers, the pensions of soldiers, and military discipline, all of which have great attraction for this House, and which make corresponding claims on the work of the Department. But all these things have grown up outside the ordinary business of the year, and have necessarily and naturally come into competition with it.

EARLY STAGES OF THE WAR.
But before I proceed to touch upon the policy to which I shall ask the earnest attention of the House, I must say one word on the last subject, which has occupied our attention before, and on which we have already had several debates. We have reached a stage in the history of the war in South Africa when it begins to be possible for the House and the country to judge how the early stages of the war were conducted. There is a universal interest in and a general desire to know details in this matter; but at the same time I hope that if I, representing an already very heavily worked Department, find it impossible to satisfy all the demands that are made upon us in that respect, I may be
370
acquitted of any desire either to shield anybody who should not be shielded or to preserve from the public view any facts which ought to be brought before them. There can be no individual in this country who has so large a stake and so great an interest in the purification of his Department from all suspicion as the Secretary of State. There are two points which I should like to bring before the attention of Parliament, and one is this—that in judging these matters we must not forget at this stage of the war that those gentlemen who sat on that side of the House and those who are responsible on this Bench never contemplated that a war would be carried on on the scale of the one in which we are now engaged. You cannot suddenly make a system which was provided to send out 70,000 men do the work of sending out nearly quadruple that number; and, rightly or wrongly—whether the war was well begun or badly begun—we had to expand in some respects not ten times or 100 times, but 500 or 1,000 times the resources with which we were provided.

REMOUNTS.
Take the question of remounts. Before the war broke out, remounts had to be bought at the rate of 2,500 a year. We have had, somehow, to discover how to extend that capacity to 150,000 a year. Of course there have been mistakes made. Of course, there have been hasty purchases. A hasty supply was necessary, and at one time it was better than no supply at all, and, of course, too high prices have been paid. But I think this House would have had something to say if, instead of too high prices being paid, the supplies had not been on the spot when they were required. May I ask the House to consider this point? It is universally admitted that the horses which we had at home and sent out for our own cavalry regiments were good and well selected, and stood their work well. The system of registration, which had been in force for ten years, provided us, by universal consent, in South Africa with the best artillery and transport horses that we could possibly want. The Remount Department was not sufficiently provided with an organisation to undertake this war; possibly not sufficient for a much less war;

371
but still the expansion in the circumstances was remarkable. In the first six months of 1900, 82,000 horses were landed in South Africa. In all, in not less than thirty months, 290,000 horses and 126,000 mules were sent out, and we purchased besides 120,000 horses locally in South Africa. That makes a total of 550.000 animals landed or purchased for the Army in thirty months, or an average of 600 per day throughout the whole period. I think it would be unreasonable to suppose that with so gigantic a transaction there should not have been failures and mistakes. I have put before the House the Reports from South Africa which I promised at the beginning of the session. From these Reports it will be gathered that we have not been altogether satisfied on this side of the water with the treatment which our remounts received when they arrived in South Africa. I have heard it stated in some quarters that the Government have shown a niggardly spirit in dealing with Lord Kitchener, in this respect. That I entirely deny. But we are, after all, trustees for the money which Parliament votes; and it is our business, not only to buy horses and supplies, but to see that they are fairly dealt with. I am bound to protest that some of Lord Kitchener's subordinates have hurried horses up country, without regard to the fact that they are just off a long voyage; and it is not due to us, or to the purchasers of the horses, that hundreds of them have died a few days after they have been landed. We are bound to see, in a war which has been going on for thirty months, and in order that it may be conducted with greater effect, that due regard is shown to the care of the animals themselves.

PRESENT POSITION AS TO REMOUNTS.
But the interest of the House will be centred in the present position. We sent three months ago, to South Africa, two officers—Lord Downe and Colonel Hotham—to investigate the condition of the Remount Department there. Their Report, I am glad to say, is, on the whole, exceedingly favourable. Whatever the earlier mistakes may have been, the Department is now well manned, and well conducted. In a letter which I received two days ago from Lord Kitchener, and which I mention to allay any anxiety about the present conditions, he tells me that he
372
has 16,500 horses in the depots waiting for issue. But it is not very easy to keep up this supply, even by drawing on all the sources which we have available. A particular class of horse is needed, and we want an enormous number. While we are meeting the demand, we are also preparing for the future. We have purchasing commissions in various parts making inquiries, in order that we may be able to meet any future demand which may be made. For this Department we have already framed a scheme which will enable us in the future, I hope, to deal with this question much better than in the past. We are proposing to plant out buyers in the right districts, both here and in Ireland, who will be more in touch with the breeders and less with the dealers. With the assistance of the Board of Agriculture and of those societies which give prizes for special classes of horses, we hope to make a speciality of the class of horse required for the Army. In this we may have more difficulty than is usually recognised; but we hope to establish some connection with the Colonies. For many years to come South Africa will be largely drawn upon by its own needs. Australia is largely drawn upon from India already. But I trust that we shall have some support from the House if we endeavour to establish some permanent connection with Canada and the horse-breeders there. It will also be necessary in the future, as it has not been sufficiently done in the past, to keep in touch with the Continental sources of supply in view of this heavy demand which has been made on us. I cannot, of course, ensure that anything connected with horses will give satisfaction to everybody. No two men seem to agree upon a horse. A noble Lord said in another place the other night that out of a hunting stable the four worst horses had been taken, and that from £80 to £100 each had been paid for them. I asked privately for the name of the buyer, and found that the buyer happened to be, not merely the colonel of a cavalry regiment, but one of the most noted lovers of horseflesh, and the commanding officer of one of the best mounted regiments in the Army. Here is proof that the best men may make a mistake. But I have said enough

373
to show that we should beware of drawing general conclusions from such mistakes.

COMPARISON OF THE PRESENT AND FORMER CAMPAIGNS.
I think that some people have been rather carried away, and have founded on the one question of remounts an assumption of the collapse of our whole military system. We have examples from very prominent sources. Lord Rosebery, who speaks with great authority, went the length of saying that the scandals which were now occurring would not occur if the temper of Parliament was what it was when Mr. Roebuck moved for the Crimean Committee. The temper of Parliament is not what it was then, because the circumstances are not the same. Does any man in his senses really mean to pretend that the scandals which in the days of the Crimean Committee showed before the eye of the whole world that an Army of 50,000 at the beginning, which had been allowed to dwindle down to 20,000, and which was practically without clothes, without food, without shelter, and without horses, though within seven miles of an excellent harbour controlled and dominated by our own Fleet—could anyone pretend that the condition of that Array is to be compared with an Army nearly 230,000 strong, provided in every single respect, and in regard to which I can say here today that since I spoke last not one remonstrance on any single subject connected with Supply has been addressed to me by the General in command? I look upon that statement as being not merely unfair to the Government—that is a small matter—but as being exceedingly dangerous to this country. Lord Rosebery is a statesman as well as a politician; and an ex-Prime Minister cannot undertake to speak on a subject like this merely for the benefit of one great Party. I say that to make statements like this, which are quoted all over the world as being the opinion of a great political Party on the condition of our Army, is not the work of a statesman. It is neither statesmanlike nor politic. Let us consider what has happened on previous expeditions. We have had three great calls upon our strength in the last century the Peninsular War, the
374
Crimean War, and the present war, which has lasted two years. In the Peninsular War we had 240,000 men on the lists, and never at any single time—such was our organisation—were we able to give the Duke of Wellington the support of more than 60,000 or 70,000 men. At Waterloo, in a year in which Parliament voted 214,000 men, the utmost that went to Flanders was 44,000 men. In the Crimea you have the same story. In that war, 216,000 men were voted by Parliament in the second year, and at no time until the last day of the war, when our troops were paraded, were there more than 52,000 men in the field. In each of those cases, of all the men nominally on the list not one in four was present with the regiment. In the present case, when war broke out, the effectives in our Army, leaving out India, but including the Reserves, were 240,000 men all told. From the time when the first great body of reinforcements was sent to South Africa we have had very consistently something like 150,000 men, apart from our colonial troops, Militia, Volunteers, and Yeomanry who subsequently left, and we have in thirty months landed in South Africa 230,000 Regular soldiers, of whom 220,000 came from this country. Figures like these touch the mind of the people very little at the present moment, when we have become inured to big totals, but I venture to say that if three years ago I had told the House that we could send 150,000 men and maintain them for two years in full strength, I should not have been believed, and there would have been a doubt in accepting such statements. T well remember, when my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland moved this Estimate two years ago, the thrill that went round the House when he said that within two months we should have 189,000 men in South Africa, and I remember also remarking to my colleague that for the manipulation of the figures my right hon. friend had gone much quicker in his knowledge of the War Department than anybody who had ever represented it in this House. I could not believe it possible at that moment; but even in the last year, apart from the newly enlisted Yeomanry, the drafts we have sent out number 53,000 men, more than equal to the whole Army in the Crimea, and double the number of the Army sent with considerable difficulty to Egypt in 1882.

375
At this moment we are feeding over 300,000 men, including the attendants of the Army as well as the fighting Army in South Africa, chiefly from this country, and 243,000 horses and mules are having forage drawn for them at this moment in South Africa. I think these figures are not unworthy of the attention of the House among the recorded events of the past year.

THE ARMY CORPS SCHEME.
The scheme which I proposed to the House last year was denounced by some of my hon. friends and by the Opposition as being impracticable and inapplicable to this country. We have made great progress in applying the Army Corps scheme to the work of three districts. I have been asked questions as to what are the numbers of the First Army Corps now at Aldershot. My withers are unwrung by these questions. I remember it was said before the battle of Borodino that nearly a whole French battalion perished, and when the Emperor, writing the next day, asked the officer why his battalion was not drawn up, the answer was, "They are in the redoubt." If we have not got the First Army Corps at Aldershot it is because we have got the equivalent of four or five Army Corps of Regular troops in South Africa. But the fact that we have not got these precise troops at Aldershot does not mean that we have not got the number. The staff of the First Army Corps are busily engaged in training drafts of Yeomanry to fill up gaps. The scheme itself continues to hold the field, and for this reason. We have been able to establish a standard up to which we are working. Barracks in every district are being built according to the disposition of the Army Corps. The training grounds are being obtained; the cadres have been set up; and, what is more important than anything else, the institution of the Army Corps system has enabled us to begin that process of delegation and decentralisation on which the mind of the War Office is as much set as the mind of the House.

THE CLINTON DAWKINS COMMITTEE.
An important Committee, known as Mr. Clinton Dawkins's Committee, reported at the end of last session. It. was composed quite independently of the War Office, and it included the names of business men in whom the House could
376
place confidence. It has been practically possible for me to accept almost en bloc the recommendations of that Committee. I do not want to weary the House by going at full length into the details of their Report, but I will give a résumé of the points we have carried out. The principle adopted by that Committee was, if possible, to check the immense number of Reports with which officers are occupied in the districts, and which come to the War Office to be read by officers already very busy, or filed unread. We propose to substitute inspection for Reports where-ever we can. We have appointed an Inspector General of Artillery, just as we have an Inspector General of Cavalry, and we are going to appoint an Inspector of Yeomanry, and to carry out the system of work within the districts with inspection from headquarters. We propose to give GeneralOfficers commanding larger financial powers, to give them larger powers over the Auxiliary Forces, to prevent and criticise all those constant checks on administration which are caused by references on small points to superior authority; and we propose, if we can—and this is a subject to which I wish to call the special attention of the House—to relieve the engineers of some of their multifarious duties with regard to barracks. I believe the amount which the engineer officer is expected to learn is more than you can expect an individual properly to master. The vagaries of engineers with regard to barracks have caused in some instances inconvenience to the Army. When it was proposed to the Duke of Wellington, with regard to a particular barrack which was supposed to be very fine, that the name of the engineer should be placed over the portal, the Duke observed, "That would be too severe a penalty." I think it may be possible, in some way or other, to avail ourselves more of civilian assistance; and for that purpose I have appointed a Committee, with Lord Esher as chairman, to consider whether the work cannot be carried on with some economy, and with greater relief to the engineers. Then there is the question of auditing. We propose to carry out the suggestion of the Committee to audit the accounts more largely in the districts than we have done; and we are going to plant at Aldershot, Salisbury, and Dublin, three branches of the Accountant General's

377
Department, with a view to settling on the spot every question which can be settled there. We have also been urged to establish a Working Board, and I have carried out, to a large extent, the recommendation of the Committee. The War Office Council is now not only a consultative body, but coming to no definite decisions, but it keeps minutes. The opinions given are recorded, the final decision of the Council is recorded, and also the decision of the Secretary of State upon it. The Secretary of State will, therefore, hand over to his successor an absolute record, not only of the decisions, but of the opinions expressed by all senior officers on all great problems which are brought before the Council. The Army Board has been unshackled; it is now allowed to tike up any question it pleases, without reference to the Secretary of State; and there is also a co-ordinating Council. The one object we have had in view has been writing as little as possible, and deciding as rapidly as possible. There is one other subject on which I wish to touch. I have established on the military side of the War Office the principle that military officers and military clerks shall take the place of civilian officers and clerks. We have thirty-two places for officers, for which there have been 182 applications. We have 264 places for non-commissioned officers and men, for which we have 2,000 applications. I believe that by applying that system to the War Office, we shall discover good results. There is one other change of routine which 1 must mention before 1 leave this branch of the subject, which is rather tedious and dull; and that is that we have greatly strengthened the office of Director General of Military Intelligence and Organisation. That official has been for 200 years either existent or non-existent, but he has always been on the outer ring of the War Office circle. When he was first appointed, the first officer bore the extremely appropriate name of "Scout Master General." We have now introduced him into the inner circle, and he practically discharges a good many of the duties which in a foreign army corps are discharged by the Chief of the Staff.

YEOMANRY AND GARRISON REGIMENTS.
Our decision to increase the Yeomanry largely has been justified by results, the number having increased from about
378
10,000 to 17,500. Of twenty-one new regiments required we have got fourteen already formed, and we have proposals for five more; and I have very little doubt that we shall ultimately obtain the number we require. Last year we proposed to raise eight garrison regiments out of the soldiers who had already served their time in the Army, a decision which the right hon. Member for West Monmouthshire characterised as an arrangement for planting old gentlemen at insalubrious stations. The ages of the garrison regiments are about the ages of the Old Guard of Napoleon, and as to the health enjoyed at those stations, it is not only excellent, but a good deal better, man for man, than that enjoyed by many Members of this House. [An HON. MEMBER: What age?] They cannot enter the garrison regiments until after twelve years service; and their age must be from thirty-two to forty-five. At all events, five very fine regiments have been formed, and we are now shortly to form a sixth.

RECRUITING AND PAY.
The interest of all our calculations in the programme of last year has been centred in the question of recruiting and the question of pay. Now, last year I undertook to say that, if we were unable to get the men required, we should be very pusillanimous if we did not make our own proposals to Parliament. The whole question of recruiting, whether for a voluntary Army or a conscript Army, has been a trouble from time immemorial to every Monarch and to every Minister. I think you might even go so far back as the time when David got into trouble for numbering the people. In every part of the world the question of the remuneration and the period of service has given trouble. In our own Army, our difficulties began very early indeed. We have never reached an amount of pay which has been satisfactory to the Army, and I am not sure that we have ever reached an amount of pay which has been satisfactory to the country. Most of the interest in the pay of the Army has been centred not in what the soldier was supposed to get, but in what he actually got.
In looking back over the records—I confess that I owe a great deal to the

379
work of Mr. Fortescue, who has gone into the subject from the first—I find one thing most remarkable with regard to the pay of the Army. It is that we have been so long accustomed to regard the Crown and the officer as the protectors of the soldier, that one has hardly realised that until comparatively recent days—until the last two centuries —the soldier was the prey of the Crown and of his own officers. The earliest question about the soldiers' pay I can arrive at happened in the time of William Rufus. He asked his Saxon subjects to produce 20,000 troops for service in Normandy, and to provide them with ten shillings for conduct money. Then, having collected the men, he relieved them of the conduct money and sent them back to their homes. The soldiers' pay has been the subject of illegitimate appropriation for many years, followed by legitimatised stoppages. The Tudors and the Stuarts took advantage of both these operations. I do not suppose there ever was a time when any great body of men served for so little as our Army did in these days. The officers were not much more fortunate. From the earliest days—the beginning of last century—they purchased their commissions, and for the privilege of doing so they paid a large fee to the Secretary for War. That has now fallen into disuse. They were subject then to claims by the Paymaster General. The Paymaster General took their balances for a long period and charged them for it. After they had satisfied the Paymaster General, they had a day's pay taken from them for Chelsea Hospital. After that, the muster master and the auditor put their fingers into the till, and in the scramble at that time the civilian clerks were not far behind. There were fees to the Exchequer and to the Treasury on the issue of pay warrants, and to every clerk who could put forward a claim. The officer, in self-defence, robbed the men, having himself been robbed by those above him. We find the colonel made contracts for the regiment, and out of the soldiers' pay, which was nominally 8d. a day, he took large commissions on the clothing and on the food supplies. This was done in a way which would astonish any of us who now know what the feeling of officers is
380
on this subject. This system continued until a civilian Minister of War was appointed at the beginning of the last century.
The recruiting of the Army was carried on during the early part of last century to a large extent from the sweepings of the gaols. There was actually a record kept of the criminals condemned to capital punishment, and who, having been reprieved, were distributed among the regiments so that each might get its share.of the windfall. The result has been that the trade of the soldier up to comparatively recent days was by no means regarded as a worthy or honourable career. I want the House tonight to consider that every change which has been made in the improvement of the conditions of service has been made during the last century.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say down to what period of last century? The expression "last century" covers rather a wide time.
MR. BRODRICK: I think we may say that the sweepings of the gaols for the Army terminated very early in the century. What I have been remarking upon took place chiefly in the eighteenth century. Early in the nineteenth the press gang still held its own. There was still flogging in the Army. But desertion from the Army, and the attempts to stop desertion, formed almost the entire history of the Army in the eighteenth century. Of course I do not mean to describe the whole Army as being corrupt. We know that the most heroic deeds were done by men who were brought into the Army by the most nefarious means. There was a time when regiments going on foreign service had to be bivouacked in the Isle of Wight so that they should not escape before going on board ship. But from the beginning of last century there has been steady progress and advance to a better state of things. The share of the soldier in the general share of civilisation has been greater than perhaps that of any other class. Better education, better conditions of service, have done much, but there is one thing which has done even more. I think the shortening of the term of enlistment has in itself done a great deal for the Army. We began with

381
perpetual service, we went on to twenty-one years, we came down thirty years ago to seven years, and more recently we have tried the experiment of three years service. I think we may truly say that the more the soldier has been merged in the citizen, and the more exchange there has been between the citizen and the soldier, the better has been the discipline, the less has been the crime, in the Army; and, further, the larger has been the recruiting, and the more confirmed has been the popularity of the service. I want the House to realise that, as far as lies in the power of the War Office, by the relaxation of vexatious restrictions, we have done our share, and are doing our share, and will continue to do our share, to increase the popularity of the service.

THE PRESENT PROBLEM.
Now, I want the House to look at some figures in order to realise the problem with which we have to deal. In 1872 we had to provide something like 70,000 men. In 1895 we had an establishment of 225,000 between Great Britain and India. In 1897 we had gone to 212,000, in 1899 to 229,000, and in 1902 to 250,000. At the same time we have kept a reserve which we reckon at 90,000, and that has not been found too large for the present war. The problem we have to deal with tonight is to consider how we are to support an establishment of 250,000 when our effective strength is with difficulty maintained at 210,000. If the House will follow me for a few moments, I will give the figures of recruiting for the last six years. In 1896 we took 27,800; in 1897, 33,700; in 1898, when we lowered the standard, we took 38,400; in 1899, 40,200; in 1900, when we lowered the standard a second time, and with the excitement of the war, we took 46,700; and last year, with the war still continuing, 45,100 recruits were taken.
The problem, then, before us is this: Beginning in 1896 with 27,800 recruits, we have reached in two abnormal years 45,000. But, just as high interest means bad security in finance, so in recruiting a lowered standard and hasty enlistment mean inordinate waste. I have taken out the waste during the last three years. In 1899 the waste of men who fell out of
382
the ranks invalided in their first two years of service, or from desertion, was 3,485; in 1900, the very high recruiting year, the number rose to 5,484; in 1901, after two years of inordinate recruiting, it rose to 8,822. These are very serious figures. I think they prove that we have pressed on beyond our limit of real recruiting under the present system. I think also they prove that the man who looks forward to that rate of recruiting continuing after the excitement of the war is over would take too sanguine a view. I think myself that, if we were to expect when the war is over to get more than 35,000 recruits a year, we should be making an unduly sanguine estimate. Thirty-five thousand recruits a year would not keep up the present establishment. We should be between 40,000 and 50,000 men short.
That is the unfavourable side. What is the favourable side? It is that the best recruiting has been in those regiments which are best paid. The cavalry and artillery, having the same terms of service as the rest of the Army—small as is the difference of 2d. per day in the rate of pay—have been well filled, while the infantry has fallen off. The greatest-success of all has been the Foot Guards, which, five years ago, we kept up with some difficulty to about 5,700 men, and which we now without difficulty keep up to about 8,000. In the Foot Guards there is another inducement. Besides the higher pay there is a shorter term of service. We have had some further light on this subject in the present year. At the beginning of last year we were enlisting for the South African Constabulary for three years and at exactly the same rate for the Yeomanry for one year or for the war. It took us many weeks to fill up the ranks of the Constabulary, for whom, I admit, we asked rather higher qualifications, whilst it took us no time to enlist an enormous body of Yeomanry. That again, I think, shows the preference for the short engagement.
I am obliged to face this problem of having a probable deficiency of 40,000 or 50,000 men if we continue on the present lines of recruiting; because I see no ground whatever for believing that under existing circumstances in the near future we can make with regard to any of our Colonies,

383
or with regard to India, any considerable reduction of the Army. India, if anything, will want more troops rather than less. She requires more artillery, and at any time, in the case of an expedition, she might require assistance from home. It is no use blinking facts. We must be prepared, and are prepared, to keep whatever force is necessary in South Africa for some time alter the war is over; and we have had too much experience of the reduction of colonial garrisons to make it possible to leave them much below strength. Therefore we have to face a difficult problem; and, if we have to face a difficult problem with regard to the active Army, we have also to face the fact of the enormous demands we have made on our reserves. At the beginning of the war they amounted to about 81,000 men. By two processes—by the loss of men in the war, and by the fact that we have had to give bounties to 15,000 or 16,000 men in India to induce them to extend their service and remain with the colours instead of going to the reserve—we shall find the reserve at the end of the war decreased to between 50,000 and 60,000 men. That decreased reserve will not be sufficient to enable us to mobilise our Army.

