Sitting of 21 July 1904

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Bournemouth Corporation (Tramways) Bill [Lords]; Ebbw Vale Urban District Water Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Harrogate Waterworks Tramroad Bill [Lords]. Verbal Amendments made; Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Holywood,Tramways Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Metropolitan District Railway Bill [Lords] (King's Consent signified) Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Lothians Electric Power Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; a Clause added, and an Amendment made; Bill to be read the third time.
Aberdeen Joint Passenger Station Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]; Dumbartonshire (Vale of Leven) Water Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill. Third Reading deferred till Monday next.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 5). Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board for Ireland relating to the harbour of Courtown, in the county of Wexford, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 5) Bill. "To confirm a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board for Ireland relating to the harbour of Courtown, in the county of Wexford," presented accordingly.
Ordered, "That Standing Order 193a be suspended, and that the Bill be read the first time."—(Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland.)
Bill accordingly read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 279.]
Newcastle and Gateshead Water Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP M).
Sir JAMES WOODHOUSE reported from the Committee on Group M of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Wednesday next, at Eleven of the clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.
Manchester Corporation (General Power) Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments, from the Police and Sanitary Committee [Section A]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 3) Bill. Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill; Local Government Provisional Order (No. 4) Bill, without Amendment.
Lytham Improvement Bill, with Amendments.

PETITIONS.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions against; from Annan; Birkenhead; Buckley; Bush Hill Park; Connah's Quay; Dalkeith; Deganwy (three); Dumfries; Durham; Eskdale; Ffynongroew (four); Finsbury Park; Glastonbury; Hilperton; Linlithgow (two); Llandudno; Manchester; New Southgate; Oxfotd; Parkgate; Pendleton (two); Stafford; Thornton Dale and Worthing to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (TAXATION ANDPURCHASE OF LAND) BILL.
  Petition from Middlesbrough, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  TUBERCULOSIS (ANIMALS) COMPENSATION BILL.
  Petition of the Royal, Parliamentary, and Police Burghs of Scotland, against; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, TEPORTS, ETC
  ARMY.
  Copy presented, of Statement showing the extensions of service, since 1st April, 1904, of men enlisted for three years with the colours (rank and file only) to seven and eight years respectively [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ARMY (SPECIAL PENSIONS).
  Copy presented, of Return for the year ended 31st March, 1904, of Pensions specially granted under Articles 730, 1173a, and 1207 of the Army Pay Warrant [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CENSUS OF ENGLAND AND WALES, 1901.
  Copy presented, of General Report, with Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PHYSICAL DETERIORATION.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Physical Deterioration. Vol. I. Report and Appendix [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  POST OFFICE (FOREIGN AND COLONIAL PARCEL POST).
  Copy presented, of the Foreign and Colonial Parcel Post Amendment (No. 10) Warrant, 1904, dated 22nd June, 1904 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  QUEEN'S COLLEGE, CORK.
  Copy presented, of Report of the President for the Session 1903–4, with Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3225 to 3227 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (MISCELLANEOUS SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Miscellaneous Series, Nos. 615 and 616 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  BAHAMAS.
  Copy presented, of amended Prison Rule relating to the Personal Correction of Prisoners [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  CORPORAL PUNISHMENT.
  Address for "Return of all sentences of Corporal Punishment inflicted under 26 and 27 Vic., c. 44, upon persons convicted of offences against Section 43 of The Larceny Act, 1861, and Section 21 of The Offences Against the Person Act, 186], in England and Wales, from the 31st day of December, 1902, to the 31st day of December,1903 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 185, of Session 1903)." —(Mr. Lloyd Morgan.)
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL [LORDS].
  Copy ordered, "of Memorandum stating the nature of the Proposals contained in the Provisional Orders included in the Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill [Lords]."—(Mr. Bonar Law.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Locomotives and Trucks in Public Streets in London.
  MR. COGHILL(Stoke-upon-Trent): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware of the inconvenience that is caused by locomotives, with heavy trains of wagons attached to them, being driven in the streets of the Metropolis; and whether he will take steps, by legislation or otherwise, to protect the public from the dangers arising from this class of traffic.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I understand that my right hon. friend has received complaints on this subject, but as the matter is one which may be dealt with by by-laws under Section 6 (1) of The Locomotives Act, 1898, and such by-laws have to be confirmed by the Local Government Board, he has asked me to reply to the Question. A series of by-laws under the enactment referred to has been made by the Corporation of the City of London, and is in force in the City. By-laws for the rest of London would be made by the London County
  748
  Council. A. series has been prepared, and I some time since informed the County Council that, subject to any objections which might be raised when the by-laws had been advertised, I was prepared to confirm them. The by-laws are, I believe, still under the consideration of the County Council.

  Prisoners Flogged under the Vagrancy Act during 1903.
  MR. LLOYD MORGAN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will state the number of prisoners sentenced to be flogged who were sent to the sessions to be dealt with under the Vagrancy Act during the year 1903, and the offences they had committed, together with the name of the sessions where such sentences were passed.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) There were four sentences of whipping passed under the Vagrancy Act during the year 1903, one at county quarter sessions and three at borough sessions. The offender in each of these cases was guilty of grossly indecent exposure of his person, and had been repeatedly convicted before of the same offence.

  Clubs Failing to Register under The Licensing Act. 1902.
  MR. COLSTON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state whether any, and, if so, what number of clubs failed to register under Section 25 of The Licensing Act, 1902; and how many clubs have been struck off the register under Section 28.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) I have no means of answering the first part of the Question. As regards the second part it appears from police returns that sixty-seven clubs were struck off the register in the year 1903.

  Experiments in Connection with Drowning of Dogs.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD:To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has yet received any report from Professor Schafer with regard to the experiments performed by him in connection with the drowning of

  749
  dogs; and, if so, will he state the result as it affects the advancement by new discovery of physiological knowledge, or of knowledge which will be useful for saving or prolonging of life or alleviating suffering.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) The only report which I have as yet received is a copy of a paper by Professor Schäfer, entitled" Description of a simple and efficient method of performing artificial respiration in the human subject, especially in cases of drowning." This is the outcome of the investigation made by Professor Schäfer on behalf of the Committee on Suspended Animation appointed by the Royal Medical and Chirurgical Society, and I would refer the hon. Member to that paper for information in the matter.

  Dog Licences for Dogs kept for Vivisection Purposes.
  DR. SHIPMAN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Law concerning the payment of dog licences is enforced in the case of dogs kept for vivisection in places registered for that purpose.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) I am informed by the Board of Inland Revenue that the Answer is in the affirmative.

  Alleged Birching by the Sparkhill Police to Extort Confession.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received any communication respecting the case of two boys named Taylor and Hall who, it is alleged, were birched, with a view of extorting confessions, by members of the Sparkhill police force; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the case.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas). I presume the name Hall in this Question is a mistake for Heekes; if so, the case is one about which I have already made inquiry, and I have received a report of the facts from the Chief Constable of Worcestershire. Taylor, it appears, was not birched, but was prevented by force from assaulting his fellow prisoner. Heekes
  750
  was birched, not for the purpose of extorting a confession, but at his own request, instead of charging him with a theft to which he had already confessed. The action of the police superintendent in birching the boy was clearly most improper, and I am glad to find that the chief constable takes a very serious view of his misconduct. I am still in communication with the police authorities with regard to the incident.

  Adoption of Suggestions of Local Government Board Circular of 11th March, 1899.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state how many and what local authorities have adopted the recommendations and suggestions contained in the Local Government Board Order of 11th March, 1899.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I am not in a position to state how many and what local authorities have adopted the recommendations and suggestions contained in the circular letter issued by my Department on the 11th March, 1899, except so far as regards regulations under Article 13 of the Dairies, Cowsheds, and Milkshops Order of 1885. I dealt with this latter point in my reply to the Question of the hon. Member of the 12th instant.†

  Accommodation for Sick Poor in Eastville Workhouse.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Board regard as adequate the accommodation provided for the sick in the Eastville workhouse, belonging to the Bristol Board of Guardians; if he will state how many members of that board of guardians on a recent occasion voted for and how many against the provision of better accommodation; and whether he proposes to take any further action in this matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The accommodation for the sick poor of the parish of Bristol is admitted by the guardians to be inadequate and unsatisfactory, and they have for a long time past been considering various schemes
  † See (4) Debates, cxxxvii., 1358.

  751
  for providing better accommodation. That now proposed seems to have been adopted by them at a meeting held on 15th June. From a newspaper account of the proceedings I observe that an amendment which appears to have been supported by those who were not in favour of the particular scheme in question was rejected by twenty-six votes to twenty-three. The scheme has now been submitted to me, and I shall shortly address a communication to the guardians with regard to it.

  Post Office Savings Bank—Acknowledgment of Deposits under one Pound.
  MR.WEIR: To ask the Postmaster-General if he will state what sum the abolition of the practice of sending out from the Post Office Savings Bank acknowledgments of deposits under one pound is expected to save annually in postage and clerical labour respectively; and, seeing that these deposits represent 60 per cent. of the whole of the deposits received by the Postmaster-General at 14,000 Post Office Savings Banks, will he state what precaution it is proposed to take to protect the Department against fraud, especially having regard to the fact that many of these savings banks are at shops where the clerks are not in the pay of the Postmaster-General.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) It is estimated that the annual saving in postage and clerical labour through the abolition of acknowledgments for deposit under £1 will be £18,500 and £7,500 respectively. The acknowledgment is only one of the checks upon irregularities in bringing deposits to account. The other precautions are, in my opinion, fully sufficient to guard against the risk of irregularities in the case of the deposits in question, which average only 6s. each.