PROPOSED CHANGE IN PAY AND TERM OF SERVICE.
I am, therefore, going to ask the House of Commons to look these facts in the face. I am going to ask the House to take a great plunge, in regard both to the terms of service and to the pay of the Army. I believe it to be a safe, judicious, and necessary measure. I cannot help asking myself, not what is the longest time for which a soldier prefers to enlist, but what is the longest time, consistent with the will of the best class of men to engage, for which you can ask men to join your standard. The success of the three years term has been so great that we propose from now to allow every man of every force in His Majesty's service, except the Household Cavalry, to enlist for three years, with nine years in the reserve. We also propose to meet the special calls which must come from India and the Colonies. We have yearly a large number of drafts made up. We do not send men to India until they are, or we believe them to be, twenty years
384
of age. We cannot send men either to India or the Colonies who are not properly trained, and it will not pay us to send three years men to India. Therefore we have to consider what inducement can be offered to a man who is engaged for three years to give us the necessary service in India or abroad. We find that inducement naturally in the question of pay. At present when the soldier joins he gets into his pocket at the end of the week nominally 9d. a day, but with stoppages—which are less at the beginning of his service—you may call it 8d. a day. When he has passed his recruiting stage and is nineteen years of age, there are messing allowances, which bring up the amount to 3d. more. Therefore, cutting out the recruiting period and reckoning front the time when a man becomes a soldier, or can be put into the ranks at nineteen years of age, at present what he draws on Saturday is about 10d. a day. Tenpence a day seems to me hardly to represent, considering the rise of wages outside, a sufficient inducement to the soldier. I remember very well hearing General Wauchope say on a platform not many months before he left this country to go to South Africa, and just after his return from Sudan—
"I have felt positively ashamed at the amount of work I have had to order these men to do under a tropical sun at 10d. a day."
Tenpence a day has got us most admirable material, but the question is whether for the last 10,000 men we require we cannot get even better material by paying a little more. This is what we propose to do. We propose, in the first place, that the 2d. which is now deducted from the shilling shall be given to the whole Army from April 1st of this year, and the whole shilling shall be given to every recruit as soon as he has passed the recruiting drill and is certified to be nineteen years of age.
Then comes the question of providing the drafts. What we propose is this. After two years service every man may make his election, either he may go to the reserve as he originally agreed to do after three years service and continue in the reserve for nine years, or he may elect to go on and to complete eight years with the colours and then go to

385
the reserve for four years. If he elects to abide by the original engagement, he will remain on at his rate of pay of one shilling a day. If he elects to go on, subject to a proviso which I will mention directly, he will be given, if he is an efficient soldier, 6d. extra a day, making 1s. 6d. in all, from the time he has completed two years service until he leaves the colours. There are two provisos. In the first place, an inefficient soldier or a soldier of bad character will not be allowed by his commanding officer to re-engage. We have reason to believe that nothing militates so much against good soldiers joining our ranks as the fact that there are one or two bad characters in the barrack room who lower the tone of the whole force. We want to put it in the power of the commanding officer to stop such men going on, and to add to that category the men who are either saturated with disease or with alcoholism. These men go to pieces in a tropical climate, and we propose to rid the Army of them at the end of their three years service. The second proviso is with regard to shooting. If we are to give a man much better pay than before, we shall in these days, when everything depends on shooting, require him to be at least an average shot. We propose to raise the standard from the third class to the second class, and to have only two classes in future—the efficient shot and the inefficient shot. Unless a man can get into the efficient class he will get only 4d. a day extra instead of 6d. a day at the end of two years, and he will remain at that until he can get into the efficient class. Subject to these two provisos, however, every man will be allowed to re-engage and to obtain is. 6d. a day after two years service.
We have also made up our minds to reconstruct the present operation of good conduct pay. Good conduct pay was supposed to be not only an inducement to good conduct, but an inducement to recruiting. I think the fact that the pay depended entirely on the opinion formed of the man in the regiment may have had a good effect on the men in the Army, but I doubt whether the fact that good conduct pay could be obtained after two years had any effect as an inducement to enlist. We propose to
386
alter the present arrangements with regard to good conduct pay, not to abolish good conduct badges, but to allow the commanding officer after two years to give a man a badge without pay, and, should the man have a subsequent slip, he would be deprived of the badge, but he would be in a category better than the man who had not a badge, because the latter, not having a badge, would be fined. Therefore, the man with a badge would be a penny better off than the man without a badge. I am afraid I have not made that perfectly clear. At the present moment good conduct pay consists in giving a man a penny a day after two years service. We propose that a man may be fined a penny for bad conduct, but the man who has the badge will only lose the badge, and not be fined. At five years, as at present, he can get a second badge, carrying ld. extra with it. We propose that a man shall not be fined in any of his pay so long as he has a badge to lose.
I do not want to labour this subject of pay, but I should like the House to consider it for a moment longer. I say at once that it is impossible for us to estimate the effect of the rise of pay directly upon recruiting. But I say also that it will be universally admitted that a rise from 10d. to is. 6d. per day is a great jump in the pay of the soldier. If you take a person in civil life who is engaged like the soldier, who is lodged, clothed, and fed, as, for instance, a footman, you may get a young and inexperienced footman for, say, £20 a year. I think that nobody will deny that if you offer £24 a year at once, with a certainty of getting £36 a year two years later, and a further chance of promotion, such as you offer in the Army, you will undoubtedly get a better class man. If that is so in civil life, it ought to be so to some extent in the Army.

MEN MARRIED OFF THE STRENGTH.
Then, there is a particular body of men in the Army whom, I believe, we shall greatly benefit by our proposals. I mean the men who marry off the strength. The case of such men at present is often deplorable. They marry perhaps a few months before the time they could marry on the strength and

387
receive its accompanying advantages. Probably a married man off the strength will allow his wife only 6d. a day at present. In future he will be in a position to allow her 1s. 2d. That in itself is a material amelioration of the lot of some of the best class of soldiers we have. After all, the net result will be that a man who joins the Army at 18 will at the age of 20 have 10s. 6d. in his pocket to spend at the end of the week. I believe the number of labourers, and even artisans, in many classes of life, who, after having lodged, clothed, and housed themselves, have 10s. 6d. to spend on a Saturday night, is not so very large.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: Do you propose to touch the question of the food?
MR. BRODRICK: No; I am not touching the question of the food on the present occasion. Now, Sir, there are two great results which we expect from our measures. The first is the improvement of recruiting, and the second is the effect on the material. With regard to recruiting, it is obvious that we should want a larger body of recruits, as they will not all remain for eight years. We calculate that to keep up the Army to its present level we shall want 50,000 recruits under the new system. We calculate that on a moderate assumption halt of those recruits will at the end of the two years elect to serve for eight years. I call that estimate moderate, because in the Foot Guards, where there has been no inducement offered to re-engage—where there has been rather the inducement not to re-engage of good employment being offered to men when they had completed their engagement—we find that about 30 per cent., taking one year with another, of the men who complete their three years re-engage. We expect that in the case of the line the re-engagements will equal 50 per cent. under the improved conditions. If our estimate turns out to be correct, and we get, as we expect to do, 50,000 recruits or thereabouts, we shall be able to keep the Army full, and we shall have a reserve which will work up, not to 80,000 or 90,000 as at present, but, if we desire it, to 150,000 or 175,000 men.
As to the time the increase of pay
388
will come into operation, the 2d. per day additional will be given on April 1st next. to every soldier entitled to messing allowance who has passed his recruit drill and is nineteen years of age. The 6d. per day additional will come into operation on April 1st, 1904, which is the first day the recruits who are now joining will be entitled to receive it. From that date it will be given in the whole Army to any man who consents to complete eight years with the colours. Some of the men have engaged for seven years; they will have to engage to serve an extra year to get the additional 6d. We propose also to make a further concession, viz., to give to each regiment an increase number of "lance" ranks. We propose to give them a considerably increased number of lance sergeants and lance-corporals, and I think every military man in the House will recognise the advantage of that proposal.

COST OF THESE PROPOSALS.
I shall be asked what is the cost of all these concessions. The cost to Great Britain will be about £1,048,000 a year, and to India £786,000 a year. That undoubtedly is a heavy charge; but it is not a net increase in the yearly Estimates. In the first place, our present Estimates, or the Estimates of last year, were calculated on our full strength. Until we reach our full strength, obviously the new pay will not oppress us, and the additional pay will not come into operation for two years. The net total of the present Army Estimates is swollen owing to large purchases for stores. These purchases will largely come to an. end before the new charge which we are now proposing accrues. But I believe these changes will have a more far-reaching effect. I suppose every one anticipates a time when there will be a reaction in this House, and possibly in" the country, against continuing to spend £30,000,000 a year on the Army services. I have lived through periods of excitement in the War Office, when the cry of retrenchment was raised, in which either we had to push forward the house or were pulled back ourselves. I have no doubt whatever that, when the war is over, possibly when this Party has left office and hon. Gentlemen opposite come into power, they will have to face a

389
strong agitation in which all those who want something out of the public purse for objects in which they are interested will unite in an unholy alliance to decrease the Army Estimates. Educational enthusiasts and social reformers will probably unite with the Arbitration Committee and the Navy League, and urge that in the Army Estimates may be found a scope for retrenchment, by which funds may be secured for the particular objects they have at heart. The policy I recommend to the House is to establish a large reserve, so that we may have the minimum on the active list with the maximum power of expansion. If a time of retrenchment comes, I believe it will be possible, if you get your larger Reserve and at the same time a better class of men, for you to keep some of the corps, especially the Artillery, at a lower level than could otherwise be the case, and to retrench upon the active list, well knowing, as this war has proved, that you can absolutely rely upon the efficiency of the Reserve.
There is one other aspect of the subject of which I wish the House to take notice, and that is that the possession of a larger reserve will enable the bargain made between the soldier and the State to be carried out more sympathetically than has been possible up to the present time. If a man wants to leave the colours somewhat earlier, or wants to return to them after a short absence, it will be in the power of the War Office to do more in that direction.

THE VOLUNTEERS.
Passing away from that subject, I must ask the House to allow me to say a few words about the present condition of the Volunteers. I do not wish to express at any length what I believe we all feel as to the merits of the Volunteers. I yield to no man in my appreciation of the efforts of the Volunteers. We have tested a considerable number of them in South Africa—the first time our Volunteers have been on active service—and they have borne the ordeal well, and have been well reported of wherever they have been employed. I know there is no more certain watt compass popularity in this House than to say all that 11 is flattering to the Volunteers, and to
390
leave unsaid all that is unpleasant. But I hope the House will allow me to say a few words tonight which will tell them frankly what I conceive to be the truth with regard to the Volunteers. The Volunteer force must not be regarded as a whole. There are Volunteers and Volunteers—some are admirably trained and some are poorly trained. Among those who are admirably trained, there are some who are admirably trained for parade movements, but who have had very little experience of field training. I must not be told that all training depends on finances, because I find that some of the best trained regiments have their finances in the best order, and some of the worst trained regiments have their finances in the worst condition. In the worst regiments of Volunteers the War Office seems to be regarded as a sort of milch cow.
I have had brought before me so many cases of the kind that I must mention one or two by way of illustration to show that the finance cry is not to be accepted without examination. Some of the regiments whose accounts are in the worst order are proved to have spent money largely upon services that have nothing whatever to do with military requirements. One officer who had a serious difficulty with his General on a question of finance came up to London to discuss the matter with the Secretary of State, and we found that he charged the expenses of a very long journey and of his stay in London to the finances of his corps. There was another officer who continued to give entertainments to his corps at the expense of the corps, with all the resources of a bankrupt battalion at his back. I must say that some of the allowances given to the Volunteers specially in 1900 for the camps of that year were so liberal that there was a temptation to spend money recklessly. In the hurry of calling out the Volunteers it had been arranged that orderly sergeants should get an extra 1s. I read of one sergeant instructor who was so much in demand that he looked after the company accounts of four or five companies and drew 1s. from each, and then he so earned the admiration of h is commanding officer that he was made orderly

391
room sergeant, with another 1s. Finally, he had so much respect for his own powers that, having the right as orderly sergeant to have an orderly room assistant at 3d. a day extra, he appointed himself assistant orderly sergeant to himself, with an extra 3d. The disposition in some corps to help the corps at the expense of the War Office is so catching that I confess to the House I once fell a victim to it myself. I believe my experience is not unique, and I only give it in order to show what is the difficulty of preventing a Volunteer who is absolutely above board in everything else thinking that it is legitimate to do what he can with the War Office. I belonged for some years to a Volunteer corps, like most hon. Gentlemen in this House, and for one day 1 belonged to another corps. It was at Oxford. I thought the Oxford corps was not in a very good way, and I did not join it, but on the inspection day I got a message from the colonel, accompanied by a sergeant's uniform, asking me, as one of his sergeants was away, to fill his place for the day.
SIR HOWARD VINCENT: The right hon. Gentleman does not say that that is the general practice in the Volunteer force.
MR. BRODRICK: I am not speaking generally of the Volunteer force or of my hon. friend's corps. When, however, I arrived on the ground, duly arrayed, and quite unaware of the fraud I was perpetrating, I was asked to take command of a Company, which I did in a sergeant's uniform. I do not know whether my words of command were right or not, because the Company were talking so loudly throughout the parade that they were not much the wiser for the words of command; but I walked away with the thanks of that colonel, perfectly unaware that I had earned £2 10s. fraudulently from the Government for the corps. I have always thought that, if my right hon. friend wants conscience money, he will know where to apply for it! But if my hon. friend were to press me, I should have to tell him in regard to the third class firing that we insisted on some years ago for a man to become proficient
392
that I have sent for some of the records of shooting at different times, and I am bound to say that in some instances the improvement in shooting at the last range when a man was a little short of the chance of getting through was very exceptional. I fear there are instances in which the sergeant has been so accommodating as to take the rifle in order to avoid the loss to the corps which would accrue. I am not saying that such cases are general in Volunteer corps. Do not let it be supposed for one moment that I am throwing stones at the Volunteer force. But I say there are exceptional cases that we cannot accept.

PROPOSED VOLUNTEER REFORMS.
I will put the points one by one of what it is that Lord Roberts, as Commander-in-Chief, is anxious to achieve. We have for the first time recognised that the Volunteer force should be placed to a large extent in the first line in case of invasion. If we are to do that, we must be certain of the value of the troops we put there. Now, Sir, the mere performance of a certain number of routine drills is not sufficient. We have raised the company drill to twenty men, and we were told that that was impossible. We will meet any ordinary difficulty; if twenty men cannot be got from one company, let them he got from several companies; but we will not recognise company drill of ten or twelve men as company drill.
SIR HOWARD. VINCENT: You never had it. [Cries of "Order!"]
MR. BRODRICK: My hon. and gallant friend must not take as personal remarks which are true of certain corps with which I am illustrating the difficulties with which we are dealing. I go further, and say that men are allowed to count drills when they come in at 8.25 to a drill which concludes at 8.30. These things we cannot undertake to recognise, and, generally speaking, we cannot accept mere parade movements as being sufficient to fit Volunteer officers to command their Company over an extended line of country. My hon. and gallant friend himself, who has got an admirable corps, many of the men of which have seen service in South Africa,

393
and have been excellently reported upon —my hon. friend himself, who makes great exertions to take his men out for two or three days if he cannot do more, told me that it was no use ordering him to drill half his regiment in battalion together, for he could not get more than one-third of them into the drill-hall, which is the only place where they can drill. If that be so, if battalion drill is worth anything, then my hon. and gallant friend must somehow or other be enabled to exercise his men; but it is no use saying, "Because I cannot exercise them, you must not insist, but you must call me efficient." My hon. and gallant friend made a speech the other day in which he said these regulations must be acted up to if possible, but he also said, on the other hand, "We all know Volunteers are looked upon as the one bulwark against conscription," and he said he for one would defend the country from conscription to the last breath. But, if that is the view of commanding officers of Volunteers, they must not at the same time say what is the efficiency which will enable us to do without conscription. What we ask is this—the Commander-in-Chief inculcated the necessity of Volunteers going from time to time into ramp. A Committee has been sitting to consider our regulations. If it is not possible for Volunteers to conform with them in larger numbers, they must be ready to face some reduction in numbers if we can get more efficiency. It is more to our purpose to get a somewhat smaller body of men and a force on which we can entirely rely. I hope before leaving this subject I may be allowed to say that I speak in no unsympathetic spirit. Anything which is brought before me as regards a genuine financial difficulty of a corps shall have my most careful consideration. But let us aim at efficiency, if necessary with smaller numbers, rather than delude the House of Commons by telling them there are 300,000 men ready to take the field, when we know that some of them are not efficient.

A VOLUNTFER RESERVE.
In the programme of this year I propose to establish a Volunteer Reserve. We have this mass of men going by the
394
colours every year. Some of them cannot continue. Either they marry or they are too busy, and cannot continue to make themselves efficient year by year. I hope commanding officers will receive in a sympathetic spirit what I propose. We propose that any man with not less than four years training in the Volunteers shall be allowed to go into the Reserve for six years, provided that lie will shoot at the range once in two years. We believe that a very large number of men would be willing to put their names down and come out on an emergency who cannot attend a yearly drill. We propose to take the same steps in regard to the Yeomanry.
MR. SEELY: Will these men have rifles and be actually available, or will they be simply Reservists?
MR. BRODRICK: I do not want to bind myself too closely, because in this, as in what I am now going to tell the House, I propose to confer with commanding officers in the first instance before issuing any orders on the subject.

A YEOMANRY RESERVE.
With regard to the Yeomanry, it must be obvious to everybody that modern war requires a much larger number of mounted troops than in former times. We found the use of mounted Regulars very great in the South African war. Men who can shoot and ride, who understand the elements of drill, and have had some experience in camp of tactical exercises, are, in the opinion of the Commander-in-Chief, a most valuable adjunct to any military force. We propose to utilise the Yeomanry to this extent. We propose to offer to men in the Yeomanry up to a certain number, 5,000 in all, £5 a year to place themselves on the list of the Yeomanry Reserve for the purpose of serving abroad in the case of mobilisation. It is an entirely voluntary undertaking. It will, of course, be confined to the existing Yeomanry regiments and to those who have served in South Africa; and we believe that' we shall obtain by that arrangement a very substantial addition to our mounted forces in the case of an emergency. They will, of course, only be available on the mobilisation of the whole Army Reserve.

395
We propose to fill their places in the Yeomanry at home by the formation of a similar Yeomanry Reserve to the Volunteer Reserve which I have just described—men who are unable to come out to camp for a fortnight every year, but who, having served and having been efficient, under certain conditions, will be allowed to remain members of the regiment, and will, I am certain, undertake to serve in case of an emergency in this country.

THE MILITIA—A MILITIA RESERVE.
I am afraid that I am making too large a claim upon the time of the House—[Cries of "No, no"]—but I will sketch as rapidly as I can what we propose to do with three other measures of reform this year. In the first place, there is the Militia. We have been encouraged to assist the Militia by the admirable service they have done in South Africa. In the present year we have made the experiment of using Militiamen as field Artillerymen. It is impossible, we find, to ask any large body of Volunteers to take the duty of field Artillery. They have not the time to give to it, and they are not able, except in emergencies, to spare long enough time to do it, but we have made the experiment with one brigade of Militia with a considerable permanent staff of Regulars, and the Commander-in-Chief is highly pleased with the result that has been achieved. That encourages us to consider whether we can extend the operation. We are going to do what we can to encourage Militia officers. In the first place, we shall give a certain number every year an opportunity of serving with line regiments in order that they may have the benefit of the training, and also to enable the line regiments to have additional officers at these periods of the year. We intend to continue the system of entering the Army through the Militia. We recommend for this year the establishment of a Militia Reserve of 50,000 men, voted by the House last year, who have already served in the Militia or completed their reserve service in the line, and whom it was not considered desirable to raise till we had completed the garrison regiments. There are some smaller advantages that we propose for the Militia—an increase especially in the
396
Militia Artillery and increased pay and better instruction for the Militia Engineers.

OFFICERS' EDUCATION AND EXPENSES.
We hope this year to take a considerable step forward in the matter of the education of officers. The Committee appointed with my right hon. friend the First Commissioner of the Board of Works as chairman, which was appointed independently of the War Office, has not yet presented its Report, and, therefore, I cannot touch upon that subject, but pending that Report we have decided to carry out a system of seconding officers for the Staff College and filling up their places in their regiments, and this, I think, will be a great inducement to officers who attend the Staff College. I told the House last year that we would do what we could in regard to checking officers' expenses; and the Financial Secretary has given great attention to this subject. Although we may not be able to deal drastically with the whole subject this year, we can in some respects undertake to keep down the initial expenses to which fathers are put when their sons enter the Army. At present it is not only the expense of living in the regiment, but to a poor man the outfit and uniform are a heavy burden. With regard to horses, I do not like to speak too fully at this moment, but I believe we can carry much further a system of inducing officers to take the best troop horses at an annual payment, the competitive buying of chargers for the service being art unreasonable strain upon officers' finances. In South Africa officers have largely availed themselves of the permission to take such horses, and we propose similarly to deal with the question of furniture. In the Navy a penny a day is provided by the officers for the upkeep of furniture, and my noble friend has drawn up a scheme by which an officer entering the Army in the future will be provided with furniture and camp equipment by paying this 1d. a day. The scheme will not only relieve the officers, but it will also compensate the State. In regard to uniform, we are hopeful of being able to make arrangements which, besides the reduction of cost on the new uniform as compared with the old, will enable it to be obtained at a more reasonable price by officers. We do not want

397
to deter officers from the manly sports which are traditional in our Army, but we do want to diminish an extravagant system of living in regiments, which practically checks the entrance of poor men.

DRILL.
Very considerable changes are also to be made in the drilling of the men. The infantry drill will in future be changed, and the principle governing it will be that the company and not the battalion will be the practical unit. The commander of the company will be the instructor, and the work will go on consecutively for the eight months of the year which are not furlough months. Rifle exercises will be simplified; manual and bayonet exercises will be abolished, and bayonet fighting will replace bayonet exercise. More importance will be given to skirmishing, and signals are, as far as possible, to take the place of bugle calls. I believe this system of training will not only relieve the soldier from unnecessary parade, but will also greatly increase his efficiency.

MEDICAL SERVICE.
There is one other branch of Army reform upon which I must say a few words, and that is the medical service. I had the advantage last year of the assistance of several of the best medical practitioners in London in drawing up a new scheme for the Army Medical Corps. The features of that scheme are increased pay, increased number of officers, and we further give zealous officers opportunity for study, and we propose to provide the means for it in London if possible. We are carrying out by examinat on the principle of promotion by merit, which is all-important in the medical service. We hope by the interchange to bring these officers into close touch with civil schools. We shall produce a gradual change in quartering, that an officer may occupy the same quarters, where possible, for two years. We desire to attach him to a battalion, and give the officer a home at the beginning of his service. I know an hon. friend of mine has given notice of a Motion on this subject, and I believe I shall be able to satisfy him that anything that
398
the wide experience of civil practitioners can bring to bear on the new system, has not been lost sight of in drawing it up.

NURSING.
With the reform of the medical service is connected the reform of the nursing service, and in this respect we have the advantage of the actual and practical assistance of the president of the new nursing service—Her Majesty the Queen. I attach very great importance to that assistance, not merely from the fact of the exalted position of Her Majesty, but because Her Majesty has a practical knowledge and personal acquaintance with nursing such as is enjoyed by few women in the Kingdom. I believe that in selecting nurses for Army service, the Board we are about to form will be as efficient as can be obtained by uniting the civil and the military services.
MATÉRIEL.
One word on the matériel for the year. There was much fear expressed in this House last year that we were falling behind in the matter of Artillery. I was attacked last year on account of the guns we procured from Germany. I can say that the results given by these guns have been, in the opinion of those who served them and the officers who inspected them, including the Commander-in-Chief, admirable both in rapidity of fire and as regards the distance covered by the fire, and an immense improvement on our present guns. We have a Committee investigating the whol qeuestion of improvement in guns. We have much improved the larger guns, the 9·2 guns; but the feature we are proposing this year is to make permanent the Explosives Committee, which has been sitting for the last two or three years, presided over by Lord Rayleigh. It will have joined with it one soldier and one sailor, and they will have at their command an experimental establishment and a laboratory. I believe their researches have already resulted in giving us a powder much better than cordite, by limiting the erosion, which has so much reduced the length of the life of our larger guns, that I believe their work will be of the greatest value to the nation.
THE COLONIES—ORGANISATION OF THE FORCES OF THE EMPIRE.
Before I sit down I would ask the House in one more matter to give me sympathetic support. We cannot close any record of the year without remembering that even to a larger extent than last year we have had the support in the field of our Colonial forces. I trust it may be possible that some arrangement may be made by which the whole forces of the Empire may be made available in case of a war in which the interests of the whole Empire are involved. An opportunity for conferring with our Colonial friends on this subject will occur on the visit of Colonial statesmen to this country for the Coronation. We shall then have an opportunity of seeing how far the scheme in our minds commends itself to the Colonies, and how far they are willing to undertake a responsibility which will more closely link together the different parts of the Empire.
PROGRAMME OF THE YEAR.
Our programme for the year is this. We shall continue the work of organising our Army Corps, and as troops return home they will settle in the various places in the Army Corps which they are to fill in the future. We hope by the increase of pay that we shall improve the class of recruits. We know that, if the terms of service are generally accepted, we shall build up an adequate reserve, besides building up reserves for the Militia, Volunteers, and Yeomanry, as I have described. If we succeed in these matters, we shall have surely made a long step forward. The education of officers, the training of men, the reform of the Medical Department and of the War Office itself, give evidence that even during the progress of an exhausting war we have not altogether kept out of sight organisation at home. It is our determination that, if this war has been larger and costlier than we or anybody anticipated, at least this result shall come from it, that our Army shall come out of it more efficient than before, and, if we succeed in our efforts, our Empire will come out of the war much stronger than it entered into it.

GENERAL REPLY TO CRITICISM OF TIIE ARMY.
On one subject I may appeal to the House. I think it is most important that,
400
whatever our deficiencies are or have been in the conduct of the war, they should not be exaggerated. We should preserve some sort of equilibrium, because Members are, after all, not merely engaged in giving advice to the Government that will enable them to correct mistakes that have been made, but every word that is said in this House and the attacks which are made are made use of by those who are not merely hostile to the Government but hostile to the country. There is a tendency in some quarters to depreciate our preparations, to magnify our failures, and exalt our deficiences in personnel and matériel. So far as that discredits the Department, so far as it filches from the reputation of Ministers, I do not complain of it; but remember these aspersions are greedily drunk in and quoted by foreign newspapers, and that it is universally believed abroad that our officers are ill-trained, our warlike stores defective, and our War Office incapable, if not corrupt. This is not due to hostile critics on the Continent, but is largely due to encouragement given to exaggerated statements made even by those who are friends to the Government and as good Englishmen as any of us. These things, I can assure the House, are felt very acutely by the Army in South Africa. Remember, the prestige of an Army is as valuable to the Army as honour is to a woman. Moreover, you cannot take away the prestige of an Army without taking away the prestige of the country to which that Army belongs. You are not only robbing the diplomatist of his best weapon by depreciating his own Army, but in this case you are also robbing the soldier of his due. It is represented by hostile critics, not in this country, that our Army is not merely worse organised, but is worse manned, than foreign Armies. We have had not only experience of South Africa, but we have had experience of China. Man to man, side by side, organisation for organisation, with the troops from several nations, coming from all parts of the globe, I make bold to say that, although our troops were largely composed of our Indian fellow-subjects, they came behind those of no foreign Power, either in organisation, discipline, or in all that goes to make a soldier.
It is difficult to listen with patience, and to read, as perhaps I do more than some others, the continued cry in Continental papers that ours is an Army which serves for pay, and that our soldier is not equal to the conscript soldier. No British Minister can perhaps properly speak on these questions; but I do not think that the foreign military men who served with our Army in South Africa will justify that libel on the rank and file of our Army. Whatever happens, whatever may be the changes for the defence of this country, whether it ever occurs that compulsory service for home defence should be adopted, at all events we know this, that for the defence of India and our colonies, and for foreign expeditions, we shall always have to rely on an Army which is not made up of conscript soldiers. And our experience in the past justifies us in believing that our soldiers are equal to those of any of the Armies of the Continent in their own way. Our best soldiers who fought on the Continent in the Peninsular war were not conscript soldiers. The men, scattered remnants, half clothed and half starved as they were, who stood on the hill of Inkerman and pushed back a much larger number of Russians, were not conscript soldiers. And the men who, side by side with Nicholson at Delhi, fought their way into the town against a horde of fanatics, as well drilled and as well armed as themselves, who defended every inch of the ground—they were not conscripts. I cannot help feeling that, though the opportunities of this war have not been such as to give a chance for the display of such qualities as were evinced on those three occasions, they have brought out in our Army a patience in the enduring of hardship, an endurance proved during two years, a courage and a humanity second to that of no Army in the world.
I hope the House will forgive me for saying as much as this tonight, in view of the attacks which have been made, and seeing, as I have said, that they are bitterly felt by those who are enduring all that a soldier can endure for his country, and who are not able to reply to them. It is because I feel that our Army is well organised, is well manned, and well equipped, that I ask
402
the House to take the step forward which I have put before them tonight, and to secure, in this day of progress, when we must go back if we do not go forward, that the personnel of our Army shall not be allowed to fall behind its traditions in the past. When we remember that a generation ago sacrifices were made of cherished traditions at the instance of the Ministry of the day which resulted in giving us short service and a large reserve, and when we think of all that has been done to provide an Army to, carry on this war in South Africa, I think this House should be encouraged to make some sacrifice to carry on that policy; and I believe that in so doing we shall not only have the support of our fellow-countrymen in the present day, but shad earn the gratitude of those who come after us.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—CONCENTRATION CAMPS.
MR. HUMPHREYS - OWEN: No one in this House or out of it believes more strongly than I do that we ought to be animated by feelings of admiration for the men who, in the face of great difficulties and tribulations, have been fighting for us in South Africa. I have never concealed my belief that the war was avoidable, and a melancholy blunder, but, though I have always censured the Government for forcing us into the war, I have never done anything to hinder its vigorous prosecution. The country has scarcely realised what the consequences of the war have been to the women and children in the camps. Bringing the figures down to the end of January, I find that 14,284 children and 2,484 men and women have perished in them. This is a terrible loss, but it is still more terrible when you consider the proportion which this mortality bears to the numbers in the camps themselves. Repeatedly the death rate of children has been something like 500 per 1,000 per annum, and even now, in the returns for January last, I find the death rate is 247 per 1,000. Now, when such a tragedy as this is unrolled before our eyes it is

403
necessary—indeed, it is more—it is the duty of Parliament to inquire strictly into what are the causes and what are the remedies which should be provided.
As to the causes for the creation of the camps, I would say that they began by the policy which was adopted of devastating the country as a military measure with the view of making the resistance of the Boers impossible. But the trouble was also added to by another act of policy, namely, the paper annexations, and the insisting upon the taking, by the inhabitants of the country, of oaths, either of allegiance or neutrality, without being able to give due protection to the people for whom we thus became responsible, because it must be remembered that the notion of sovereign and I subject implies the relation of protector, and protected. The result of our action was that we were unable to protect large tracts of country, and the only alternative that was left to our soldiers was to have camps for those for whom we had made ourselves responsible. This was done, I have no doubt, with humane motives on the whole, though I think you cannot read the Blue-books without seeing that what was passing through the minds of some, at any rate, of our authorities out there, was the idea that by keeping the wives and children away from the fighting Boers we should put pressure upon them, and that this would be a humane measure, because it would tend to shorten the war. Now, it has not shortened the war. On the contrary, as my hon. and gallant friend the Member for Central Sheffield has pointed out in the book which he has sent to me, so far from shortening the war, it has lengthened the war. It has strengthened the determination of the Boers in the field, and relieved them from the responsibility of looking after their women folk.
Then, there was a further cause for the failure of the camps. They were undertaken as a military measure, and the camps were fixed by soldiers according to military ideas. This is pointed out by the Committee of ladies in their Report, which has been distributed amongst us. They say at page 17—
"There can be little doubt that in the first instance the military did not take sufficiently into account the difference necessary between the treatment of women and children
404
and that of soldiers. For instance, we believe it is reckoned that sufficient tent accommodation is given to an Army in the field if one tent is allowed to sixteen men. Experience has proved that more than three times this amount of accommodation is necessary in a concentration camp, and that anything over five in a bell tent means overcrowding. Soldiers in war times are, constantly moving from place to place. A concentration camp when once planted down on a particular site will probably remain there for months or even years. We cannot feel that sufficient care has been exercised to choose only those sites on which a good and plentiful water supply and other vital requirements could be secured."
They point out in another part of the report that one of the camps, for military reasons, was placed in a position which would not otherwise have been selected. That was the case of the Orange River camp, of which they say—
"This camp had been removed in obedience to military orders, and the people transferred to the general camp. The doctors considered this the direct cause of the epidemic of measles."
This is not a charge against the officers, but a criticism on their skill for undertaking such work. A further reason of the failure to carry on the camp satisfactorily has been, I think, that public attention was not directed to them in anything like time. It was very unfortunate that, although the camps were visited and reported upon very early last year, there was a very great amount of party spirit excited; it became a matter of party loyalty to say that all was well in them, and in consequence of that, the care was less than it would otherwise have been. A most optimistic spirit pervaded the officials. There is a report of one of the authorities to this effect—
"Hospitals are established in all the camps, and one medical officer is allowed for each thousand refugees, the hospital establishments being increased in cases of grave sickness. All linen, clothing, and hospital luxuries of every description are without stint."
Ample accommodation is provided in all camps for the refugees. Some are in wood and iron buildings, each family having a separate room, some in marquees, while others have bell tents, overcrowding in all cases being strictly forbidden. Suitable latrines for men and women are constructed with corrugated iron and wood. Washing places are provided in the same way for both sexes."
That was an official statement sent to the War Office, and, naturally enough, it was accepted, and therefore I suppose no special efforts were taken. But I will ask

405
the House to compare this very optimistic statement with a few extracts from the Blue-book. I have verified them myself, and can assure the House they are accurate. One is an extract from Dr. Kendal Franks' report. He is speaking of the camp at South Irene, and he says—
"In some of the tents there is a distinct over-crowding."
Dr. Pratt Yules' remarks are also important. He says—
"The recommended number of occupants per tent is five, and every effort is made to reach this standard. Very frequently the numbers per tent are greatly in excess of this, but these instances are being remedied as quickly as possible. If we take the ordinary bell tent as having a capacity of 650 cubic feet, the air space per head is seen to be very small indeed–130 cubic feet to each of five occupants. The ventilation through the canvas may practically be discarded. Impure air has a much more detrimental effect on the health of children than on that of adults under the conditions of camp life."
Dr. Turner writes—
"There is no provision for privacy except that some families hang up rugs between the portions of floor allotted to them and their neighbours. These buildings might be very suitable for barracks used by men only, but nothing less suitable for families could be well conceived. I leave out the question such objections as the want of privacy. Every incident of family life must be carried on coram populo."
Then, again, as to inadequate clothing, it is stated—
"Many of the refugees claim that they were hurriedly removed from their homes, and not given time to collect their belongings, being told by the officer in charge of patrol that they would be clothed and fed in camp. I consider that in some few cases this complaint may be founded on fact, though there is evidence that the majority of families were not only allowed time to collect whatever they desired to bring in with them, but also that considerable transport conveniences must have been placed at their disposal, for some families have brought a considerable quantity of furniture into the camps."
Again, I way that the troops carried out this wretched work with every possible consideration. Then there was another case at Heidelburg. There it was stated—
"The condition of women and children captured on commando and sent into camp is pitiable in the extreme. They arrive here with nothing, and report destruction of even their mattresses and blankets. This, of course, necessitates the issuing of blankets, etc., to them, and considerably increases the expenditure of the department."
406
One of the chief causes of the great mortality is stated by the medical men to have been that a large number of children had no bedsteads whatever, and were obliged to sleep on beds on the ground, with the result that they were frequently wet and miserable. Another fault of military policy was the wretched system of half rations, which, we know, was generally stopped at once when attention was called to it in this House. But the system has not been altogether abolished. Putting people on short rations, or on second-class rations, is still used by way of punishment in some of the camps, though not in all, because some of the superintendents refuse to employ that particular means of punishment, as it is punishing the children for the faults of the parents. But that the system of half rations was continued in one case until it was discovered by the Ladies Committee is shown in their Report. They found as recently as August last that at Vryburg there were in camp Transvaalers and Bechuanalanders. The latter, being technically rebels, were put on half rations, while the Transvaalers were on full rations. The ladies remonstrated, and pointed out that a promise was made in this House that the system should not be continued, and it was immediately stopped by the officer in command. But still there is the fact that the attempt to govern a great number of civilians by military notions is sure to cause trouble, which military men cannot be expected to foresee.
The hon. and gallant Member for Central Sheffield has been good enough to send me his little pamphlet entitled "In a Boer Concentration Camp." When I read it I was reminded of nothing so much as of a learned counsel pointing out to a Committee upstairs the immense advantage of some commercial undertaking, the great profits that would ensue from it, and the public benefits that would be served. One would think on reading this pamphlet that everything was for the best in the best of all possible camps. I should like to read one or two extracts—
"Let us visit a camp. The site is well chosen —on the sun slope of a gentle hill. In the tents much furniture; on the beds light quilts, clean