  Middlesbrough Post Office.
  MR GODDARD: To ask the Postmaster-General whether the regulation is still in force restricting the appointment of the relatives of superior officials in the same office; and whether he will make inquiries at the Middlesbrough Post Office with a view to making the necessary alterations in conformity with the rules of the service.
  752
  (Answered by Lord Stanley). There has been no alteration in the practice of the Department in this respect, which, at offices like Middlesbrough, is that a "near male relative of a postmaster, chief clerk, or other supervising officer is admitted to appointment only on condition that he agrees to seek transfer to some other office on attaining the age of nineteen if the circumstances remain unchanged; and a female relative of a supervising officer (unless more than one is employed) or a more distant male relative is appointed only on condition that if at any time the relationship is considered to be detrimental to the efficiency of the service the candidate will be transferred to some other office." As regards Middlesbrough, I presume that the hon. Member refers to the appointment of Mr. Balcombe, son of an assistant superintendent, in August, 1902, and of Miss James, daughter of the postmaster, in June, 1903; but both of these appointments were made on the conditions which I have specified. Mr. Balcombe is not yet nineteen years of age.

  Vacancies in the Post Office Service filled by Persons other than Postal Servants.
  MR. JOHN WILSON: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he can state the number of postmasterships vacant during the past three years which were filled by persons not previously in the Civil Service and by pensioned Civil servants other than Post Office servants, respectively; and whether he will state the reasons for filling superior posts in the Post Office Department in this manner, in view of the dearth of promotion and the want of prospects existing throughout this Department.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I cannot find that any head postmastership vacant during the past three years has been filled by the appointment of a person not previously in the Civil Service or by a pensioned Civil servant other than a Post Office servant. Small sub-offices which do not occupy the whole time of the sub-postmaster are frequently given to local shopkeepers and others unconnected with the Civil Service. But the emoluments of these posts are small, and I do not understand the hon. Member to refer to them when he speaks of "superior posts" in the Post Office.

  Avoch Harbour.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will say whether the petition of the Avoch Harbour Trustees, praying for a grant in aid of works in connection with the Harbour at Avoch, Ross-shire, has yet received consideration; and, if so, will he state the nature of the decision arrived at.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The petition of the Avoch Harbour Trustees was referred to the Harbour Grants Committee, who have made a Report which is under the consideration of the Government. I have no doubt that the decision will be communicated to the applicants at an early date.

  School Accommodation at Hayward's Heath.
  MR. EVELYN CECIL: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether, fresh school accommodation being necessary at Hayward's Heath, the Board of Education recently refused to sanction the building of a second Church school, although the urban district council three times passed a unanimous resolution in its favour, and a poll of the ratepayers of the district resulted in 565 voting for and eight against it; whether, as a matter of policy in single school areas containing only one denominational or one council school, the Board generally refuse to sanction the building of another of the same kind; and whether he can state, for the guidance of all areas, on what general principle such decisions of the Board proceed.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The hon. Member is incorrectly informed as to the unanimity of the urban district council; while, owing to the form in which the voting papers were drawn up for the purpose of the poll referred to, a considerable number were not returned or returned in blank. It is no doubt the case that there is a considerable majority of ratepayers in favour of a voluntary school, but there is also a substantial minority in favour of a council school. On a review of all the circumstances of the case, the Board decided that the deficiency of accommodation would best be met by
  754
  the provision of a council school. The Board understand that the necessary steps are now being taken by the local education authority. It is impossible to lay down any general rule as to single-school areas, for besides the interests of secular instruction, the economy of the rates, and the wishes of the parents, it is often necessary to take into consideration the neighbourhood and the character of other schools, and the facilities, or otherwise, of communication. Each case must be dealt with separately on its merits.

  Detention of British Ships by Russian Cruisers.
  SIR THOMAS DEWAR: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will ascertain under what circumstances two British steamers, the "Menelaus" and "Crew Hall," were, on Monday, the 11th instant, stopped in the Red Sea by an armed Russian cruiser, the detention in the case of the "Menelaus" being as much as four hours.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) His Majesty's Government are aware that several British steamers have been stopped by armed Russian vessels in the Red Sea. They recognise that the matter is one of grave importance, and full investigation is being made.

  Alleged Concession to Germany in Madeira.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any fresh information as to the German Sanatorium Syndicate from Lisbon or Madeira; and whether, if the concession is still unsigned, he will instruct the British Minister at Lisbon to ask for equality of treatment for British residents in Madeira as regards the exemptions and privileges which the Germans are acquiring to the detriment of British commercial interests.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) His Majesty's Government are in communication with the Portuguese Government, and I am unable to make a further statement at present. No concession has yet been given for the supply of water.