407
sheets, many pillows. Meals when they like, cooked as they like, with hot filtered water always available for coffee or tea."
That is how it appeared to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but that is not how it appeared, about the same time, to the Ladies' Committee. They had a very different story to tell. Here are their recommendations, which show that the camps are not so perfect as they appeared to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. On page 10 of the Report they recommend—
"That an addition to the rations of ½lb. of rice per head per week should be made… That superintendents should be instructed to encourage the making in camps of cheap bedsteads… That every camp should be provided with proper apparatus for boiling and disinfecting enteric linen… That whenever practicable there should be boilers for serving out water boiling, as at Johannesburg, and that tinned milk should be issued to the children mixed in the boiled water, not in the tin."
I think that establishes the point that the country at large was misled by optimistic reports, and that it never practically knew the truth until this Report was issued. Nobody could have been expected to read the huge Blue-book which came out in November, and which was chucked at our heads without any index whatever.
There is another grave fault which I charge against the Government with regard to these prison camps. They left us under the impression that everybody who came there came more or less of their own free will, and could go in and out as they pleased. That is not the case. In the last Blue-book there is a very remarkable sentence, which conclusively proves that these people are treated as prisoners. At page 90, op. 934, the Deputy Administrator of the Orange River Colony says—
"I observe that your Excellency considers that the camps should be fenced in; that you ask the Attorney General to enlist certain persons for a police force to keep order in the camps; lastly, that you prefer military regulations being enforced in the several camps.
"I wish to bring to your Excellency's notice the fact that in the concentration camps in the Orange River Colony at present in existence, where the camps are not fenced, and where simply camp limits are defined by conspicuous beacons, there is much less trouble in dealing with the people than in those camps where the people are confined within a barbed wire fence such as Kimberley."
And at page 125, Captain Trollope op. 853, speaks of refugees that have
408
been taken by the various columns that have been clearing the country, and of 800 refugees who were captured in laager at Graspan.
Even in cases where the superintendents of the camps are willing to allow women and children who wish to do so to go to their friends, the military authorities of the places to which they wish to go are consulted, and if they refuse to let them come they are kept in the camps. I appeal to Members of the House—is it reasonable to suppose that the British Empire is going to ruin because a few noisy-tongued women are allowed to go from one place to another in South Africa? It seems to me that restrictions of this kind are not only cruel, but impolitic. A family writes to say they will be glad to receive so-and-so; the military authorities say she shall not go because she stirs up strife. Such a thing is resented by both her and her friends; it prevents her friends from having the pleasure of looking after her and incenses them against British rule.
Now, the authorities of the camps often excuse themselves for the excessive mortality by saying, first that it is owing to the medicine which Boer women will give to their children; if that is so, what is the use of strict discipline, if you cannot keep out of the camps the medicines they are supposed to take? secondly, that they are so dirty and insanitary in their habits. It may be true that some are dirty, but it is only a certain section. There are many passages all through the Blue-books which say the tents are clean and tidy. I will just quote one passage on page 50 of the last Blue-book-—
"In dealing with this question it should be borne in mind that the populations of the camps are composed chiefly of the families of the most indigent and ignorant class of Boers.
"The camps thus contain families many of which are highly respectable and of the best type of Boer, but by far the greater number of those that have sunk lowest in the social scale of the people. It is the latter description that has given the most trouble in the camps, that defies all laws of hygiene."
How cruel it is to charge indiscriminately the whole nation with faults which are obviously only the faults of a certain section.
THE SECRETAR OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): Who has?
MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: Constantly throughout the Blue-books you speak of the dirty habits of these people.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: It is perfectly clear there is some misapprehension. Over and over again a distinction is made between the better class, who are as civilised as ourselves, and the poorer class, who give the greatest cause for anxiety. There is no charge against the whole.
MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: I was speaking of the popular impression.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Oh!
MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: The general impression of the people is a very powerful factor in this matter, and so long as the nation is allowed to believe that the Boers are nothing but a set of idle, dirty, and lazy people, so long will there be this indifference to their sufferings to which I desire to call attention. I find it difficult to read the Blue-books, because there is so much to find fault with. I find it difficult to make a selection. There is one more point I must refer to; it relates to the same question. Here is what the Report of the Ladies Committee says of one of the South African camps, p. 57—
"Sanitation: On the trench system and very rough. No proper seats (except in the school latrine) for either men, women, or children, but simply logs thrown across trenches."
Anybody who has read the Blue-books at all knows that there are other sanitary arrangements as bad.
The Resolution speaks of the delay that took place in carrying out the improvements. It is admitted that improvements have been made, but the delay has been extreme. These Reports of the Ladies Committee shew how much still remains to be done. Miss Hobhouse called attention to these abuses early in last year. She was met with animosity by all sorts of persons, who, I venture to say, had not read her Report, or they would not have been so ready to attack her in this House, or on the platform, and go so far as to stir up violent mobs to prevent her being heard. If they had read Miss Hobhouse's book, they would, I believe, from shame, have refrained from making
410
those accusations. I have the book here, and I challenge you to find in it any violent or intemperate language. All she does is to point out, with some vigour, admitted defects; and those defects have remained unremedied until just now, and there are still defects to be remedied. The treatment of Miss Hobhouse by a large section of the people of this country is one of the saddest instances of the evils of political party spirit. We who know Miss Hobhouse have the highest opinion of her, and feel the greatest gratitude to her for what she has done.
What is going to be done? We call upon the Government to state the provision they intend to make for the coining South African winter. It is not for us to make constructive recommendations, but to call attention to the matters that require remedy, and which, if attended to, will have the effect of preventing the next South African winter being so disastrous to the camps as the last winter. The first thing the Government should consider is the personnel of the administration. Almost everything depends on the superintendents; the difference between a good and bad superintendent means the difference between the life and death of hundreds and thousands of children, and I hope the Government will tell us what is the scheme of the pay and allowances that they give to the superintendents, and what precautions they take to assure themselves that those persons who are unfit for the position will not be appointed in the future. There is an interesting paragraph in the last Blue-book, 934, page 52—
"The greatest difficulty has been experienced in obtaining the services of good doctors and good nurses. An almost continuous procession has been maintained of nurses and doctors going to one or other of the camps from the coast, and another of nurses and doctors going from one or other of the camps to the coast. This circumstance has greatly added to the difficulty of maintaining an adequate staff at the camps, and has given rise to much irritation, expense, and loss of efficiency with consequent damage to the welfare of camps concerned."
What is the reason for this procession? There are plenty of good doctors and good nurses to be obtained. I suppose the fact is that the Government do not choose to pay for them.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: There is not the slightest foundation for that statement. If the hon. Gentleman had read the

411
Blue-book he would have seen that I said expense was not to be taken into consideration in the slightest degree.
MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: I remember that, and I accept it. At the same time, that is quite recently, and everyone hopes the instruction has been acted up to. But it is evident from these Blue-books that it is necessary for the officials out there to be carefully looked after; it is no use sending circulars without seeing that the work is done. I will do the right hon. Gentleman the justice to say that he has done that; he has looked after them, and got into trouble with Lord Milner in consequence.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Certainly not. Really the hon. Gentleman is not entitled to make these insinuations. In the first place, he insinuates that the Government, having declared that no expense was to be spared, were perhaps insincere, and he "hopes" the officials will carry it out. Now he declares that I have got into a quarrel or into difficulties with Lord Milner. There is not the slightest foundation for either of those insinuations.
MR. HUMPHREYS - OWEN: The right hon. Gentleman is rather hasty. I made no insinuations. What I said was that unless officials out there were looked after, it was no use sending circulars; he must see that they carry out the work. There is no insinuation in that. I went on to say that the right hon. Gentleman had done so, and that Lord Milner had not seemed very well pleased at it. I will give the reference to what Lord Milner did say. [The hon. Member looked through his notes, but was apparently unable to find the reference.†] At all events, it was just an allusion in passing. I made no serious charge. The right hon. Gentleman simply caught up the point, and tried to make something out of it.
Then there is another point, and an important one, I think, viz., that of the rations. On this subject I consulted a lady, a housekeeper of experience, and her opinion of the rations is very adverse. Then I have a letter which appeared in the public Press from a gentleman who had worked out from the Blue-books the
†The reference is to [Cd. 853] p. 24. A. C.H.O.
412
cost of rations in the month of October, and these varied from about 3d to 5d per head. These are costs which unquestionably are nothing like sufficient for any but the very poorest of food. I remember when I was a visitor of a gaol it was thought we had done very well if we fed the inmates for 2s. 6d. a week. In the workhouse the charge is about 5s. When that is compared with the costs which appear in the recent Blue-books, it is evident that the latter must necessarily be less than sufficient for a proper living allowance.
I have now placed before the House my reasons for calling attention to the camps and for expressing a strong hope that the Government will take steps which will save the country from the misery of looking on at a continuance of the terrible death rate. The right hon. Gentleman, if he reflects, will recognise that I have carefully abstained from making any personal charges or imputations whatever. I have simply criticised, as it is the duty of any Opposition to criticise, the administrative action of the Government through its servants, and I trust that, for the credit of the country itself, we shall have a most effectual reform of the unfortunate state of things described in the Bluebooks. I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. (8.40.)
MR. CHANNING: I rise to second the Motion, which has been moved with great ability and with still greater moderation by my hon. friend. On a question of such gravity, affecting the reputation and the honour of the whole nation, any man with a sense of responsibility will wish to speak with the utmost self-restraint and circumspection. The case we lay before the House, the plain facts, are more eloquent than any rhetoric. The position is this. In a war unexampled in many of its aspects, we have been placed in a position in which we have, either by choice or compulsion, taken a whole people captive and have inflicted upon those who have done us no harm—the non-combatants—the most serious and terrible consequences. My whole case may be summed up in the following words from Miss Hobhouse's Report:—
"To keep these camps going is murder of the children. Whatever the authorities do, and they are, I believe, doing their best with

413
very limited means, it is only a miserable patch on a great ill. By more judicious management they could do more, but do what you will, you cannot undo the thing itself."
The deaths of 14,000 children lie at our door, and the vast majority of those deaths are the direct result of our policy. An effort has been made to explain away the mortality in the camps by saying that the ordinary death-rate among the Boers in the country districts was abnormal and appalling. There is no evidence of that. The Governor of Cape Colony has reported that he could obtain no information of the supposed high mortality. The medical officer of the Cape Government, when appealed to, gave the death-rate among children under one year in thirty-two Cape towns in 1889, the year before the war, as 147 per 1,000 births; whereas in twenty-eight chief towns of England and Wales it was 162 per 1,000 births. If that proportion holds good as applied to children of all ages, it would be seen at once that it was impossible to maintain the idea that there was an enormous normal mortality among the Dutch children, between one and twelve, as suggested.
The right hon. Gentleman somewhat brusquely interrupted my hon. friend on the question of cost and expenditure in the camps. He very naturally boasted that he had directed that no cost should be spared. But he gave those directions after the ghastly mouths of September and October, which would always remain black pages in the history of this business. In the first Blue-book the most careful instructions were given in the Circulars to observe the strictest economy. We are asked now to believe that there has been a great improvement in the camps. But, taking the figures for the Transvaal and Orange River camps, the camps really in question, I find that the death rate of children in these camps in October last was 601 per annum per 1,000; in November it was 499; in December, 388; and in January, which month we are told marked such splendid results, it is still 262 per 1,000. At the October rate the whole population would have gone in twenty months, and at the January rate in forty-four months. Is that a result which would satisfy the national
414
conscience? The mortality has been highest amongst children between the ages of one year and twelve years. It has been estimated that the rate at which children of these ages have been dying in the Transvaal and the Orange River camps is no less than fourteen times the mortality of children of the same ages in the city of Manchester, which is not one of the most healthy cities in England. Taking the whole white population of all the camps, the rate of mortality has only sunk from 339 per 1,000 to 189 per 1,000 in January, or in other words these people are still dying ten times faster than the population in England, and four times faster than in the most congested and unhealthy slums of Glasgow and Manchester. And it must be remembered that this is a business which cannot be completely repaired by one or two important reforms at the present time. This grim and appalling record must go on. One of the most serious points laid before the country by Lord Milner was that in two months time, with the greatest efforts, he could only transfer 6,500 persons from these camps to the coast, and at the end of four months apparently only 9,800 had been moved down to Natal. And Lord Milner went on to say that probably as much as could be done altogether was to transfer one-fifth of the whole population from the camps to the coast. His Lordship drew attention to the fact that this question of the camps was likely to last for years.
"we have to consider that the housing and keeping alive of this large number of women and children in these camps is not for a few weeks, but for months and months, and, perhaps, for years and years."
It seems to me that that deepens our responsibility enormously. Reference has been made by my hon. friend to the recommendations and suggestions made by Miss Hobhouse. I wish to support what fell from the Secretary of State for War in regard to the Lady Commissioners who have recently reported on the condition of these camps. I do not believe that for works of mercy and tender ministrations to the sick and the distressed, there is anything in the world to be compared with an English woman, with heart, and brains, and energy. The Ladies Commission fully deserve everything that has been said as to the thoroughness and exhaustive nature of

415
their inquiry, and the fearlessness with which they have exposed every fault. But what is the upshot of this inquiry? My hon. friend has dwelt on the optimistic character of the first Blue-book, but in that I cannot agree with him. What struck me chiefly in the first of the Bluebooks on the camps was the extreme frankness and honesty of the camp officials in the complaints they made of the terrible distress they had to meet, and the want of means they had to deal with their difficulties. They appealed to Lord Kitchener and authorities of all kinds to help them to get out of the position in which they had been placed. I cannot go through the details regarding all the camps; but I have analysed them with the utmost care, and, while I wish to pay the highest honour to the devoted officials for the manner in which they endeavoured to discharge their duties, there are from the first, again and again, the plainest intimations of the most serious sanitary faults in the camps, corroborating all that Miss Hobhouse had said. The Blue-book is a vast record of the ghastly inability of those well-meaning ad ministrators to overtake the evils with which they were confronted, and to remedy them after they had been exposed. I wish to give the highest honour to the officials who tried to cope with the difficulties, but the Government ought never to have embarked on a policy which was not justifiable in view of the very serious dangers and risks, and ought never to have undertaken a task which was wholly beyond their powers.
My hon. friend has referred to the fact that, even in these later months—eight or nine months after Miss Hobhouse's visit—there was still no provision for the disinfection of the sheets used by typhoid patients. In every page of the Report there were protests against the heaps of dust and filth which had been allowed to accumulate in nearly every camp throughout the whole of there areas. The question of water is, perhaps, the most serious that could arise in South Africa. One of the most frequent complaints of the Ladies Commission is that, even for the camp hospitals, water is still neither boiled nor filtered; and that after ten months. At Middelburg "the water in the
416
new tanks outside the hospital kitchens was the colour of pea-soup." One section of this camp got water from a polluted "furrow supplied from a dam four miles off, and many sickly beasts had died at the water's edge." In another case, at Potchefstroom, 4,900 people, after a year, still depend for their water supply on a trench half clogged with foul rubbish, and receiving the surface drainage of the camp. Miss Hobhouse recommended a supply of vegetables, but the Ladies Commission found several outbreaks of scurvy owing to the still scanty supply. I would like to quote one passage which shows Miss Hobhouse's impartiality. She insisted on having stretchers to lift the people from the earth, and wrote in January last.
"The damp of the ground, the occasional streams of rain that run through the draughty night air beneath the flap of the tents, combine to lower the health of the children."
But writing of the camp at Norval's Point, she was evidently under the impression that every tent had been supplied with bedsteads, so that the women and children could be raised from the ground. But Mr. Bowen, the superintendent at Norval's Point, the one man who tried to work on this point, reported to the Commission in September, I have not many sleeping on the ground, but more than I like;" and he added that he "had lost more children from their sleeping on the ground than from any other cause." And in nearly every camp the Commission state that last autumn there were half, two-thirds, four-fifths, of the people still sleeping on the ground. The overcrowding in the tents Miss Hobhouse had found appalling. But the Report of the Ladies Commission was full of instances showing it still too frequent. Take the camp at Kimberley, where they found overcrowded tents. In one, five children were prone on the ground, on mattresses, all down with illness. In another, where there was a family of eight, one was lying dangerously ill with pneumonia. And the Commission said of this camp—
"The people are too thick on the ground; the medical and nursing staff are insufficient; there is no organised system of tent-to-tent visitation with the object of discovering early cases of sickness and removing them to hospital;

417
there is no central kitchen for making beef-tea and other invalid food; and the hospital accommodation is quite inadequate."
What wonder, then, that the death rate ran up to 335 per 1,000 in August. The suggestions of the Commission were carried out very largely, but they found that in November the mortality was still at a rate about six times that of London. We should not be satisfied with these results. Take another camp, Mafeking, where there was an appalling record. In August the Commission made a long series of recommendations and complaints which practically covered every detail of sanitary administration, and when they came again in November, they said—
"We found the camp a prey to a terrible outbreak of disease—measles, enteric, pneumonia, malaria, chicken-pox, and whooping-cough, which was undoubtedly fostered and aggravated by the insanitary conditions of which we had complained on our previous visit. Little or nothing had been done; the conditions had in some respects deteriorated, and till the arrival of Dr. Morrow no real effort had been made to prevent or to cope with the sickness. This had steadily increased until 2,000 cases of disease in about 4,000 people were registered at one time; twenty nine deaths had occurred in one day, and over 500 lives had been lost during the ten weeks since we left."
The list of the items of stupid neglect is appalling; it ends with—
"Milk still being issued unmixed with boiling water. No boiling of water or disinfecting arrangements were even started till the epidemic was at its height. There was no garden, though the soil conditions are suitable, the need for fresh vegetables more urgent than ever, and the spring far advanced."
I venture to quote detail those points, because they appear to me extremely pertinent to the issue we wish to lay before the House. We have to ask ourselves one of the gravest questions it is possible to put to ourselves. What have been the true causes of this terrible mortality? The General Superintendent of the Transvaal camps, Mr. Tucker, in one of the last Blue-books, has given a clear indication of the two main causes of the terrible mortality. Mr. Tucker has expressed his grounds for thinking that possibly
418
the camps would rapidly improve in the near future in these words—
"The weak and emaciated have largely died out.
and—
"Very few new arrivals from the veldt are expected to come in."
There we have two sign-posts of the causes of this ghastly tragedy. Why should one of the toughest and most out of door races still left on earth come to be thus emaciated and weak on our hands? I wish hon. Members would read the Blue-books and see the way in which these poor people, in their thin cotton dresses, were dragged from their homes, exposed to all weathers, worn out, ill-fed, swept in in these enormous numbers day by day, and month by month, by the columns that were carrying out this wholesale devastation. That was the reason they were exhausted, weak, and destitute of all suitable equipment to enter into camp life. I have referred to the scarcity of beds. At the outset there was a scarcity even of blankets. What must it have been for these people, dragged from their warm homes and placed in tents upon high ground with an icy temperature at night, and thereby exposed to these great risks? Then there was the food. Take the meat. The ration recommended now by the Commission was 51b. a week of meat. But the Transvaal camp ration was only 21b. of meat a week, leaving utterly out of consideration the plan of half rations for the families of men on commando. The meat ration in Natal was 41b. a week, and that—then too lean—was supplemented by bacon and other things; in the Transvaal the 21b. ration was taken from sheep which were worn out, which sometimes dropped dead before the butcher's knife could reach them, and which sometimes only weighed 151b. apiece. It was not a ration of meat, but of skin and bone. But even this ration ceased in August, and they had had to fall back on tinned stuff, and it was only in November last that arrangements enabled the managers of the camps to have one ration a week of cold storage meat, imported from Australia. It is not the case that farm burning and driving in has ever ceased. Throughout the Blue-books, right down through November to the

419
heart of December, there is evidence that the people were being swept in from their homes to these camps by the columns, in batches of 100 to 1,000 at a time, and between July and the middle of December my estimate from the figures is that at least 27,000 people had been brought in. I think this was to incur a tremendous responsibility. It was obvious to the military authorities in South Africa months before, from the reports of their officials, that the risk to life was very great. These camps were so crowded that they were obliged to place these wretched children in tents which they knew were steeped in infection, and thus the new set of children were exposed to the most serious results. These people were unprotected in these tents from either wet or cold. Miss Hobhouse, in one of her letters, had described the condition of the tents in one of these camps; how the dew was so saturating that it came through two hut covers and saturated her clothes with wet. Let the House, then, reflect upon the condition of these poor women and children — three-fourths of them were children—who were in these camps for months, through the whole southern winter, without beds to lie on, or any provision to lift them from the ground.
SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Many of them had beds.
MR. CHANNINGsaid the hon. Member would not deny that the Ladies Commission found that a majority still had to lie on the ground. With regard to the attempted explanation as to the origin and object of these camps, the Colonial Secretary had told hon. Members in February in the debate on the Address that these camps would never have come into existence but for the threats of the Boers to burn the farms of those who deserted their ranks. But Lord Kitchener's reply to that threat was, he stated in his despatch, given in the interview with General Botha on the 28th of February, 1901. Farm burning had been in full swing many months before the date in February when Lord Kitchener said he would be compelled to sweep the women and children into camps. Captain Phillips, in his book "With Rimington," shows
420
that farm-burning had been going on, and people carted away, some time before he went into hospital in August, 1900; therefore it is clear that a large population had been turned loose right up to the end of the year. Were the people whose farms were burned during that time left to perish on the veldt, or were camps provided for them at that time? The date of the formation of these camps had been withheld throughout the Blue-book. What was the date when these camps were first formed? If these camps were not formed till some time in the year 1901, then Lord Kitchener did not provide reasonable provision for the wants of shelter and food for the unhappy people turned out of these farms. If, on the other hand, these people were provided for and shut up in these camps during those months, the argument of the Colonial Secretary that these camps were formed after the conversation with General Botha five months afterwards falls to the ground. The Colonial Secretary cannot escape from that dilemma. We are asked to regard the establishment of the camps as a matter of protection, and to talk of these people as refugees. The real origin of this camp system was given with perfect frankness by the Administrator of the Orange River Colony. They were formed expressly on military grounds.
"The whole intention," he wrote, "of the Commander-in-Chief presumably was to remove from the outlying districts persons who by their presence there could have rendered aid, voluntarily or compulsorily, to the enemy in the field. Their concentration in these camps, therefore, was clearly an essential part of his scheme of operations against those still fighting."
We have, therefore, this terrible responsibility. I have wished to honour to the full the men who have tried to overcome the difficulty of this terrible position, but when it is shown that all this suffering and death have resulted from our determination to get the better of this little people, who are fighting for their independence, I think it is a case where the Opposition has a right to challenge the Government. When historians in the future come to consider the policy which underlay the formation of these camps, they will regard it as one of the saddest chapters of English history.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, 'this House deplores the great mortality in the concentration camps formed in the execution of the policy of clearing the country in South Africa; and, while recognising the improvements in the administration of those camps, condemns the delays which have occurred in effecting them; it calls on the Government, especially in view of the approach of the African winter, to state what further measures they intend to take for the preservation of life, and for the protection of the health of the inmates of the camps.'"—(Mr. Humphreys-Owen.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. LYTTELTON: Without the least impugning the motives of those who have brought forward this Motion, I can only deplore it. Having given a great deal of serious thought to this matter, I have arrived at the conclusion that to attempt to criticise the action of the Government in South Africa, at a time when the war is raging, without a substantial chance of altering its policy or conduct, is in itself to be regretted. I entirely accept and welcome the criticism which has been directed against those who sit on this side of the House, however severe and painful it may be to those who receive it, if there is a genuine belief upon the part of those who apply it that they can alter the conduct or policy of the Government by the application of that criticism. But it is impossible to suppose there is the slightest chance of altering that which has happened months ago. There cannot be any question of altering the policy of these camps. I think they have been humane and merciful. But, putting myself in the position of the hon. Gentlemen opposite who do not hold the same opinion, what profit can be gained? You can gain nothing by criticising what is over and past, and been carried through. I have had the pleasure of seeing Mrs. Fawcett, who is the President of the Ladies Committee, since her return from South Africa, and one thing will be a satisfaction to every Member present. She told me that the Committee had visited thirty-three camps, and that the method they employed was that each lady should go separately, by herself, unaccompanied
422
by any official of the camp, in order that she might interview the Boer women, and freely talk with them without the slightest fear of duress or criticism. It is an extraordinary thing that after visiting these camps in this manner, Mrs. Fawcett was able to assure me that not a single complaint was made by any Boer woman, out of the thousands who had been interviewed, of the behaviour or conduct of the soldiers who were in charge of these camps. I submit that this is a magnificent tribute to the people who have guarded and taken care of these women and children in these difficult circumstances.
MR. PIRIE: You have no right to claim that admission from your side of the House, Sir.
MR. LYTTELTON: If the lion. Gentleman had done me the honour to listen to what I said, he would have heard me say "every Member present." Now I wish to make good what I said in the beginning of my remarks, and I venture to appeal to Members opposite, because what I have to say may, I think, bring this discussion to a close. Work is being done at the present moment in these camps—many Members are not aware of it—which will go far, if uninterrupted by hostile criticism of the past, in the future to cement the relations between the Dutch and English populations who have to inhabit that country. I refer to the education of the Boer children which is now going on in these camps. I think we ought to give honour where honour is due for the initiation of this scheme. It is not due to a civilian, but to that gallant soldier, Lord Methuen. He conceived the project when in command of the North - western district. He could see that, while it was his duty to be fighting the Boer parents in the field, a great stroke of policy might be achieved by educating the children in the camps, and certainly, primary education has never been initiated under more romantic circumstances.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Tragic.
MR. LYTTELTON: I prefer to say romantic. Children were brought in

423
from the farms and placed under the care of the people in the camps, and the Orderly of the General brought them into the school, and there they have been taught by the very best teachers which this country could supply, especially women teachers—100 or more of the most excellent teachers, out of the thousands who volunteered, have been sent to those camps to teach the children. The policy of education has been conducted under Lord Milner, and Mr. Sargent, the Director of Education in the Transvaal— a man who may be described as a man of genius, and a man whom the House will recognise as one who has approached this question in a most beneficent spirit, when I read the extract I am going to read. [The hon. Member read Mr. Sargent's address to the teachers who had gone out from England.] I say that is a noble word of welcome to the teachers, an inspiring word as to the way in which they should engage in this task; and that that has been carried out I have not the least doubt, from the information Mrs. Fawcett was good enough to give me with regard to these camps. She said wherever they went in these camps there was one bright spot, and that was where the Boer children were being taught. It is certainly one of the strange paradoxes of South Africa that the Boer children were bright, pretty, and keen to learn, and, though their parents are ignorant, they have endeavoured to avail themselves to the full of the chances of education that their children had.
How have the teachers replied to the appeal made to them by Mr. Sargent? They have, in the first place, with rare wisdom, managed to combine the teaching of English with the learning of Dutch. English is the medium of instruction after, I think, the second standard, but for religious purposes, for the reading of the Bible and the singing of hymns, Taal is used. You, therefore, find that the Boers are willing to accept the education given to them in English, as long as their religious convictions are respected by their children receiving religious teaching in Dutch. The teachers have not only preserved the fullest degree of toleration of Boer opinion, but also the individuality of the children, as will be found by an extract in the Blue-book, according to
424
which a little Boer child, who had just been taught to write by an English teacher, was asked to put her first ideas into writing, and she wrote—
"I will begin to learn English, so that I can say 'Hands up.'"
A relative of mine told me that, in order to illustrate or enforce a lesson in mental arithmetic, he asked the children to put their hands up, with a view to some enumeration. But the very moment he uttered the words "Hands up" to these little children, forty pairs of hands were deflected in the downward direction. That is a fact which, undoubtedly, has two aspects. I do not mind conceding the toughness of the race, and possible difficulties in the future may be illustrated by it; but at the same time, how splendidly it illustrates the free, tolerant education which is being administered by the teachers to these little children, and how fully that education recognises and preserves their individuality and their rights. If this be so, what object can be secured by interrupting the splendid work of conciliation—as it is the very finest form of conciliation—which is going forward in these camps? What object can be served by recriminations as to the past, untrue, as I believe, —even assuming there is something in them, certainly mis-timed, stale and ungenerous—but, as I say, in the main absolutely untrue? I do not deny that some mistakes have been made. How in the world can 150,000 women and children be added to the gigantic burdens which the Colonial Office and the War Office have had to sustain without a few mistakes having been made? I do not for a moment contend that some have not been made, but they have been splendidly redressed. Even hon. Gentlemen opposite do not deny that every possible measure has been taken, by the sending out of Commissioners, by injunctions of the. War Office and by injunctions of the Colonial Secretary that no expense should be spared—and nothing has been spared —to place, if possible, these poor creatures in the most absolute sanitation and comfort.
MR. CHANNING: I urged in the strongest possible way that the facts recently reported by the Ladies Committee, in November, show that the greater portion of these things have not been redressed.
MR. LYTTELTON: I think that is an unfortunate interruption.
MR. CHANNING: It is not unfortunate; it is true.
ME. LYTTELTON: I think it is unfortunate. The hon. Gentleman thinks that facts which were discovered in November are not redressed in March. Does the hon. Gentleman think he has established his point? Recommendations were made by the Ladies Committee to the Colonial Office; the Colonial Office has given an absolutely free hand to Lord Milner, and enjoined him to spare absolutely no expense; and yet the hon. Gentleman imagines he has scored a point by saying that recommendations were made in November, and he does not in the least know whether or not they have been carried out. Of course, when these ladies, who had been entrusted with the full confidence of the Government, and of whom the Secretary of State for War has spoken in the highest terms, made recommendations, and when the authorities in South Africa had not merely the authority, but the absolute injunctions of the Colonial Secretary to spare no expense in carrying them out, it is absolutely ridiculous to say in March that those recommendations have not been carried out.
But I pass from that, and I ask again, what object can possibly be served by raking up the past, when you have at the moment this work of conciliation going forward? I say with absolute conviction that if they were left alone, if they were undisturbed by these stale and sour criticisms about the past, it would be impossible for the Boer mothers in these camps to rear the coming generations—who have received the education I have described, and the innumerable kindnesses which have been lavished upon them—in the belief that the British are an inhumane people. On the contrary, provided we can only—I wish to say it without offence—shut the mouths of this stale and sour criticism of the past, I believe there is at present going
426
forward in South Africa a work which will do much for the conciliation of the two races, and which it would certainly be most deplorable to disturb.
MR. THOMAS SHAW: The House always listens with interest and attention to anything which falls from the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken, but tonight, as his speech proceeded, I felt disappointed in two particulars. I could gather no generalisation from his remarks, except that there was something essentially wicked in criticising what had been done in connection with these concentration camps. In an Assembly such as this, we are bound to nave in consideration the object lessons produced by the policy of the Government, and brought to the notice of the House by the historical record contained in voluminous Blue-books. I, for one, entirely deprecate the abnegation of the function of the House of Commons to deal with those recorded facts on the ground that our words will, by some reasoning or other, be construed as criticisms of the administration, and secondly, in some way which I was not quite able to follow, as an encouragement to those in arms against us. A great deal has been said on the question of education. My hon. and learned friend there touched on a point than which none is dearer to myself. There is no topic on which we could with more advantage address ourselves than the question of bringing these two races together by a policy of education. But one unfortunate phrase fell from my hon. and learned friend. He said it was a system of education which preserved the individuality of the taught. Ah, it may do so educationally, but does it do so in mortality? The last records are not for November, but for January. The children are dying there at the rate of 262 per thousand per annum. I say that it is beside the question to talk of preserving the individuality of children who are dying at the rate of one in four.
MR. LYTTELTON: Does my hon. and learned friend think that fewer of these children would die if these camps were not formed?
MR. THOMAS SHAW: I am going to show, if my hon. and learned friend

427
will do me the honour to listen while I develop my argument, that the fault is that these camps are not better managed, in the essential particulars recorded as needing reform. It seems to be on the brain of the Party opposite that every kind of criticism is, by some fatality, a complaint against the soldiers. Who could complain against the soldiers? Not one word has been said on this Motion in complaint of the soldier. What we do complain of, and what in my brief observations I shall endeavour to prove, is that the policy and system have produced conditions against which our humane soldiers and camp superintendents have laboured in vain for months past. There is a general sense of uneasiness in the country on this subject. That uneasiness has not been allayed. This Report has helped to allay it, but the uneasiness is not yet stilled, because behind the question as to the condition of the women and children in these camps, there is the larger question as to the reason for the camps being there at all and in those particular spots. Farm-burning had its consequence—it must have had its consequence; and our complaint against the Government is that, quite apart from any evil intention, which no one in his senses would charge any Member of the Government with—["Oh, oh!"]—surely I may be permitted to speak for myself. I say that the evil of the situation in Africa is that it is paved with good intentions. The Government had to consider the position of a population so dispossessed by the ruin of homesteads—a population non-combatant, who were at least entitled to the same privileges as prisoners of war. What are these privileges? According to well-known elementary military maxims, such a population is entitled and bound to be treated in a manner suitable to their condition. Our complaint against the Government is that they neglected to foresee and to provide for the claims of the people so dispossessed, and in so doing have neglected our national and due obligations. If people are deprived of food, shelter, change of clothing and bedding, we ought to take care of them in those circumstances, and we are bound to make provision which will protect them from want and danger.
My first proposition is that we made no provision for locating the camps away from the infected area. This question of
428
the infected area is dealt with by these ladies in the very Report now under criticism, and if the people of this country want to know upon what evidence that Committee reported upon this death and desolation, then they should read this account of the infected area in which those camps were placed. The Report says—
"The whole country in which fighting has taken place is poisoned. Horses, mules, and oxen are killed during battles, or die of overwork and exhaustion, and their carcases are left to putrefy, poisoning earth, air, and water. Thousands of other animals are infected; Rinderpest, horse sickness, and every kind of disease claim their victims; the sick beasts crawl to the nearest stream and die on its brink, and the water supplies of a whole country become tainted; or they die in the open country, the dust returns to the earth, and the dust storms for which South Africa is famous scatter disease-laden particles over the length and breadth of the land."
This illustrates the death, desolation, ruin and decay which this war has produced, and my own point is that within that infected area the Government ought to have seen, first, that they should not locate those camps in such places; and secondly, if they did locate them there it was a case where extra precautions against disease were necessary. That is the cardinal and vital blunder which underlay the initiation of these camps.
My next point is the difficulty consequent upon the transport of food. By locating the camps in those quarters you have undoubtedly created many of the difficulties with which our soldiers and transport officers have so manfully contended. All those difficulties ought to have been foreseen, for the simplest of all reasons, mentioned in the Report itself on page 18, where these ladies say—
"It should be absolutely necessary to move the inmates nearer to the coast, where an ample supply of cold storage and other fresh meat will be available."
And they add—
"If the meat cannot be brought to the people, then the people should be brought to the meat."
It stands to reason, and the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary had fully admitted it, that if people brought up amidst country surroundings are gathered together in densely-populated localities, there will be discomfort, and consequent disease will arise. There is one testimony which we cannot get over, and it is that there is a large balance

429
against the account of our policy on the simple ground of neglect in providing proper sanitary conditions. This has never been expressed more clearly than by Dr. Haldane himself, who gives statistics for the last three months. He says that, under normal conditions, ninety-six grown-up women and 272 children would have died in these camps, whereas the number of deaths due to insanitary surroundings were 510 women and 2,973 children in three months. In those circumstances, I cannot understand the point of view which has been presented to the House by an hon. and learned Member who has preceded me. We do not bring these statistics up merely because they are past facts. We think they are past facts which are applicable to a system which has not yet been remedied, and that is why I am anxious, as soon as possible, to give place to my right hon. friend the Colonial Secretary, in order that we may have some reassuring declaration in regard to the matters affecting these camps. The Government should have considered all this before. When they located these camps, they should have known the consequences of the burning of farms and the location of camps in an infected area, and it will never do for this House to cease criticising a policy which has caused so much havoc in South Africa. It is not only the cardinal and vital blunder of the location of the camps, but I charge the Government also with supineness of policy, instead of promptitude of action, in regard to the remedy. I wonder what would have been done in regard to these camps if in this country we had been content to adopt the doctrine of saying nothing and leaving everything in the hands of the Government. Miss Hobhouse wrote to the Secretary of State for War, and she wrote in these terms—
"Will nothing be done? Will no prompt measures be taken with this terrible evil? Three months ago I tried to place the matter strongly before you, and begged permission to organise immediate alleviatory measures based on the experience I had acquired, in order thus to avert a mortality I had plainly seen was increasing. My request was refused, and this experience, which I could not pass on to others, rendered useless. The repulse to myself would have mattered nothing had only a large band of kindly workers been instantly despatched with full powers to deal with each individual camp as its needs required.
430
The necessity was instant, if innocent human lives were to be saved. Instead we had to wait a month while six ladies were chosen. During that month 576 children died. The preparation and journey of these ladies occupied yet another month, and in that interval 1,124 more children succumbed. In place of at once proceeding to the great centres of high mortality, the bulk of yet a third month seems to have been spent in their long journey to Mafeking, and in passing a few days at some of the healthier camps. Meanwhile, 1,545 more children died."
In those circumstances I maintain that I have made clear my point that instead of there being promptitude of action there was a supineness of policy pursued, which resulted in the loss of human life. Until the other day, when the Colonial Secretary spoke, I understood that these camps were part of military measures necessitated by our policy of clearing the country. ["No, no."] That was my understanding. Over and over again I think this policy has been defended on the ground that it was necessary as a military measure. The Colonial Secretary committed himself to the proposition that the formation of the camps was due to the action of General Botha in threatening to dispossess burghers with whose conduct he was dissatisfied.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member will not be in order in discussing the policy which led to the formation of the camps.
MR. THOMAS SHAW: With regard to the mode in which the camps have been conducted, they were formed at the end of the year 1900 and in the beginning of the year 1901. But the position was acute long before that, for Miss Hobhouse had then been for two months investigating the state of the camps. We stand today responsible for the entire situation. I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, that I am not allowed to check this statement as to the origination of the camps. I will pass on to a further point. We stand responsible by our location of these concentration camps, because they are a consequence of the policy we have initiated and carried through with such havoc and devastation in the country. As regards the future of these camps, I say with all sincerity and good will, and I believe the

431
Colonial Secretary himself will believe me when I say that I think that the best day seen in connection with the camps was the day when that right hon. Gentleman took the matter into his own hands. It is the ordinary case. When the other doctors have failed, the Colonial Secretary is cal ed in, and, with the instinct of the profession in view of a not very well managed case, he praised the old advisers and promptly proceeded to change the remedy. We wish him well. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] I say so in all sincerity. [Ministerial laughter.] We accept the change, but in the circumstances we do a little discount the praise. To turn these people out on the veldt never was an alternative for a nation bound by international law. Our duty is to protect any population where we have dishoused them. I do not think that this is a side issue, but even if it were, our duty is to see that the surroundings of these people in the camps are clean and wholesome. This is no small matter of education, for it is a very serious matter, the issues being life and death. Innocent human lives are at stake, and if this Amendment quickens the hands of those who are alleviating these horrors, I am quite sure that no one will be entitled to complain, and I shall not have moved this Amendment in vain.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I gladly recognise the unaccustomed compliment to myself which has come from the other side through the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down. I have no doubt of his good faith, though I cannot help thinking he is trying to use me as a stick with which to beat my colleagues. For myself I accept the compliment; for my colleagues I repudiate the attack. In the remarks I have to make I think I shall show that no blame attaches to those who preceded me in responsibility for the concentration camps, and all I take credit for is the carrying out energetically of the policy they commenced. I confess I was very much surprised when first I saw the Resolution, which is nothing more nor less than a Vote of Censure, put down on the Paper. I could very well have understood, when
432
the terrible accounts of abnormal mortality in the camps reached this country, that Members of the Opposition, or Members on this side of the House, should have called attention to the subject, and have asked the Government for assurance or proof that they were doing all in their power to put an end to such a state of things. But now, after the publication of these three Blue-books which the hon. Member who introduced this Resolution says are so profuse and so lengthy that he has not had time to master them, I confess I cannot understand the object, the purpose, or reason for the Motion. Here are the Blue-books, and I must say this is the first time I have heard the Government called to account for giving too much information. They are not really so very lengthy.
MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: I did not say I had not had time to master them. I said when the right hon. Gentleman twitted me about reading them that I was so embarrassed by profusion of material that I found a difficulty in selecting.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Well, I do not know where the difference is. The House will understand these Blue-books give month by month, November, December, and January, the fullest reports from all the concentration camps. The hon. Member complained that they were not indexed. They have the table of contents usual in Blue-books, and I defy anyone of the most ordinary intelligence to look at these three books for half-an hour without seeing, first, that the mortality in the camps has been reduced with extraordinary rapidity; and, secondly, that through page after page there is evidence and proof that everyone concerned, from Lord Milner downwards, every superintendent of the camps, every doctor, every nurse, and a large proportion of the civil and military administration in South Africa, are occupied day and night in doing their very utmost to meet this terrible calamity, which we all deplore; and hon. Members choose this time, after this evidence and proof of what has been done, to ask the House to pass a Vote of Censure on the

433
Government, and, of course, by implication, on all those who had the direct administration of the camps. I suppose the uneasiness about the mortality must have been considerably allayed by the promise which these figures give. Anyone will see that the reduction in mortality is progressive, and there is no reason to suppose that it will not be continuous. It is, then, not because of anxiety lest the evils of these camps should not be remedied and the mortality not reduced; it is because hon. Gentlemen opposite have become entangled in their own exaggerations. Here they have been the whole of the last two or three years, because, forsooth, they disapprove of the war, abusing, slandering, calumniating everybody who has been connected with it. They simply gloat over iniquities of their own countrymen they have themselves invented. It is on that ground, at this late period in the history of these camps, that the attention of the House is again called to the matter by the hon. Members who moved and seconded the Resolution.
Now, let me say that never in the whole history of the world, so far as we know it, have there been such gigantic efforts made by any nation to minimise the horrors of war. War is cruel. The hon. Member who has just sat down spoke of certain features of the situation in South Africa, of the unhappy condition of the country, of the devastation that has taken place, and, he said, here you have evidence of the horrors of war. Of course we admit the horrors of war, and if you go to war you incur the responsibility for that state of things. But we are not discussing now the origin of the war. What I say is we have done more than anybody has ever done before to as far as possible minimise these horrors. Now this debate is conducted under difficulties caused by our Rules. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment, and the hon. Member who seconded it, especially the latter, went at great length into the origin of these camps, and questioned my statements in regard to them; but, Sir, you have ruled that we cannot go into this point in any detail.
MR. SPEAKERsaid when the hon. Members who proposed and seconded the Amendment were dealing with that point he did not restrain them, but now a different Question was before the House.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Of course, Sir, I quite understand the ground of your ruling, which I accept. I was going to say the Amendment reads— "This House deplores the great mortality in the concentration camps formed in the execution of the policy of clearing the country." Now I take issue on that I say they were not "formed in the execution of the policy of clearing the country."
MR. SPEAKER: If the right hon. Gentleman proposes to enter upon that, I think he would be going contrary to my ruling.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not, Sir, intend to do that. I think I understand your ruling, and I do not think I am going to go against it. I might, I think, correct, one point made by the hon, Gentleman opposite. He said, before he was stopped by you, Sir, that farm-burning, not the clearing of the country, was the reason. Now let me put an arithmetical point to the House. I have not the Blue-book before me, but I believe some 600 farms were burnt. [An HON. MEMBER: Oh, no, thousands.] Well, give your own number. [Cries of "A thousand."] Very well, what I ask of hon. Gentlemen is that they will follow the process of reasoning. They can take their own number. You may take on the average five persons to each farm. Therefore multiply the number of farms burnt, whatever it is, by five, and that gives you the total number of persons for whom you would be made responsible by the burning of farms. Now, as we have to deal with something between 120,000 and 130,000 people, the House will see how small a proportion of them could in any circumstances be due to the burning of farms. This, at all events, I may say. When the guerilla warfare began—because the difficulty did not arise until then—this country was placed in face of a most terrible alternative. We found