  Duty on Alcohol used for Industrial Purposes.
  COLONEL DENNY: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any facilities are given for manufacture of alcohol for industrial purposes under special Excise regulations, so as to make the duty as small as possible; what is the minimum duty charged upon alcohol after denaturalization; and how does this duty compare with that exacted in Germany, Frances, Austria, Belgium, Holland, and Italy upon spirit used for industrial purposes, including alcohol engines.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) There are no special facilities given for the manufacture of alcohol used for industrial purposes. There is no duty charged upon spirit of British manufacture used for methylation or for purposes sanctioned under Section 8 of the Finance Act, 1902, but upon foreign spirits so used a differential duty of 5d. per proof gallon is charged. About three years ago the Board of Inland Revenue obtained through the Foreign Office information as regards the terms upon which alcohol may be used for industrial purposes in the principal countries of the Continent and in the United States of America; and, so far as they can judge from the returns then made, no duty is charged upon alcohol so used in any of the countries named. It is, however, difficult to say whether this would be true in all cases, as in some countries the tax on alcohol is not a single tax, but a combination of several duties chargeable at different stages of manufacture or of sale, and it is not certain that all of these are remitted in all cases of use of alcohol for industrial purposes.

  Death from Flogging of Ramji Hariba.
  MR. J. A. PEASE: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether the attention of his Office has been called to the death on 4th January of Ramji Hariba, as the result of flogging received on 24th December by order of Mr. Cursondas Chhabildas, when he was convicted of theft; and whether any steps have been taken to prevent such an incident happening again.
  756
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I have no information as to the occurrence referred to in the Question; I will make an inquiry on the subject, but the local government have, no doubt, taken the necessary steps.

  Encouragement of Fishing Industry on South-East Coast of Ireland.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is in a position to state what steps he proposes to take for the encouragement of the fishing industry on the south-east coast of Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) I am not yet in a position to make an announcement in respect to this matter.

  Irish Bankruptcy Court—Amount of Unclaimed Dividend Fund.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a fund known as the Unclaimed Dividend Fund exists in connection with the Court of Bank ruptcy, Ireland; whether he can state its amount at present, and whether this money is invested in public funds; and whether he will consider the advisability of utilising this money to provide a building fund for the erection of suitable technical schools in Ireland, to be repaid by annual instalments.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The application of the Unclaimed Dividends in Bankruptcy (Ireland) is regulated by Section 85 of the Act 40 and 41 Vic., c. 57. The money is from time to time applied in purchase of Government securities which are thereupon cancelled. The sum of £5,188 8s. 9½d. is now standing to the credit of the account, and will in due course be disposed of as the Act directs. There is no power to utilise it for any other purpose.

  Destruction of Flag on Orange Hall, Trillick.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Union Jack which was flying from the Orange Hall in Trillick on the 12th instant, was hauled down and destroyed; and whether, in view of the fact that the

  757
  police were in the vicinity, he can state Ireland if, in view of the fact that Irish if any arrests were made.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) There was a small dance in the Orange Hall on the date mentioned, the music at which was supplied by two Roman Catholics. The flag was subsequently found at the door of the hall torn, but on the 14th instant it was replaced on the hall. The police have been unable to ascertain by whom the flag was taken down.

  Inspection of Mr. O'Donovan's Property at Skibbereen.
  MR. GILHOOLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the inspector promised by the Congested Districts Board to visit the property of Mr. O'Donovan, of Skibbereen, which is situated in the Durrrus district, has done so, and, if not, when the inspection will be made.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The Board's inspector hopes to be able to inspect this property within the next fortnight.

  Losses of Debenture Holders of Irish Loan Fund Banks.
  DR. THOMPSON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Liehtenant of Ireland if, in view of the fact that the losses sustained by the debenture holders and borrowers in the Irish Loan Fund banks is due to the incapacity of the Loan Fund Board and its inspectors, he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation to give relief to those people who have lost their savings by the laxity of a Government Board and its officers.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) Any losses sustained by the debenture holders of insolvent loan fund societies are attributable to local mismanagement. In answer to the second part of the question, I refer to my reply to the hon. Member's previous Question of the 11th instant. †

  Inspection of Irish Workhouses and Workhouse Hospitals.
  DR. THOMPSON:To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of
  †See (4) Debeates, cxxxvii.,1193.
  758
  Ireland if, in view of the fact that Irish workhouses and workhouse hospitals are inspected by lay inspectors without any technical experience, and in view of the condition of the Irish workhouses as proved by the evidence given before the Viceregal Commission now sitting, he will direct the Local Government Board to so re-arrange the duties of its inspectors that these institutions shall be in the future inspected only by expert medical inspectors.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) As already stated in reply to the hon. Member's previous Question of 12th instant,‡ the hospitals attached to workhouses are inspected by medical inspectors who have been specially appointed for the purposes. The workhouses are inspected by experienced lay inspectors who, in the Board's opinion, possess the necessary qualifications for the duty. Until the Report and evidence of the Viceregal Commission have been received no definite conclusions can be arrived at concerning the matters investigated by the Commission.

  Age Retirement of Irish Poor Law Medical Officers.
  DR. THOMPSON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that several Poor Law medical officers in Ireland are over seventy-five years of age and still retain their appointments; and, if so, if he will authorise the Local Government Board to frame rules which will allow those officers to tender their resignations, subject to their being satisfied with the retiring allowance granted them by the local authorities.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) No doubt some of the Poor Law medical officers are advanced in years, but in the absence of a compulsory Superannuation Act it is not possible for the Local Government Board to compel them to resign, unless of course they fail to discharge their duties satisfactorily. The proposal that medical officers should be permitted to tender their resignations provisionally is not feasible. Under The Union Officers' Superannuation Act,
  †See (4) Debeates, cxxxvii.,1352.

  759
  1865, a pension can only be awarded to an officer upon his resigning or otherwise ceasing to hold office.

  Royal Army Medical Corps.
  DR. THOMPSON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that medical officers who were appointed probationers in the Royal Army Medical Corps, between the years 1880 and 1885, were not allowed to count their six months service at the Army Medical School at Netley as Fart of their Army service; and, seeing that this disqualification has been removed since the year 1885, will he direct that officers who served in the Army Medical School at Netley, between the years 1880 and 1885, will be placed, as regards these years, on a similar ratio to officers appointed since the later date.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The hon. Member has been somewhat misinformed in his data. In the first place the probationary period at the Army Medical School was four months, and not six. In the second place the change in the procedure took place in 1902, and not 1885, by which service which on probation and under instruction at the Royal Army Medical College and Depot Royal Army Medical Corps (for a period of five months) is reckoned. Under these circumstances I am not prepared to ante-date the commissions in the manner suggested.

  Improved Sleeping Accommodation in Guard Rooms.
  MR. COLSTON: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state what guard rooms are now provided with the improved sleeping accommodation.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) No guard beds have as yet been provided anywhere, but tenders for them have recently come in, and are receiving consideration.

  Army Estimates
  MR. GODDARD: To ask the Secretary of State for War what will be the estimated increase in Estimates in each of the ensuing two years under the re-
  760
  armament scheme; what will be the increased charge for interest for money borrowed under the Military Works Acts for the same period; and what is the increase of charge for stores needed to keep up the standard recommended by the Mowatt Committee as compared with the average annual charge for the same purpose in the years preceding the appointment of that Committee.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) I hope I shall be able to propose the re-armament of the artillery upon the basis which I have already suggested to the House, viz., the completion in three years, which will involve an additional payment in the next two years of £1,250,000 in each case. I trust that the House will support me if I find it necessary to ask them to vote a large addition to Estimates which will be involved by the adoption of this course. I prefer, however, not to make a positive statement until the Estimates of next year are ready for submission. No increased charge will be required in connection with the Mowatt stores, but as a considerable stock of surplus stores and clothing existed from the war in South Africa, it was unnecessary to make the normal provision for upkeep in the Estimates 1904–1905. There will, therefore, probably be an increased provision as compared with 1904–1905 of—

  1905–6

  £373,000.

  1906–7

  £649,000.

  The Reserves.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: To ask the Secretary of State for War on what occasions since 1880 the Reserves have been called out; how many Reservists responded on each occasion; and what was the total number of troops employed in each of the campaigns.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The Reserves have been called out on the following occasions since 1880:—
  1882, partial mobilisation;
  1885, partial mobilisation;
  1899–1900, general mobilisation.
  The numbers who joined on each occasion are as follows:—
  1882, 10,583, or 90·8 per cent. of those called up;
  1885, 2,205 or 87·0 per cent. of those called up;
  1899–1900, 74,379, or 91·67 per cent. of those called up.
  The total number of troops employed in each of the campaigns are:—

  1882

  36,735

  1885

  24,175

  1899–1902

  448,435

  Rates of Wages of Chinese Labourers in the Transvaal.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state what are the rates of wages which are being paid to the Chinese labourers now working in the the Transvaal mines; and what proportion of the labourers are paid at each rate.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) I am not in a position to state the rates, but I will inquire.

  Legislative Council of Southern Rhodesia and Chinese Labour.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Legislative Council of Southern Rhodesia has passed this year any Resolution on the subject of the importation of Chinese labourers into that territory; if so, what are its terms; and whether he has yet arrived at a decision with regard to the sanction of such importation.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) I have not vet learnt whether any Resolution has been passed, and I have not, therefore, vet arrived at any decision.

  Receipts and Expenditure of the Transvaal, Orange River Colony, and Intercolonial Council.
  MR. BUCHANAN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the actual figures in receipts and expenditure for the year ended 30th June for the Transvaal, the Orange River Colony, and the Intercolonial Council.
  762
  (Answered by Mr. Seeretary Lyttelton.)
  I have received the following figures from Lord Milner:—

  Transvaal:

  Actual Receipts

  £4,465,000

  Actual Expenditure (including contribution of £750,000 to Intercolonial Council)

  £4,358,000

  Orange River Colony:

  Receipts latest Estimate

  £861,000

  Expenditure, latest Estimate (including contribution of £100,000 to Intercolonial Council

  £745,000

  Intercolonial Council:

  Actual Receipts

  £2,661,195

  Actual Expenditure

  £2,600,926

  The Transvaal Expenditure is exclusive of Crown Agents' payments during June, which are £8,563. The figures in connection with the Intercolonial Council Budget are exclusive of Crown Agents' transactions. Their expenditure on this account amounts to about £50,000.

>QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Sale of Obsolete War Vessels.
  COLONEL DENNY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the firms who purchased the old war vessels at the recent sale were themselves shipbreakers or were they agents acting for foreigners; if the latter, was it known to the Admiralty that these people had previously acted in the same way, subsequently disposing of the ships to foreigners; at whose request was the restriction as to non-removal from the United Kingdom removed from the contract in the special cases in which it was thought necessary, and how had the necessity disappeared; is the destination of the "Belleisle" ultimately a foreign country; and what is the name of the London firm to which she was sold.
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARTHUR LEE,): The Answer to the first part of the Question is that they

  763
  were all shipbreakers with one exception, who was a purchaser well known to the Admiralty. He has previously bought ships which have ultimately been taken abroad. The restriction as to non-removal from the United Kingdom is dispensed with in certain cases, after due consideration by the Board, in order to increase the range of competition. The ultimate destination of the "Belleisle" is not known. She was sold to Mr. J. B. Carnham, of 132, Upper Thames Street, E.C., without any restrictions; but I may add that the vessel was in such a state that breaking up was the only course open to the purchaser.

  Army Reorganisation Scheme.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can grant the Return on the Paper relating to the new Army Scheme.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): Yes, Sir. I will endeavour to furnish the Return asked for by the right hon. Gentleman in a form closely corresponding with the form suggested. I ought to add, however, the same proviso as I made in answer to the Question of the hon. Member for the Eastern Division of Perthshire yesterday, viz., that the figures must, to a large extent, be contingent upon the acceptance by Parliament of the proposals I made as a whole.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Will the Return be in the hands of Members in time for the debate?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No date has yet been fixed for the debate, but I will use every endeavour to that end. I am most anxious that the right hon. Gentleman should have the figures.
  Appended is the Return above referred to—
  Army Organisation Scheme.—Address for Return showing, as regards the proposals of His Majesty's Government, the following particulars, viz.:—

  (a) Scheme of establishments of Infantry and Guards, similar to that on pages 18 and 19, of Army Estimates.

  764

  (b) Distribution at home and abroad, as on page 22 of Army Estimates.

  (c) Constitution approximately estimated, of a unit of each establishment proposed, showing the number of men serving in each year of their service.

  (d) Draft calculated to be required for each unit serving abroad, stating what is the basis assumed.

  (e) Number of Reservists which it is calculated to be created by each cadre—Home service general service, and foreign service.

  (f) How the battalions will be made up on mobilisation, showing the number under twenty years of age in the battalion, the number over twenty years, and the number of Reservists required to complete War establishment, and the number in excess, the waste of Reservists being assumed according to experience before 1899.

  (g) Total number of recruits of nineteen years of age and upwards, to keep up establishment of battalions abroad.

  (h) Total number of recruits of eighteen years required for the home service battalions.

  (i) Mode in which non-commissioned officers will be obtained and trained for the home service battalions.

  (j) Names and numbers of the battalions which will form the several categories.

  (k) Reliefs, how effected, and interchange of officers and non-commissioned officers between the battalions.

  (l) Minimum service and age of men proceeding on foreign service.

  (m) Location of men who have completed six months service at the depot.

  (n) Rates of pay of the respective Armies.

  (o) Conditions on which men are to extend their service for pension.

  Army Recruiting for 1903–4.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: To ask the Secretary of State for War what was the total number of recruits finally passed into the Army in the last completed twelve months from all sources.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The figures are as follows:—Regular Forces, 42,216, Militia, 40,808. I may add that a considerable proportion of the recruits enlisted in the Militia subsequently passed into the Line, but I am unable to give the exact figures.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: Then do I understand that a substantial number of the Militia recruits are included in the figures 42,216.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Oh, yes, undoubtedly. The last figures I have are about 19,000, and the total must be reduced by that amount, because those figures are duplicate.

  Recruiting—Comparative Tables.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what number of recruits were enlisted into the Army in the first six months of 1903 and 1901 respectively; how many specials were enlisted in each period; whether all arms of the service were open to recruiting during both periods; how the recruits obtained in the present year compare in number with those obtained during a like period of 1898 and 1899, and how many specials were taken in those years.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The figures for the first six months are as follows:—

  Recruits.

  Specials Under Standard.

  1898

  …

  18,569

  5,615

  1899

  …

  19,134

  5,888

  1903

  …

  20,445

  1,307

  1904

  …

  30,822

  311

  During the first six months of 1903 the Cavalry and Royal Horse Artillery were closed and the Royal Field Artillery for drivers: the Royal Engineers were closed in March, 1903, except for certain trades. In 1904 the Cavalry were closed for the first six months except for two regiments for a few weeks; the Royal Horse Artillery except for drivers in three districts and a levy of fifty gunners; the Royal Field Artillery were closed for drivers except for one depot and for gunners from the 28th March in four depots; and the Royal Engineers were
  766
  closed for sappers except for certain trades.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Is it not the case that in 1904 men were enlisted under much stricter limitations than before?
  MR. ARNOLE-FORSTER: Yes, that is so.