435
that, from one cause or another—I am not going into the matter, but I will only say that if the cause was the clearing of the country, the clearing of the country was believed to be a military necessity—we found vast numbers of Boer women and children would be left unprotected on the veldt. It was not merely a question of supply for them, although that was most serious. It was also a question of their natural protection. Their husbands were away fighting against us; they were in the presence of a large native population; and there was reason to believe that, if they were not protected, they might be subjected to grievous outrage and abuse. However brought about, that was the position—130,000 women and children were in this unprotected condition. What ought we to have done? The hon. and learned Gentleman says truly that we could not as a Christian nation leave them on the veldt. [An HON. MEMBER: Why destroy their food?] We are not permitted to discuss the causes. [Interruption, amid which Mr. BRYN ROBERTS rose, and remained standing, though Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN did not at first give way.]
MR. SPEAKER: I understand the hon. Member rises to a point of order.
MR. BRYN ROBERTS (Carnarvonshire,): I wish to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is not infringing the Rule imposed on Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House that discussion as to the causes of the concentration camps is out of order.
MR. SPEAKER: I do not think that was the tendency of the right hon. Gentleman's observations. He is dealing with the sudden difficulties which had arisen at the time when the camps were formed.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Gentleman interrupted me to ask, "Why did you destroy their food?" I said in reply that I was prevented from going into that question. I am sorry for it, because I should like nothing better than to take up the challenge of the hon. Member. I cannot deal with causes, but only with effects; and I say that the effect was this question, "How are we to
436
deal with these 130,000 unprotected women and children?" It is agreed that we could not leave them unprotected on the veldt. We had to take care of them; and there was absolutely no other way than to bring them into camps.
MR. CHANNING: When were those camps formed?
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: What has that to do with it? Some hon. Gentlemen opposite are peddling over the exact period when the offer was made to General Botha by General Kitchener. Before these camps were anything like filled, Lord Kitchener offered to General Botha to leave the women and children on their farms, and even to supply them with food—[Cries of "No"]—if General Botha would allow them to observe the oath of neutrality. They were not asked to fight for us or to assist us in any way, but only to give a pledge that they would not fight against us. General Botha refused that offer. That policy of the leaders of the Boers has been pursued throughout, even down to a very late stage indeed. Only the other day, comparatively, Lord Kitchener again offered to Mr. Schalk Burger that if the Boers would take charge of their women and children they were all at liberty to leave the camps, and would be delivered at any point appointed. You may take what view you please of that action. Some people say it was admirable and heroic, other people say it was cruel and selfish, but never before have men done the same. Often before has one belligerent Power endeavoured to bring another belligerent Power to submission by refusing to allow the exit of the women and children from a besieged city. But never before has one belligerent tried to work on the feelings of the other by exposing its own women and children to death and famine, to suffering and disease. They it was who forced upon us this terrible alternative, and forced us to make provision suddenly for this immense addition to the burdens of the country. Just think what it means. At that time there was not a railway line in the country which was safe. Every line had to be guarded. Engines had to be sent before the trains, and even then scores of trains were upset, the supplies

437
taken, and the people in charge killed In these circumstances suddenly the military authorities were called upon to provide for 100,000 people, while they could barely supply the ordinary necessities of the Army. That they did it, was a wonderful testimony to their ability and to their humanity. It is not once or twice, but again and again throughout this war that the civilians and the soldiers themselves have gone with half rations in order that the refugees, the women and children in the Boer camps, might share the rations with them. Suppose we had left them on the veldt, there can be no doubt as to what the result would have been. I observe here a letter front the Rev. J. Botha, a minister of the Duch Reformed Church. Writing to the Civil Commissioner, he says—
"My conclusion is that these camps are not only absolutely necessary, but are a real kindness."
That was written when the mortality was highest —in August, 1891.
"If peace were declared tomorrow and the people were sent away, hundreds would starve. They know and acknowledge that. Then we must never forget that these people are fed and clothed where necessary by their so-called enemies, against whom their relatives are still fighting. I very much doubt whether any other nation in the world would have done the same."
I wish all our own countrymen were as just to our motives as is this minister of the Dutch Reformed Church.
Now, the difficulty of having to deal with this mass of people, in itself gigantic, was thrown upon the military authorities and the War Office at a time when their hands were otherwise full of work. But that difficulty was enormously increased by the state of the people. How did these people come to us? The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire said that it was very cruel to accuse the whole nation of dirty habits and ignorant customs. I have not heard of any living person who has accused the whole Boer nation of anything of the kind. The hon. Gentleman spoke several times in his speech of popular opinion, and the hon. Gentleman who spoke last said that popular opinion had not been allayed by the production of this Blue-book. What do they know about popular opinion? They only represent an infinitesimal
438
minority of the country. Nobody has accused the whole of the Boer people, or even a majority of the Boer people, of this. What we have said is—and we have said it on the best authority, the authority of the doctors who were in attendance in every one of these camps—that a great number of the people who came into the camps came in in the first place emaciated, half-starved already by their position on the veldt, deprived, as they had been, of the protection and assistance of their male relatives. They came in ignorant, bigoted, unaccustomed to a civilised life. [Nationalist laughter and Ministerialist cheers.] I see that there are hon. Gentlemen who think that that is a laughable fact. I do not think it is laughable. [A NATION ALIST MEMBER: It is not a fact.] I am not making a joke of these concentration camps. The fact is, as 1 have said, that you have only got to turn over half-a-dozen pages of any one of these Blue-books and you will see the evidence startlingly presented with regard to every camp in every part of both colonies. I say they were incapable, from their education and bringing up, of recognising necessary sanitary provisions.
The hon. Member for the Border Burghs complained that the camps were placed in an infected area. The area was not infected when the camps were placed there, but in many cases the area very soon became infected, and the explanation of the infection is given in the medical reports. I do not want to enter upon what really is a distressing account, but one knows perfectly well that if thousands of people who are unaccustomed to sanitary arrangements are suddenly brought together, as I have shown it was necessary that they should be in the present instance, of course the result is an infected area and an infected camp, and the only remedy is to move the camp to some other situation.
Of course all these facts enormously increased the difficulties of those who had to deal with the camps. I am going to read a statement here which, I think, everyone must accept as a thoroughly impartial authority. It is the statement of the Rev. F. J. Williams—I do not know whether it is so or not, but from the name I should say he is a countryman

439
of the hon. Member opposite—a Wesleyan missioner, and he writes as follows of one of the camps—
"In their management there is no cruelty, no neglect, no unkindness. Regarding supplies, if the transport prove a difficulty it is not the Boers who suffer."
He says—
"The Boer habits, men and women alike, are indescribably filthy."
[Some Opposition cries of "0h."] He is describing a particular camp. Potchefstroom, he says, possesses the best water supply of any town in the Transvaal, but persons are admitted to the hospitals there to whose bodies turpentine has to be applied to displace the outer crust of dirt ere the water can be made effective. And he goes on to say—I must quote this at the same time—
"The arm-chair critics who rave about cruelty know not of what they speak."
I quote another authority. Mrs. Fawcett has been quoted by hon. Members opposite with the respect which is due to her acquirements, known impartiality, independence of thought, and judgment; but they picked out here and there a particular observation, which, in itself, is unimportant, in order to, make a case of neglect, while every general statement from Mrs. Fawcett's Report is scrupulously ignored by hon. Gentlemen who attack the Government. But here is what Mrs. Fawcett says at page 15, paragraph 59—
"More is being done for the children in the camps—ten times more, in the way of skilful doctoring, food, and nursing, than could have been done for them bad they remained on their fathers' farms."
Then I say there is no question, after that, of cruelty, of neglect, of indifference. The only question is whether anything more can be done than has been done to secure that the diminution of mortality which has taken place shall continue. To people of the position I have described, brought into the camps under the circumstances I have described, there comes one of the most deadly of epidemics, and as a natural result the mortality goes up. But that is not to be attributable to the cruelty, or the neglect, or the indifference of anybody concerned. It may be one of the deplorable consequences of the war. That I allow, but it is not due in any other sense to action of which we need
440
be ashamed. I admit that, in spite of all the care that was taken from the first, and has been taken, the death-rate in these camps at certain periods was terrible. But do hon. Members really believe, or is it only for Party purposes that they express or insinuate the belief, that we are without heart or feeling in this matter?
MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: I never said so.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not speaking of the hon. Gentleman. Somebody from those Benches, in an earlier part of my speech, said, "You rejoice in it." Does anyone believe that we could hear of these terrible accounts of disease and suffering and mortality without being sensibly affected by them? But in the statements that have been made there have been grave and wicked exaggerations. There has been attributed to us deliberate starvation of the people in the camps.
MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: Does the right hon. Gentleman refer to me?
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Gentleman has not been the only speaker in this debate. He need not take everything to himself. Nor is he the only person who, out of the House, has spoken in this manner. I am not dealing with the hon. Gentleman now. I am dealing with the general accusations that have been brought against the Government. There is one illustration I must recall to the mind of the House. I daresay every Member of the House has had sent to him from abroad a photograph of a poor little girl in the last stage of emaciation. It has been sent to me in quantities, and it is described as a murder by the English —one from the "smoking hecatombs of slaughtered babes," in the phrase which Mr. Birrell, in his desire to use fine language, applied to the deaths of these unfortunate children. What is the ease in regard to this little girl? Her picture was taken by the doctor in the camp as an illustration of the state in which people came to the camp. She came in that state to the camp, and it was only in the camp that she received every possible attention and comfort that her case

441
required. That is, perhaps, an extreme experience, but the expression I have quoted from Mr. Birrell, the expressions I have heard from others about the "murder" of these children, are quite discreditable to those who utter them. I come back to the hon. Member for Montgomery-shire. Nothing more trivial than his accusations could possibly have been made. What was his case? I will not use an offensive word. He turned over the pages of his Blue-book and here and there picked out a recommendation, or a suggestion, or a statement of some defeat ill some particular camp, and, without inquiring for a moment whether these defects had been remedied, or the recommendations adopted, said, "Look at that! I charge the Government with the dreadful state of things here described."
Ma. HUMPHREYS-0WEN: My argument was that there was great slackness in remedying the mischiefs which everybody admitted existed earlier in the year, and I pointed to the different statements in the ladies' Reports as evidence that, at all events at that time, the mischiefs were not remedied, and further, I expressed the Trope that they would be remedied.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The complaints to which reference is made in the Blue-book have been remedied. There has been no delay. It is absolutely unfair and inaccurate to say that defects of this kind were allowed to remain after attention was called to them. If you look to the character of these defects you will see that some of them were inevitable in the circumstances. You cannot expect to find in camps formed hurriedly, and in the circumstances. I have shown, every luxury of a London hospital, within a week or two after their formation; but as soon as possible, and as far as transport arrangement allowed, every one of these complaints was remedied. Possibly there are more complaints to come. They will be dealt with as they arrive.
Sir what I complain of is this. While every trivial defect has been; seized upon as a means of damaging the Government, we hear, I will not
442
say one word, but at all events no sufficient recognition of the ceaseless labour, self-sacrifice, and devotion of everybody concerned in the work of these camps. One hon. Member sneered at Lord Milner. Why, Sir, Lord Milner, who has gone back to undertake the most gigantic task ever placed on the shoulders of a great civil official, who has wholly to recreate and to reconcile races, as far as that is possible, in a new administration, to make a new series of laws, had suddenly thrown upon him, in addition, this gigantic task, demanding weeks and months which perhaps might have been more useful y devoted to the primary purpose of his official life. Long before Mrs. Fawcett's Committee went out, long before the Colonial Office undertook the; formal charge of these matters, Lord Milner and Lord Kitchener together devoted weeks and months to doing the best that was possible in the circumstances in which they found themselves with regard to these camps. And who could have done it better? I cannot stop to express all I feel in regard to their services in this matter. And it is not to them alone that recognition is due. The action of Major Goold Adams, the Administrator of the Orange River Colony, has been admirable. He has done everything that man can do, and his wife has given him most valuable assistance. And so throughout; although here and there in the great work of the administration of these thirty-three separate camps there might be an incapable superintendent, or a nurse not quite up to the mark, yet, speaking of the vast majority of those employed, they have done honour to the name of the country to which they belong. I have said that in spite of all we had done the death rate was high. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire put the total number of men, women and children who had died in these camps at 18,000. Now it is, to my mind, a most extraordinary thing that, taking that as the basis and foundation of his whole speech, he never said one word about the number of deaths which, in a population of this magnitude, would have taken place under any circumstances. What is the grievance, what is the evil, which you have to remedy? It is the abnormal

443
death-rate. Now, what would have been the normal death-rate in a population of 100,000 during the year? I have explained the difficulty of getting anything in the nature of accurate figures. Mrs. Fawcett and the Ladies Commission made a serious endeavour to obtain some conception of the ordinary death-rate in the Transvaal in normal times, and I am sorry to say she failed to secure it. But we have some indication. For instance, at my request the Governor of Cape Colony has taken out the death-rate of thirty-two of the principal towns round Cape Town. Now, remember, that is in a colony which is practically under normal conditions, and it is in a colony which is more advanced in sanitary science than are the majority of the people of the Transvaal or of the Orange River Colonies. He found in 1900 that the infantile mortality was 214 per 1,000, an enormous mortality. [An HON. MEMBER: What age?] Infantile mortality. Hon. Members may congratulate themselves, but I am concealing nothing from them. The infantile mortality was 214 per 1,000, and that is an enormous mortality under ordinary conditions, very much larger than anything in this country.
SIR JOHN BRUNNER: May I tell the right hon. Gentleman that the infantile mortality in the Scotland Division of Liverpool during July, August, and September last year was 369 per 1,000?
Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Oh, then the Scotland Division of Liverpool is "a smoking hecatomb of slaughtered babes!" Why does not the hon. Baronet call the attention of the House to it, and move a Vote of Censure on somebody? The infantile mortality of the whole of England and Wales was 142 per 1,000. For rural England, which is a more natural comparison, it was 128. These interruptions were quite unnecessary; I say, as I began, that this information showed that even in Cape Colony the ordinary death-rate is very greatly in excess of the ordinary death-rate of this country. Then we have to draw what conclusion we can as to what would be the probable normal mortality of such a population as s in the camps. Remember, it is no
444
ordinary population; almost all the able-bodied men are away, for one reason or another; probably they are fighting against us. This is a population which consists almost entirely of old men, of weak people, of sick people, of women and children; and accordingly the normal mortality of such a population would be very large. In my opinion, the normal mortality in the Transvaal—and I have consulted some experts on the matter—would certainly not be less than 100 per 1,000; that is the information I have obtained. [An HON. MEMBER: What ages?] All ages. That is on the authority of medical experts, on whose authority I am as much inclined to rely as I am on that of hon. Gentlemen opposite. But, again, I admit to the House that I cannot give absolutely accurate information, and in a matter of this kind I would ask them to take their own figures and make their own calculation. For the sake of showing what my meaning is, I will assume 100 per 1,000, but if it is fifty you have only to halve the result. If the normal mortality were 100 per 1,000, on the average of 100,000, out of 18,000 deaths of which the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire spoke, 10,000 must be wiped off, so that those whose deaths are due to the abnormal circumstances of the case would be much less than half the total amount of the mortality. But, although that is an argument against exaggeration, it still leaves a terrible mortality to be accounted for; and that terrible mortality is to be accounted for almost entirely, not by the defects in the camps, although there were defects, not by the evils that we have been endeavouring to remedy, but principally and almost entirely by the epidemic of measles. Anyone who knows anything of the history of measles in a country that is unaccustomed, that is not immune from diseases of that kind, will know that it is one of the most dangerous of children's diseases; and that the mortality may easily rise to any figure you like. If that fact is grasped, if hon. Members will understand that the misfortune which befell us in this case was the epidemic of measles, then they would see that it is not my right hon. friend that should be blamed for the mortality; it is not I that should be complimented [on its

445
reduction; but it is the fact that the disease has worn itself out which accounts for the reduction of the mortality which we are all most happy to observe.
I began by saying that if hon. Gentlemen had any other suggestions to make, they would be considered and adopted. I believe that I am correct in stating that there is not a single one of the suggestions made by the Ladies Commission which has not been adopted, except the change of camp at Merebank, which has not been changed, for reasons which appear to be sufficient, and which are given in the Blue-book; but with that one exception, there is not a recommendation of the slightest importance which has not been adopted.
Now, Sir, the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Border Burghs has made —other Members have not quite risen to that standard—a generous acknowledgment of this improvement in the camps to which I have referred. Then they make the charge against us that the experts whom we sent out discovered detects which had not been found before. Will the hon. Gentleman opposite allow me to ask the question—what are experts for? What is the use of experts? You send experts out to discover things which ordinary people do not find out. I wonder, if into any district of England, even into the Scotland Division of Liverpool, we sent out experts, whether they would not find out many things requiring amendment. Of course we should not, or need not, have sent out experts if those on the spot, and we ourselves, were competent to deal with the matter. We sent them out to obtain the best advice—to find out from their experience whether, in addition to what was being done, we could not still do something more; and it is most unreasonable—it is enough to disgust future Governments from sending out experts at all—to complain that what the experts discovered had not been done before. But such defects as they did find have been completely remedied.
Now one or two words on special points. First, as to the position of the camps. The position of the camps had to be decided by two primary considerations—they must be near a railway, or they could not be supplied; and they must be
446
near a water supply, or a water famine would ensue, with the worst results. The number of sites for camps on a railway line, or close to a railway line, and also close to a water supply, is extremely limited; and even now, within the last few months, the number of alternative sites reported as available by the medical authorities, in cases where mortality shows any signs of increasing, is very small indeed. Therefore, what I wish to show to the House is that we had no choice in taking the camps over in the first instance. Of course, when the camps were first opened, and before the epidemic of measles, there was no adequate supply of nurses and doctors; but the moment an epidemic appeared, nurses in large numbers were sent out. We have sent out ninety-one nurses and four doctors since the 12th of December alone.
Then the hon. Gentleman says we have been, perhaps, too economical. A sneer of that kind appears to me to show a selfish attitude of mind.
MR. HUMPHREYS-OWENsaid he had no recollection of having said anything of the kind. The only thing that could give the right hon. Gentleman that impression was that he had urged that the superintendents, doctors, and nurses should be well paid.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Gentleman forgets his speech quicker than I do. The hon. Member said that bad nurses had been sent out, and he hoped that that was not from motives of economy. It is an unfair imputation. We telegraphed to Lord Milner not to spare any expense in dealing with this matter. I wonder whether my fate will be the fate of my right hon. friend. My right hon. friend had, in an emergency, an enormous Army to supply, and he telegraphed out that they were to be supplied at all costs. Now he is accused of lack of economy. He is told that he might have bought meat cheaper if he had waited longer, and that he might have bought better horses if he had made fuller inquiry. Am I to be told that I might have run the camps more cheaply? I am running the camps very expensively indeed. The expense of those camps at the present moment, in which are the

447
relatives of our enemies—whom we are keeping because their fathers, husbands, sons, and brothers will not take charge of them—the expense of keeping these people in those camps is £180,000 a month, over £2,000,000 a year. I do not think that on that ground, at all events, I can be accused of undue economy.
Then, Sir, those hon. Members opposite who have spoken have omitted a point which I am glad was taken up by my hon. friend the Member for Leamington. They had not a word of praise for the work, the gratuitous work, of education which we have undertaken. One hundred and fifty teachers were sent out since the 14th of December, and 150 more are going and I am glad to say 100 are from the self-governing Colonies.
Then, Sir, there comes the question of rations. One hon. Member has got an opinion from a housekeeper. He says the rations were insufficient. In these days, in debate, you never know what witness will be called. Sometimes it is a waiter; now it is a housekeeper. But I have perhaps, a better authority than any anonymous housekeeper. I am very grateful to Dr. Haldane for communicating his impression, after reading in the Blue-book the scale of rations which had been adopted in the different camps. I at once submitted his view of the scale of rations to a gentleman who, I believe, is recognised everywhere is one of the greatest authorities on the subject —Dr. Martin—and he advised a certain alteration in the scale. That alteration, I believe, had been made before my telegram got out, but, at all events, I telegraphed to Lord Milner that the alteration should be carefully considered on the spot, and, if possible, adopted. But I should like to add, in reference to this question of rations, that I think there has been some misunderstanding on the point. The rations are not all that the Boers have to depend upon. Many of them came into the camps with considerable sums of money, and they were able for themselves and for their friends to procure their own rations, and they did make very large purchases. I believe now, in some cases at all events, this money has been exhausted, and a larger number therefore are thrown upon the
448
Government to provide for. But, in the first instance, the rations allowed did not show exactly the amount which was actually distributed amongst the people.
The hon. Member said that it was the general impression that these people were voluntarily inhabiting these camps. I do not think that is the general impression; at any rate, in one sense it would not be an accurate impression. The majority of these people have been brought into camps, no doubt, and brought in in order to save their lives. I do not know that they were unwilling to come in, but it is fair to say that they have been brought in. I am quite certain that if an offer were made to them to go away, a very few of them indeed would accept it, for the best of all possible reasons—if they were to go they could not possibly find sustenance. And therefore, in one sense, you may say they are voluntarily remaining there, although I think it would also be generally accurate to say they were compulsorily brought there. But many have come in voluntarily. I think in Mrs. Fawcett's Report there is a statement that in the Harrismith camp, after the camp had been closed and the General was told that no more inmates were to be received, he was obliged to admit some who had come in in carts from very great distances in order to secure the comfort and security of the camp. The hon. Member went on to suggest that the people should be allowed to go in and out. I do not think he can have considered all the difficulties and inconveniences of such a course, especially where the camps are in the immediate neighbourhood of a soldiers' camp. Confusion would result and disorganisation, and I do not think it would be possible to allow them that kind of liberty. As to their being received by friends, I think the hon. Member seems to be under an erroneous impression. As far as I am aware, very few offers of that kind have been made by their friends, and. I know that in some cases in which they have been made they have been accepted, and the people have been allowed to go when it was quite certain they would be well taken care of.

449
I think that I have dealt with all the details which have been raised in the course of the debate, but before I sit clown I should like to call the attention of the House to the latest figures in regard to the mortality; I am dealing only with child mortality. Of course I could give the figures for the whole of the population, but, after all, the mortality among the children was the most abnormal, and it is there we most desire to see a reduction. Now, in the first fortnight in December—I am taking the Orange River Colony—the deaths of children were at the rate of 550 per 1,000. In the next fortnight they went down to 475, in the next fortnight to 260, in the next fortnight to 190, in the next fortnight to 114, and last week—I have not got the exact figures—they were about 70 or 80.
MR TENNANT: What were the ages?
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: That is the mortality up to twelve. That is not infantile mortality, and therefore, at the present time, the mortality of all children under twelve is very much less than the average mortality of children under one in the United Kingdom. [HON. MEMBERS cheered.] Yes, I hope that that cheer means that hon. Gentlemen opposite recognise that we have done our best to reduce the abnormal mortality which has been so much regretted, and that it is rather late in the day to propose a Vote of Censure against us when we can produce these figures. No one regrets more than I do that this terrible epidemic broke out, and carried off so large a number of young children, and that, at the same time, so many weakly ones among the women and old men also lost their lives. No one regrets it more than I do; but no one can be more certain than I am that any other policy than that which we pursued would have resulted in an enormously increased death rate. If these children had been left out upon the veldt with their mothers and grandfathers, the death-rate would have been very much larger than anything we now record, and, taking it as a whole, I repeat what I said at the beginning—no more gigantic task has ever been undertaken by a nation in time of war, no more humane task has ever been so well fulfilled.
SIR WALTER FOSTER: The right hon. Gentleman, in the course of his speech, said the Government had sent out experts in order to be guided by the information they obtained, and that the object of sending out experts was to receive information for the benefit of the administrators of these camps. In the same sense, the use of debate in this House is that criticism may stimulate the Government to greater efforts than they have made hitherto. After all, the only stimulant to administration is the criticism of the Opposition. I have heard hon. Gentlemen opposite desire a stronger Opposition. The only benefit of a stronger Opposition would be stronger criticism in order to obtain better and more efficient administration. The right, hon. Gentleman prided himself on having reduced the death-rate of children under twelve years of age to seventy or eighty per thousand for a single week. Everyone who knows anything about vital statistics is aware that it is absolutely unfair to take a single week as a test.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAINpointed out the high death-rate for particular weeks had been taken on the other side.
SIR WALTER FOSTER: The right hon. Gentleman cannot accuse me of taking it. I have always protested against the exaggeration of figures as regards the death-rates. But does the right, hon. Gentleman know that in the worst homes of London stable dwellings, according to a book recently published, the death-rate among children under ten years of age—not twelve years—is only forty-one per thousand per annum? So that, on his own showing, the death-rate in the camps is at present double the figure it ought to be, and the right hon. Gentleman is condemned out of his own mouth. He also says he has improved the administration. I give the right hon. Gentleman credit for his sympathies; I accuse him only of incapacity in this matter. I have the greatest respect for the right hon. Gentleman's business capacity, but in this matter he has not been well served, and he is responsible for those who have

451
served him badly. He took over the administration of these camps, both in the Transvaal and in the Orange River Colony, on March 1st, and he says he has improved the death-rate. These ladies in their Report say—and it is a remarkable fact—that in one of the worst of these camps during the first three months there were no deaths. Commencing, however, in June, after the right hon. Gentleman had been responsible for some months, the death-rate for all the camps was at the rate of 159 per 1,000 per annum, and it rose to 296 in July, 354 in August, 433 in September, 572 in October, and fell to 469 in November. About then public attention was called to the appalling mismanagement of these camps, and the right hon. Gentleman put his back into the business, and we had some little beginnings towards the amelioration of the conditions under which these people were living. I give the right hon. Gentleman credit for all that, but he ought to have done it earlier. What we complain of is that from March to October this terrible sacrifice of life was increasing, but the right hon. Gentleman either was not informed of it, or, if informed, did not take proper steps to check it or to improve the administration.
The Colonial Secretary then, in appealing against our indictment, says that the death-rate is not, after all, so enormous, considering the circumstances under which these people live. I know the difficulties were very great, and everybody will admit that the Government were actuated by the best of motives in all they did, and that soldiers and civilians were doing everything they could to mitigate the evils. Our complaint is that the Government did not foresee the difficulties so that these things could have been mitigated or prevented. The mortality was not one necessarily inherent in the condition of the camps if proper steps had been taken to prevent it. The indictment, which is borne out by the admirable Report of this Committee of Ladies, is that there was no foresight and no action whereby these diseases might be prevented. Take the most preventible of all diseases, by which thousands have been killed—dysentery and enteric fever.
452
In March last one of the ablest administrators in South Africa, Dr. Turner, went round the camps, and reported—
"The only way to protect a camp is to boil the water, in order to avoid a prevalence of epidemic disease in the shape of dysentery and typhoid fever."
But for twelve months before March last we had been urging the taking of this simple precaution. When the ladies went in September, October, and November, what was their recommendation? That there should be more boilers! So that six months after the chief sanitary authority at Johannesburg, the man whom Lord Roberts sent for at the time of the typhoid epidemic at Bloemfontein, had made his recommendation, it had not been carried out, and on the administration of these camps rests a terrible responsibility for the lives which have been lost in consequence. The right hon. Gentleman takes refuge in an epidemic of measles as the cause of the mortality. But his own Committee of experts are against him, for, speaking of the Klerksdorf camp, they say—
"We are aware of the epidemic and all its consequences, but it does not account for the immense death-rate of the last four weeks."
Therefore that epidemic cannot be held to explain the terrible death-rate. Measles is a fatal disease under certain circumstances. It is most fatal when it falls on virgin soil. But it has been among these people for generations; they are a white race, who have had measles in previous times; therefore they cannot be compared with black races who would be as virgin soil.
Again, this epidemic has been one of the most terrible that has ever raged among mankind. In 1832, many Members will remember, there was a terrible epidemic of cholera, which ravaged the whole of Europe. Cholera is a disease which is infinitely more severe than measles, but what happened in the case of that epidemic? The one thing that scientific men cite about it is that in St. Petersburg, where it inflicted its severest ravages, it produced a death-rate—which is held up as a standard of what an epidemic ought never to be allowed to be—of from twenty-five to thirty per thousand in a month. In this measles

453
epidemic in the camps you have had a mortality over several months averaging from twenty-five to twenty-eight per thousand, so that it is almost equal in its gravity to one of the severest maladies to which mankind is subject. I do not say that in condemnation of the right hon. Gentleman. I only say that the administration was defective as regards foresight. If any ordinary Member of the House or "the man in the street" were asked to provide camps for 3,000 or 4,000 people, what would be the first thing he would do? He would take sanitary precautions to prevent the spread of preventable diseases, he would take care that measles was not brought into the midst of a camp that was free from the disease; he would take care that if measles broke out it should be properly dealt with; he would take care that the soil saturated with the filth of a large camp should not be the place on which people had to take their rest, but that they should have some kind of bed under them. He would take these precautions, because they would occur to his common sense. But all these precautions have been neglected or overlooked by those responsible for the administration of the camps. You cannot read the Blue-book without feeling that the same fault has tracked the administration of these camps which has tracked nearly all our work in South Africa. We have not been prepared with the knowledge we ought to have possessed as to the principles by which our actions should be guided. Just as at the beginning of the war certain people preferred unmounted to mounted men, so other people run entirely counter to all the teaching of sanitary science, and take no steps beforehand to avoid preventable mortality. I say these things deliberately, and not because of any desire to take one side or the other on the 'war question. I have not voted against -supplies for the war, but I am bound, as a Member of the House of Commons, and as one with a special responsibility, knowing something about these matters, to state my opinion on a question affecting public health. I warned the Government months ago, at the commencement of the war, that what was wanted was intelligent expert
454
opinion on these matters. If that advice had been taken, there might have been saved thousands of lives of brave soldiers who now lie buried in South Africa, and probably half of the children who have died would still be living. It is because the Government have turned a deaf ear to suggestions of this kind, and have been blind to the consequences of their actions, that we have this terrible indictment to level against them tonight.
With reference to this matter I want to put two or three practical questions to the right hon. Gentleman. I have shown that suggestions made last March by the highest sanitary authority, Dr. Turner, were ignored, and were found to have been ignored by this Commission of ladies who visited the camps. They found camps where the water was polluted, and where even the medicines were mixed up with polluted water. Such things ought not to occur even among the camps in South Africa. They pointed this state of things out again and again, and this makes us think that the warnings of these ladies have had no more effect than the reports of Dr. Turner. I want to know whether any attempts have been made to break up these camps. Lord Milner has stated that disease was just as likely to break out in a camp of 500 as in a camp of 3,000, but my point is that in a camp of 3,000 the danger is alt the greater. We want these camps made smaller. Some of the camps are located where the soil is saturated with disease-producing products, and there 5,000 or 6,000 people are gathered together. Those camps should be broken up into smaller units and placed upon soil which is not infected by people who are dirty in their habits, and where the soil is not fouled. If these steps are not being taken, I would press upon the right hon. Gentleman the necessity of taking them in order that he may save the lives of those who are left in the camps and lessen the death rate which he takes the credit of having lessened up to the present time. If he would break up these camps into smaller units of 1,500 or 2,000 people and move them on to fresh soil, there would be less mortality amongst the inmates. Although I rejoice in the humane

455
motives that have induced the Government to take these people into camps, it must be remembered that these people are our fellow subjects. We have annexed their territories and we are responsible for their lives, for they live within our Empire. They are in our hands, and once we have annexed these territories—a step to which I have always given my support—we are bound to do as much for them as we should for any other people who live under the King's flag. The responsibility rests with us to take every step we can, by putting them noon fresh soil which has not been polluted by human habitation, and by lessening the numbers in each camp, to reduce this death rate, which has been such a blot upon our administration in South Africa. In the interests of the Government, and also in those higher interests of humanity, and for the good name of this Empire, let everything be done that is possible to bring about a better condition of things.
MR. LLOYD - GEORGE: The Colonial Secretary wishes to know why we selected the present moment to discuss this subject. We selected it because it was the first opportunity we had, and practically the only one, to discuss a very grave matter of administration. What is the proposition laid down by the Colonial Secretary? We contend that owing to mal-administration and owing to our having embarked upon a policy which is absolutely wrong, about 15,000 or 16,000 innocent people have died. We charge that entirely to the bad administration of the present Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary replies "Yes, that may have been so during the past
456
months, but something has been done now within the last six weeks to remedy that defect; therefore, you ought not to discuss the past at all." Surely that is a very extraordinary doctrine. The House of Commons is gradually having its powers curtailed one by one, and opportunities for discussion are not to be given, and now by this policy we are told that the House of Commons is not to discuss the administration of the past twelve months if it can be proved that that administration has been better in the last month than in the previous eleven months. The right hon. Gentleman has tried to make out that there is nothing very exceptional in the rate of mortality in these camps. He said the rate in the Transvaal under ordinary conditions is 100 per thousand. Upon what evidence does he make that statement?
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I said "might be."
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that in the opinion of an expert the mortality of the Transvaal might be 100 per 1,000. Who is this expert? Does he know anything at all about the Transvaal? Upon what does he base this opinion? Are there any statistics that will enable us to judge of the conclusions at which he has arrived? We have had some evidence incorporated in the Bluebook with regard to the rate of mortality in Cape Colony. The right hon. Gentleman has given us the rate of mortality in regard to infants under one year, but what has that got to do with the rate of mortality among children under twelve?

457
The rate of mortality of infants in Manchester under one year is about 150 per 1,000, but the rate in regard to children under twelve is only twenty per 1,000. According to the Blue-book, the rate of mortality among children under twelve years of age at Cradock—the worst case in Cape Colony—is only fifty per 1,000. Why has the right hon. Gentleman quoted the figures of deaths among infants? There is only one reason for doing so. It has no relevance whatever to the discussion, and it has been quoted simply to create an impression with regard to a matter of fact which is not correct. The right hon. Gentleman could easily have given the rate of mortality amongst children under ten years of age in South Africa. How is it that those figures are not produced? The right hon. Gentleman gave us the case of Malta in the Blue-book, and he quotes this to prove that wherever you get an epidemic of measles the rate of mortality is very high. What is the rate in Malta, according to the right hon. Gentleman's own figures, for the six worst months in the year? It is 124 per 1,000. Now what is the rate for the six months in the Transvaal and Orange Free State amongst children under twelve? The rate in Malta is 124 per 1,000, but in the Orange River Colony and the Transvaal the rate in regard to children under twelve is 416 per 1,000 in the camps.
The right hon. Gentleman has not produced a single figure to show that there is anything here that can be explained by ordinary conditions. It is purely a question of bad administration, upon which we are entitled to arraign the Government. The Colonial Secretary has quoted some figures to show that we are spending a good deal of money upon
458
the camps. He says that we are spending £180,000 per month upon the camps, and that works out at 7s. 6d. per week for each occupant of the camps in South Africa, where the expense of living is high, and where we allow each of our soldiers, who provide for themselves in the Cape, 2s. 6d. per day for rations. Our soldiers are allowed 17s. 6d. per week to cover the cost of rations, and yet the right hon. Gentleman says that it he allows 7s. 6d. a week for each person in the camps it is an extravagant charge.
I rose mainly to call attention to, another part of this Amendment. I am fully aware that by your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I cannot challenge the policy of farm burning, or even the policy which led to the formation of the concentration camps, but I think I am entitled by your ruling to justify the statement. [Ministerial cries of "Divide, divide."] I would remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that this is the first opportunity we have had of discussing this most important matter, and I think we shall be able to prove that our conduct in regard to these camps has conduced to the prolongation of the war more than any other incident. It is, therefore, important that these camps should be made much better, and that the rate of mortality, which is still very deplorable, should be reduced. I wish to justify one phrase in this Motion to the effect that these camps were formed in the execution of the policy of clearing the country in South Africa. I am not going to denounce the policy of clearing the country, or even to criticise it, but as a matter of fact, the explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman as to the way the camps were formed is

459
not the correct one, and he is misleading the House of Commons upon the facts and the history of these camps. Without passing any criticism at all upon the advisability of forming them, I want to have the fact stated that they were really formed in the execution of a policy of clearing the country. [Cries of "Divide, divide."]
MR. SPEAKER: It would not come within my ruling to discuss the policy of clearing the country.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not wish to discuss that policy beyond saying that these camps were formed as a result of the policy of clearing the country, and were formed in the course of that operation. I am not going to say whether it was a good or a bad policy, and in saying
that I do not think I am going outside your ruling. Upon that point the right hon. Gentleman's explanation is a very curious one, he said the camps were formed because General Botha—[Ministerial cries of "Divide, divide."]
It being Midnight, Mr. Speaker proceeded to interrupt the business.
Whereupon Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
(12.0.) Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The House divided:—Ayes, 230; Noes, 119. (Division List No. 57.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Anson. Sir William Reynell

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Duke, Henry Edward

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Arrol, Sir William

Chamberlain, J. Austen(Worc'r

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Chapman, Edward

Charrington, Spencer

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Balcarres, Lord

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

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

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Balfour, RtHnGerald W. (Leeds

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Fisher, William Hayes

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Banbury, Frederick George

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Bartley, George C. T.

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Flower, Ernest

Beach, RtHn. Sir Michael Hicks

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Crossley, Sir Savile

Galloway, William Johnson

Bignold, Arthur

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Gardner, Ernest

Bigwood, James

Cust, Henry John C.

Garfit, William,

Bill, Charles

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Dairymple, Sir Charles

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Davenport, William Bromley-

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

Bowles, Capt. H.F. (Middlesex

Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Brassey, Albert

Denny, Colonel

Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'ml'ts

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

De war, TR. (T'rH'mlets, S. Geo.

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

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Gorst, Rt. Ron. Sir John Eldon

Brymer, William Ernest

Dickson, Charles Scott

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Carlile, William Walter

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Green, Walford D(Wednesbury

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

Doughty, George

Greene, Sir E. W.(Bury St. Ed.)

Greville, Hon. Ronald

M'Killop, James(Stirlingshire)

Rutherford, John

Groves, James Grimble

Majendie, James A. H.

Manners, Lord Cecil

Martin, I Richard Biddulph

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Hall, Edward Marshall

Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir HE. (Wigt'n

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Hamilton Rt HnLordG.(Mid'x

Maxwell, WJH (Dumfriesshire

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)

Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashf'rd

Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

Seely, Maj. J.E.B. (IsleofWight

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Molesworth, Sir. Lewis

Seton-Karr, Henry

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Montagu, Hon J. Scott (Hants.)

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Shaw-Stewart, M. II. (Renfrew)

Hay, Hon. Claude George

More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire)

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Heath, James (Staffords. N.W.

Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh.

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Helder, Augustus

Morrell, George Herbert

Smith, HC.(North'mb. Tyns'de

Hogg, Lindsay

Morrison, James Archibald

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford)

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

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Murray, Rt. Hn A Graham (Bute

Stanley, Arthur(Ormskirk

Howard,John (K'nt, Faversh'm

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Murray, Col. Wyndham(Bath)

St mutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Jeffreys, Arthur Fredrick

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

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Thornton, Percy M.

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Tollemache, Henry James

Parker, Gilbert

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Peel, Hn. WmRobert Wellesley

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Pemberton, John S. G.

Keswick, William

Penn, John

Vincent, Col. Sir CEH (Sheffield

Knowles, Lees

Pierpoint, Robert

Pilkington, Lieut-Col. Richard

Plummer, Walter R.

Walker, Col. William Hall

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Law, Andrew Bonar

Pretyman, Ernest George

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)

Pryce-Jones, Lieut.-Col. Edwd.

Webb Col. William George

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Purvis, Robert

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

Lawson, John Grant

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareham

Whiteley, H (Ashton-und-Lyne

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Randles, Robert

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Rankin, Sir James

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Rasch. Major Frederic Carne

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

Ratcliff, R. F.

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

Lockwood, Lt.-Col.A. R.

Reid, James, (Greenock)

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Remnant, James Farquharson

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Renwick, George

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

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge)

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Wylie, Alexander

Lyttlelton, Hon. Alfred

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Macartney, Rt. Hn. WG. Ellison

Ropner, Colonel Robert

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Macdona, John Cumming

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Round, James

Sir William Walrond and

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburo', W

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Sir Alexandar Acland-Hood.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Black, Alexander William

Caine, William Sproston

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Blake, Edward

Caldwell, James

Allan, William Gateshead)

Boland, John

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Allen, CharlesP. (Glouc., Stroud

Broadhurst, Henry

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Ambrose, Robert

Brown. George M. (Edinburgh)

Causton, Richard Knight

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Crean, Eugene

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Cremer, William Randall

Bell, Richard

Burns, John

Cullinan, J.

462

463

Delany, William

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Rea, Russell

Dillon, John

Levy, Maurice

Reddy, M.

Donelan, Captain A.

Lloyd-George, David

Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

Doogan, P. C.

Lough, Thomas

Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

Duncan, J. Hastings

Lundon, W.

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Runciman, Walter

Edwards, Frank

McVeigh, Jeremiah

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

M'Crae, George

Schwann, Charles E.

M'Govern, T.

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Fenwick, Charles

M'Kenna, Reginald

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Ffrench, Peter

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Flynn, James Christopher

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Spencer, Rt. Hn. CR.(Northants

Fuller, J. M. F.

Markham, Arthur Basil

Sullivan, Donal

Mooney, John J.

Murnaghan, George

Gilhooly, James

Murphy, John

Tennant, Harold John

Griffith, Ellis J.

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Tomkinson, James

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Hardie, J.Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

Norman, Henry

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Hayden, John Patrick

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

White, George (Norfolk)

Healy, Timothy Michael

O'Brien, Kendal(Tipper'y Mid.

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

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

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Whittaker. Thomas Palmer

O'Donnell, T (Kerry, W.)

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Joicey, Sir James

O'Dowd, John

Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

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

Joyce, Michael

O'Kellv, J. (Roscommon, N.)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

O'Malley, William

O'Mara, James

Kearley, Hudson E.

O'Shaughnessy, P.J.

Kennedy, Patrick James

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Partington, Oswald

Mr. Humphreys Owen and

Labouchere, Henry

Pirie, Duncan V.

Mr. Channing.

Leese, SirJosephF. (Accrington

Power, Patrick Joseph

(12.13.) Question put accordingly.
The House divided:—Ayes, 232; Noes, 111. (Division List No. 58.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Chapman, Edward

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Bignold, Arthur

Charrington, Spencer

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Bigwood, James

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Bill, Charles

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Arrol, Sir William

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

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

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Brassey, Albert

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Brymer, William Ernest

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Balcarres, Lord

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Carlile, William Walter

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Balfour, Rt.HnGerald W. (Leeds

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

Crossley, Sir Savile

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Banbury, Frederick George

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Cust, Henry John C.

Bartley, George C. T.

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Beach, Rt.Hn. Sir MichaelHicks

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon.J.(Birm.

Dairymple, Sir Charles

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r.