  Re-engagements in the Guards Brigade.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, how many men in the Brigade of Guards re-engaged for various terms of service in the first six months of 1903 and 1904, respectively, including all re-engagements, whether of men of three years, seven years, or longer service.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The figures are as follows:—1903, 140; 1904, 1,007.

  Proposed Reduction of the Volunteer Force.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will say whether, if Parliament approves the reduction of the Volunteer Force to 180,000 men, it is proposed to retain the £1 15s. capitation grant with respect to the 120,000 of the second class, and to what extent the earning power of regiments will be increased in respect of the 60,000 in the first class; and whether it will be distributed in the shape of grants for special proficiency or in what manner.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I am not at present able to give a reply to my hon. friend. The principles I propose must be approved by Parliament before I can give practical effect to them.

  Expenditure under the Military Works Act.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what was the sum expended under the Military Works Act for the year ending 31st March. 1904, what is the estimated expenditure in current financial year; and whether an assurance can now be given similar to that given on the Naval Works Act, that no new military works will be provided for by loan.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BROMLEY DAVENPORT,): The approximate expenditure under the Military Works Act in 1903 to 1904 was £3,600,000. It is not possible at present to state the estimated expenditure during 1904 to 1905, as the question is still under discussion with the Treasury. I imagine that there is a general feeling against the extension of loan provision, but I am not in a position to give the assurance asked for.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: What balance remains unexpended of the amount authorised by the last Military Works Act?
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: I cannot say without notice.
  MR. LOUGH: Will the estimate be ready during this session?
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: I should think so.

  Chinese Coolies in South Africa—Treatment of the 'Tweeddale' Contingent
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has yet received the despatch from Lord Milner asked for by cable on 23rd June, relative to the arrival and landing at Durban of coolies from the steamship "Tweeddale" and their transmission to Johannesburg; and, if so, whether he will state the terms of Lord Milner's report.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON,): I have not yet received the despatch in question.

  Ex-President Kruger's Funeral.
  MR. POWER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether Lord Milner and his advisers have consented to the interment of the remains of the late President Kruger at Pretoria; and, if so, whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to offer one of His Majesty's ships for the conveyance of the remains to South Africa.
  MR. LYTTELTON: Perhaps I may be allowed to reply to this. Lord Milner and his advisers have consented to the interment of the late President Kruger in Pretoria. With regard to the recommendation in the Question of the hon. Member, the Government have considered the matter very carefully; and I think the House will agree that it is desirable to do nothing in any sense in connection with this matter inharmonious with the wishes of the family and the general sense of the countrymen of the late President Kruger. Having that consideration before them, in view of the many sensibilities concerned, the solution of the matter that has been possible to us is contained in the following telegram to Lord Milner—
  "Please inform General Hildyard that any military honours he may consider proper to arrange for in connection with the funeral of the late President Kruger will have the fullest sanction of His Majesty's Government. Such a recognition of the conspicuous position so long held by the late President Kruger in South Africa may be acceptable to the family and the Boer community at large; but unless you are satisfied that it will be acceptable, you will, of course, take no action on this telegram."

  Self-Government for the Transvaal Colony.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any correspondence has passed between Lord Milner and himself relative to the question of conferring self-government upon the Transvaal Colony; if so, whether he can say when he will be in a position to lay such correspondence; and whether any operative step will be taken before Parliament has an opportunity of discussing the matter.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I hope to be able in the course of the discussion of the Colonial Vote to-day to make a statement with regard to this matter, so that the hon. Member will excuse me for not saying more at present.

  Precedence in the Colonies.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that

  769
  in 1872 in South Australia an Act was pissed depriving the Bishop of the precedence he then possessed and disallowed by the Home Government, the then Secretary for the Colonies laying down the rule that a precedence once granted to a person could not be taken away during the time he held office, unless he voluntarily relinquished it; and, if so, whether he will state on what grounds and at whose instance the Chief Justice of New Zealand was deprived of his precedence.
  MR. LYTTELTON: The circumstances of the two cases are somewhat different, as in the South Australian case the Bill in question had special reference to the precedence of certain ministers of religion, whereas in the New Zealand case it was a question of a general revision of the precedence table of the colony. Some doubts were at first entertained as to the propriety of making any alteration in the position of the Chief Justice, but it was eventually decided, after the most careful consideration, that in view of the strong feeling of the New Zealand Ministry on the subject, and having regard to the fact that the matter was one of essentially local concern and that no Imperial interests were involved, there was no sufficient reason for advising His Majesty to refuse his assent to the proposal.

  Zanzibar—Envoys Complaints against the Regent.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the Government have now decided to grant an independent inquiry into the complaints of the envoys from Zanzibar against the Regent.
  THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY,)No, Sir; no such inquiry is contemplated.

  Blended Spirits—Operations in Bond.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state how many gallons of patent spirits distilled in England were blended with Scotch whiskey and bottled in bond under Government supervision for exportation to the Colonies and other countries during the last financial year; and
  770
  whether the Select Committee of 1890 and 1891 found that such chemically pure spirits distilled in England might be blended with Scotch whiskey and sold as such.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): With reference to the first point, I have inquired and find that the Board of Inland Revenue have not the information required by the hon. Member. The Answer to his second Question is in the affirmative.

  Patent-Still Distillery in Scotland.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state how many gallons of patent spirits were distilled in the Highlands of Scotland during the last financial year; and if he will state whether any of the Highland whisky made up in bond under Government supervision contains a considerable percentage of patent spirits.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: There is only one patent-still distillery in the Highlands of Scotland; but the Board of Inland Revenue have no title to disclose the particulars of its trade. The Board have no official record which would enable them to supply the information asked for in the second clause of the Question.

  Conveyance of Dutiable Goods between English and Irish Ports—Carrying Trades' Accounts.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to the Memorandum prefixed to the Return of Revenue and Expenditure (England, Scotland, and Ireland), of the 27th June, 1904, who were the owners of vessels in the carrying trade who kept the accounts there referred to; what is the nature of those accounts and by whom were they prescribed; what are the dutiable articles in respect of which they were kept; who were the dealers and manufacturers of whom inquiries were, as is alleged, made as to movements of beer and manufactured tobacco between England, Scotland, and Ireland, and what were those inquiries; what was the nature of the adjustments in respect of direct taxes to

  771
  which the Return refers as having been made, and whether they involve any, and, if so, what change or changes in the methods of calculation heretofore adopted; and who ordered those accounts, inquiries, and adjustments.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The accounts were kept by the companies—about ninety in number—engaged in shipping between Great Britain and Ireland. Forms of account, prescribed by the Treasury, were furnished to these companies, who were requested to enter thereon the quantities of certain dutiable articles conveyed by them between British and Irish ports, and to furnish those statements weekly to the collectors of Customs at the Irish ports. The dutiable articles of which accounts were so obtained were tea, wine, and sugar. As regards the movements of beer and manufactured tobacco, application was made by the Excise officers to all traders in each collectorate for returns of the amounts sent to or received from a different division of the United Kingdom. The chief alteration made in respect of direct taxes was a revision of the percentage of taxation which, though collected in England, is presumed to be levied on property owned in Scotland or Ireland. This adjustment applies to the entire yield of income-tax under Schedule C and Part I. of Schedule D, also to a portion of the yield from stamps and from Part II. of Schedule D of the income-tax. In previous annual Returns the adjustment had been based on the Probate Duty Statistics of the year 1889–90, on which basis the percentage deducted from England was 1·6, of which 1·4 per cent. was attributed to Scotland, and 2 per cent. to Ireland. These percentages have now been revised in the light of the Estate Duty Statistics of recent years; the new percentage deducted from England being 2·4, of which 1·7 per cent. is attributed to Scotland. and ·7 per cent. to Ireland. A slight readjustment has also been found necessary of the proportions of certain direct taxes presumed to be derived from sources outside the United Kingdom. The inquiries were carried out under direction of the Treasury.
  MR. CLANCY: The right hon. Gentle man must be aware that he has not given me the greater part of the information for which I asked. May I inquire, however, whether any of these unfortunate changes affecting grave constitutional questions have been conducted behind the back of Parliament and of the parties concerned?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINmade no reply.
  MR. CLANCY: Then may I inquire if, in case the right hon. Gentleman may contemplate any further changes, he will make public beforehand the principle on which he intends proceeding?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: These inquiries were instituted before I became Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is the duty of the Department which has to present Returns to get them in as accurate a form as possible. That is what has been aimed at in this case.
  MR. CLANCY: Who directed the inquiries?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot say, but it was one of my predecessors.

  Desertions of British Merchant Seamen in Pacific Ports.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has made inquiries in regard to the percentage of British merchant seamen stated in the Report of the United States Government Commissioner to have deserted in Pacific ports in the year 1903; and whether he has determined to take steps to prevent shipowners from profiting by such desertions.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. Box AR LAW,): The subject of my right hon. friend's Question is receiving careful consideration, but it involves points of legal difficulty upon which the Board of Trade are consulting the Law Officers of the Crown. I cannot make any further statement with regard to the matter at present.

  Education in the Isle of Wight—County Council and the Church of England Schools.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he can state the main provisions of the agreement entered into between the County Council for the Isle of Wight and the trustees of certain Church of England schools in the Island for the leasing of their schools to the authority, subject to the right of entry on certain days of the week for volunteer teachers of specific denominational religious instruction.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY To THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON,): The Board of Education understand that negotiations have been going on between the Isle of Wight Local Education Authority and the managers of certain voluntary schools, as to the terms upon which the latter were prepared to transfer the schools, but no definite proposals have been submitted for the consideration of the Board, and from a recent communication on the subject it appears to he doubtful whether the arrangement will he proceeded with.

  Denominational Schools—Transfers to