Davenport, William Bromley-

Davies, Sir HoratioD. (Chatham

Joicey, Sir James

Ratcliff, R. F.

Denny, Colonel

Reid, James, (Greenock)

Dewar, T.R. (T'rH'mlets, S.Geo.

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. SirJohnH.

Remnant, James Farquharson

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Keswick, William

Renwick, George

Dickson, Charles Scott

Knowles, Lees

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge)

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Lambton. Hon. Frederick Wm.

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Doughty, George

Law, Andrew Bonar

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Lawson, John Grant

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Duke, Henry Edward

Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareham

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Round, James

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir WilliamHart

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Rutherford, John

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

Lockwood, Lt.-Col.A. R.

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

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

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)

Fisher, William Hayes

Lyttlelton, Hon. Alfred

Seely,Maj. J.E.B. (Isle of Wight

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Seton-Karr, Henry

Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Macartney, Rt. Hn.W.G. Ellison

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Flower, Ernest

Macdona, John Cumming

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

Foster, Philip S. (Warwick,S.W.

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Simeon, Sir Barrington

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Galloway, William Johnson

M'Killop, James(Stirlingshire)

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Gardner, Ernest

Majendie, James A. H.

Smith, H C (North'mb. Tynseside

Garfit, William,

Manners, Lord Cecil

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

Gibbs, Hon.Vicary (St.Albans)

Martin, Richard Biddulph

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

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H.E.(Wigt'n

Stanley, Arthur(Ormskirk

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

Maxwell, W.J.H (Dumfriesshire

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Gordon, MajEvans-(T'rH'mlets

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

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

Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

Gorst, Rt. Ron. Sir John Eldon

Molesworth, Sir. Lewis

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Montagu, Hon J. Scott (Hants.)

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

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Thornton, Percy M.

Green, Walford D(Wednesbury

More, Robert Jasper (Shropshire)

Tollemache, Henry James

Greene, Sir E. W.(B'rySEdmn'ds)

Morgan, David J (Walthamstow)

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Morgan, Hn.Fred.(Monm'thsh.

Groves, James Grimble

Morrell, George Herbert

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E H (Sheffield

Morrison, James Archibald

Hall, Edward Marshall

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford)

Walker, Col. William Hall

Hamilton Rt HnLord G.(Midd'x

Murray, Rt. Hn A Graham (Bute

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Hamilton, Marq.of(L'nd'nderry

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Wason, John Catheart (Orkney

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Murray, Col. Wyndham(Bath)

Webb Col. William George

Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

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

Hare, Thomas Leigh

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Whiteley, H (Ashton-und-Lyne

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

Parker, Gilbert

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Heath, James (Staffords. N.W.

Peel, Hn. Wm.Robert Wellesley

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

Helder, Augustus

Pemberton, John S. G.

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Hogg, Lindsay

Penn, John

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside

Pierpoint, Robert

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

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Pilkington, Lieut-Col. Richard

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Howard, John (Kent,Faversh'm

Plummer, Walter R.

Wylie, Alexander

Hozier, Hon.James Henry Cecil

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Pretyman, Ernest George

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies

Purvis, Robert

Jeffreys, Arthur Fredrick

Sir William Walrond and

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Randles, Robert

Sir Alexandar AclandHood.

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Rankin, Sir James

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Ambrose, Robert

Bell, Richard

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Black, Alexander William

Allen, Charles P. (Glouc.,Stroud

Bayley, Thomas Derbyshire

Blake, Edward

466

467

Boland, John

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire.)

O'Mara, James

Broadhurst, Henry

Joyce, Michael

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Kearley, Hudson E.

Partington, Oswald

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Kennedy, Patrick James

Pirie, Duncan V.

Burke, E. Haviland-

Power, Patrick Joseph

Burns, John

Labouchere, Henry

Leese, SirJosephF.(Accrington

Rea, Russell

Caine, William Sproston

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Reddy, M.

Caldwell, James

Levy, Maurice

Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Lloyd-George, David

Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

Causton, Richard Knight

Lough, Thomas

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Lundon, W.

Crean, Eugene

Schwann, Charles E.

Cremer, William Randal

McVeigh, Jeremiah

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Cullinan, J.

M'Crae, George

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

M'Govern, T.

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Delaney, William

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Dillon, John

M'Kenna, Reginald

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Donelan, Captain A.

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Spencer, Rt. Hn. CR.(Northants

Doogan, P. C.

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

Sullivan, Donal

Duncan, J. Hastings]

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Markham, Arthur Basil

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Edwards, Frank

Mooney, John J.

Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Murnaghan, George

Tomkinson, James

Murphy, John

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Fenwick, Charles

Ffrench, Peter

Nannetti, Joseph P.

White, George (Norfolk)

Flynn, James Christopher

Nolan, Jaseph (Louth, South)

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Norman, Henry

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Gilhooly, James

Whittaker. Thomas Palmer

Griffith, Ellis J.

O'Brien, Kendal(Tipper'y Mid.

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.

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

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

Hardie, J.Keir (MerthyrTydvil

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Donnell, T (Kerry, W.)

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas Seale-

O'Dowd, John

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Healy, Timothy Michael

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

Mr. Humphreys Owen and Mr. Channing.

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

O'Malley, William

Main Question again proposed.
Debate arising; and, it being after Midnight, the Debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed upon Thursday.

REPAYMENT OF LOANS BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES.
Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire and report as to the statutory and other conditions limiting the periods for repayment of loans raised by local authorities in England and Wales, whether any relaxation of such conditions is desirable, and whether uniformity of practice can be secured in this matter.
The Committee was accordingly nominated of Mr. Bill, Mr. Brigg, Captain Donelan, Mr. William Jones,. Mr. John Hutton, Mr. Heywood John-stone, Mr. Law, Mr. Grant Lawson, Mr. A. K. Loyd, Mr. M'Crae, Mr. Charles Murray, Mr. Nannetti, Sir Albert Rollit, Mr. Runciman, and Mr. Wodehouse.
Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, Papers and Records.
Ordered, that five be the quorum.—(Sir William Walrond.)
Adjourned at half after Twelve, o'clock.

OFFICE OF LORD GREAT CHAMBERLAIN
Committee for privileges met. Counsel further heard on behalf of the claimant the Earl of Ancaster. Counsel heard to open the case on behalf of the claimant the Duke of Atholl Committee adjourned to Tuesday next.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  MEDWAY AND THAMES CANAL BILL [H.L.],

    ASHTON-UNDER-LYNE AND DUKINFTELD CORPORATIONS (ALMA BRIDGE, &c.) BILL [H.L.],
    BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION WATER BILL [H.L],
    DEVONPORT CORPORATION WATER BILL [H.L.],
    DEVONPORT WATER BILL [H.L.], LONDON AND SOUTH-WESTERN RAILWAY BILL [H.L.],
    DARLEY DALE WATER BILL [H.L.],
    Report from the Committee of Selection, that the Earl of Lathom and the Lord Hylton be proposed to the House as Members of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Earl of Malmesbury and the Lord Lilford.
    Read and agreed to.

NORTHUMBERLAND ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
SWANSEA CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a(according to order).
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ARGENTINE REPUBLIC, No. 1 (1902).
  Report by the Hon. E. Scott on the Welsh Colonies in Chubut. Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  LONDON WATER BILL.
  Message from the Commons that they have come to the following Resolution, to which they desire the concurrence of
  310
  the House, viz.:—That it is expedient that the London Water Bill be committed to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons.

  PLUMBERS' REGISTRATION BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the Standing Committee without further Amendment; the Report of the Amendments made in Committee of the Whole House to be received on Thursday next.

  BISHOPRIC OF SOUTHWARK BILL [H.L.], [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, this is the same Bill as that which passed through all its stages in your Lordships' House last year, and which was crowded out, for want of time, when it reached the House of Commons. Its purpose is to relieve the diocese of Rochester, which has grown to an overwhelming size, and is now rather more than ought to be assigned to one Bishop to manage. It divides the present diocese of Rochester into two parts—one to be called the diocese of Southwark, and the other the diocese of Rochester—the former to include the district of South London. To the diminished area of the diocese of Rochester will be added certain portions of the diocese of Canterbury. These, at one time, belonged to the diocese of Rochester, and are, therefore, only being restored to it. The boundaries have been very carefully considered, and I do not believe there will be any objection to them. I beg to move the Second Reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
  VISCOUNT MIDDLETON: My Lords, I make no apology for rising to support this measure, because, with the exception of two or three right reverend Prelates. I believe I know more of the locality with which it is intended to deal than any Member of your Lordships' House. I do not think that anyone who has not studied the question carefully can be aware of the enormous increase of population which

  311
  has taken place in the districts affected by this Bill. It is now at least three times what it was forty or fifty years ago, and it is further increasing daily. It is, however, not only the quantity of the population, but the quality, that makes the problem of dealing with it so difficult. I believe that there exists, within the area of a mile around Lambeth Palace, more crime, vice, and immorality than can be found in any similar area throughout the length and breadth of London. There are streets there which are almost entirely given up to the criminal classes. I remember the chairman of Surrey Quarter Sessions being warned by the police never to venture down any of the side streets leading off Waterloo Road, because it was believed that there was not a single inhabitant there who did not know him by sight from the dock of the Sessions House. It is of extreme importance to strengthen the hands of the Church in this quarter, and I hope that your Lordships will read the Bill a second time without opposition, and that it will not be materially modified in its passage through the House.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF ROCHESTER: My Lords, I cannot refrain, as Bishop of the diocese referred to, from expressing my satisfaction that the Bill now presented to your Lordships has the support of my noble friend the Lord Lieutenant of the County of Surrey. The noble Viscount has laid before the House one of the enormous difficulties which beset the Church in South London. But we have not only to deal with the slums of that portion of the diocese of Rochester which lies within the interior of London, but with the enormously rapid extension in the exterior portion, and, of the two problems, I am inclined to think that the latter is almost the more overtasking. I feel that the Bishop who is responsible for South London ought to have his hands, time, and thoughts as free as possible for dealing with both of these problems, and ought not to be encumbered with the charge of the great national centre at Chatham, and of the many problems which beset it, I trust that the Bill will become law this session.
  On Question, agreed to.
  Bill read 2aaccordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday, the 13th instant.

  VOLUNTEER FORCE—STATISTICS.
  LORD CHELMSFORD, who had given notice of his intention to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he would lay on the Table a comparative statement of the enrolments in, and discharges from, the Volunteer Force between November 1st and January 31st, 1900–1901, and November 1st and January 31st, 1901–1902, said: Since putting my Question on the Paper I held a conversation with my noble and gallant friend the Under Secretary of State for War, who tells me that a Return for the broken periods mentioned would be very inconvenient to prepare, in consequence of the Volunteer Returns being made up quarterly. I will therefore modify my Question, and ask for a comparative statement between October 1st and March 31st, 1900–1901, and October 1st and March 31st, 1901–1902.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord RAGLAN): It is the case, as the noble Lord says, that the Returns are only received quarterly from the Volunteer Force, and therefore we could not prepare a statement with regard to the periods mentioned in his Question. But if a Return from October 1st, 1900, to January 1st, 1901, and from October 1st, 1901, to January 1st, 1902, will meet the wishes of the noble Lord, I shall be glad to lay it on the Table.

  THE ARMY AND RESERVE AFTER DEMOBILISATION.
  THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: My Lords, in calling attention to the probable condition of the Army after demobilisation, I am asking your Lordships to consider the matter of men and numbers, by far the most important problem connected with the Army. You may re-organise the War Office. You may re-construct the Army. Your re-organisation and your re-construction may be perfection, but both will be useless if you have not the men in sufficient numbers and of the right sort to fill the ranks of the Army,

  313
  which we must have if we are to maintain our Empire with its ever increasing.liabilities. The requirements of South Africa have necessitated the mobilisation of 107,000 men of the Army and Militia Reserves, the retention of 50,000 men with the colours who were due for transfer to the Reserves, and the depletion of the Indian garrison by 10,000 men transferred to the seat of war. I ask your Lordships to consider what will be the effect of demobilisation on the regular Army in South Africa, in India, and at home, and also upon the Reserve. It is necessary, for the purposes of calculation, to assume a definite time when the Reserves will be dismissed from the colours. The precise time of demobilisation may alter figures, but does not affect the main issues which I am about to submit for the consideration of your Lordships. I assume, then, that the Reserves will be dismissed in October, 1902, after three years service with the colours. It seems to me that next October is the earliest moment when their dismissal can be expected.
  I find by the Army annual Return for 1899 that the strength of the Army Reserve in 1899 was 78,798, and that of the Militia Reserve who joined the line 29,096, a total of 107,894. Allowing 10 per cent. for men unfit for active service, we get, in round numbers, 97,000 mobilised Reservists for service for South Africa. Since 1899 no transfers to the Reserve have taken place. All men due for transfer to the Reserve have been retained with the colours and counted as colour service men. The yearly transfer from the colours to the Reserve, according to the annual Return of the British Army, is more than 15,000, so that three years accumulation may be reckoned as 50,000 men. This number of 50,000 reservists accumulated with the colours added to the total of 97,000 mobilised Reservists sent out in 1899, will give the gross total of the men due to leave the Army on demobilisation, that is, 147,000 men. But that number is subject to two deductions. First, the number of men who have taken their discharge during the war, their period of service being completed—and, in the absence of official figures, I assume that number to be 30,000—secondly, loss by death and
  314
  permanent invaliding. Under this heading I cannot obtain any correct figures, because the casualties of the Regular Army have not been differentiated from those of all the other forces serving in South Africa. But some deduction must be made for casualties. I will deduct 20,000 men on this account, and allowing 30,000 as the number of men who have taken their discharge, these two numbers subtracted from the gross total of men due to leave the colours on the dismissal of the Reserve will give the net number of men due to leave the colours on demobilisation. The gross total, 147,000, less 50,000, equals 97,000. But these men due to leave the colours are not all in South Africa. In India there are 30,000 Reservists retained with the colours, which will leave 67,000 Reservists in South Africa. The total strength of the Regular Army in South Africa has just been returned as 137,000 men. The release of these 67,000 Reservists will leave 70,000 men with the colours in South Africa. In the Government plan for redistribution of troops, announced last session, twelve Infantry battalions were allotted as the garrison for South Africa, that is, 10,000 men of the line. I submit that, unless disaster is to be invited in South Africa, the garrison must remain at 70,000 men of the Regular Army for several years to come. When the Reserves are allowed to return home, the state of emergency being declared over, the Militia, Yeomanry, Volunteers, and Colonial contingents, other than South African, must also be released from service in South Africa.
  I would call your Lordships' attention to the condition of this garrison of 70,000 men after the Reserves have been withdrawn. The Reservists are the older and more experienced soldiers. They are the backbone of the Army in South Africa. On demobilisation not only will you diminish the quantity of the Army in South Africa, but you will seriously impair its quality. Infantry battalions and Cavalry regiments will be greatly decreased in strength. Infantry battalions will vary between 250 and 400 men, and Cavalry regiments will sink below 200 men. In short, many regiments and battalions will cease to be complete units, and there will be no men to

  315
  return home with the colours. The strength of the Regular Army now at home, is, I believe, about 120,000, including all men invalided home from abroad and boys of less than twenty-one years of age, upon whom the following demands must be made. In India there are some 30,000 Reservists due to leave the colours. Of these 17,000 have accepted bounties to extend their colour service instead of passing to the Reserve, leaving, therefore, 3,000 due to come home on the return of the Reserves. But the garrison of India is already 10,000 men below strength. Therefore, to bring up the garrison of India to its full strength, 23,000 men will at once be wanted. In addition, there are all other foreign garrisons, except India and South Africa, to be replenished. Thus at least 30,000 men will be required for foreign service from the Army at home, leaving a residue of 90,000, composed of invalided men and boys too young for foreign service, instead of the three Army Corps of 155,000 men which, last year, it was assumed would certainly arise from the ashes of demobilisation.
  I now come to the Reserves. In the first place the term "Reserve" as applied to the Reserve of our Army is misleading. By the term "Reserve" is meant a certain quantity of men, money, or material kept back from present use for future need. That is not the case with the Reserve of the British Army. The war has shown very clearly that the men of the Reserve proceed abroad in the first instance, and the boys with the colours remain behind. Our Reserve is really our first fighting line, and we have nothing behind it in the way of Regular troops. The whole essence of short service is the creation of a strong Reserve. But the Government now offer bounties to men to stay with the colours and not join the Reserve. In India some 17,000 men have accepted these bounties. There should be a young soldier with the colours and an older soldier in the Reserve. But you have only one man where you ought to have two; that is the fault, and to him you are paying a bounty of £26 to defeat the whole principle of short service. Moreover, bounties create a double exit from
  316
  the colours. There should be but one exit, namely, transfer to the Reserve, but bounties allow time-expired men and Reservists to leave the colours at the same moment. I submit to your Lordships that the system of bounties is unsound administration. Transfers to the Reserve take place amongst men serving beyond the seas after eight years service with the colours, which is to the disadvantage of the. Reserve. But a certain number of men at home are transferred to the Reserve alter three years service with the colours, and that is favourable to the Reserve. To calculate for these two different periods of transfer to the Reserve would be extremely complicated. I propose, therefore, to allow the advantage and, disadvantage to cancel one another, and to calculate the whole Reserve on the-basis of seven years colour service and. five in the Reserve. Of the whole Reserve mobilised in 1899—that is, 107,894 men — only those men will, remain in October, 1902, who were transferred to the Reserve between October,. 1897, and October, 1899. All who were-transferred previous to October, 1897, will have completed their full term of service, and will be due for discharge by October, 1902. Thus, of the Reserves mobilised in 1899, there will be only two annual transfers left in October, 1902, that is, 30,000 men.
  The Reservists who have been retained with the colours since 1899 amount to 50,000 men, and this number, added to the 30,000 who remain from the mobilised Reserve, will give the gross total, of the Reserve in October, 1902, namely, 80,000 men. This number is subject to the following deductions. First, 17,000 men who have accepted bounties to continue with the colours instead of joining the Reserve, and to this number must be added those men who will accept bounties bet weep now and October, 1902, and some who will purchase their discharge from the Reserve on the termination of the war, say 20,000 in all. The second deduction is one-seventh for casualties, that is. 11,000 men. This, with the 20,000 bounty men, makes 31,000 men to be subtracted from the gross total of 80,000, leaving 49,000 as the number of the Reserve on demobilisation in October, 1902. Your Lordships must, however, remember that these.

  317
  men have either served through the I South African campaign, or, which is worse from the point of view of general health, have been retained for an abnormal period in India. We entered on the war with a Reserve of 107,000 men, which, on demobilisation, will become 49,000 men. We shall end the war with no Field Army with the colours at home, but only a depot of 90,000 soldiers, including invalids and boys, who will have to supply drafts for an Army abroad of 166,000. That is a very grave situation.
  LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, I quite.agree with the noble Duke that this is a very important subject; no more important subject could be brought before your Lordships. The only thing I have to complain of is the extremely short notice I have received, owing to which I have not been able to go sufficiently into the subject to be able to give more than a sketch of the position which we anticipate. I cannot altogether accept the figures we have just heard. The whole question is a most difficult and complicated one, and it is not easy to follow a large number of figures given in this way, although the noble Duke has delivered his speech with great clearness. As far as I am able to discover, we anticipate hat after the war the deficiency in the number of men with the colours will be something between 24,000 and 30,000 men. I regret that I cannot give these figures with greater accuracy, but, as your Lordships are aware, they must be very largely matters of guesswork. These figures, of course, will increase to a certain extent it invaliding takes place In any very great degree, and there is another source of waste which, of course, we have no means whatever of anticipating—namely, discharge by purchase. Sixteen thousand five hundred men have taken the bounty in India to complete their colour service for twelve years. Of course that, although it makes the deficiency less in the Regular Array, depletes to that extent the Reserve, and it will make it necessary in the years 1903–1906, when these men will complete their colour service, to increase the number of recruits for the Army by something like 4,000 a year. I am afraid that is as far as I can go as to the position of the Regular Army at the end of
  318
  the war, and that I cannot at this moment enter upon the questions of how these men will be distributed and what garrisons will be maintained in South Africa. With regard to the Army Reserve, at the beginning of the war the Reserves stood in round figures at 110,000 men. There were 81,000 men of the Army Reserve and 29,000 men of the so-called Militia Reserve. According to the best calculations we can make under normal conditions at the end of the war, the Army Reserve, will number 70,000 men, and there will be the disappearance of the Militia Reserve, as that force has now been abolished. But from the 70,000 men we have to deduct the 16,500 who have taken the bounty, which reduces the number we estimate for the Army Reserve to 53,500. Under normal conditions of service, we calculate that the Reserve would in time rise to somewhere about 90,000 men. It would take some time to arrive at that figure, but we hope to make such arrangements that the Reserve will be very largely increased above that figure, and that we shall be provided with between 150,000 and 170,000 men. The whole of these matters will be laid before the public in detail this afternoon by the Secretary of State for War, and I am not in a position at this moment to enter into those details, nor do I think your Lordships will be able to thoroughly discuss these matters without fuller knowledge of what it is proposed to do.
  House adjourned at five minutes past Five o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock.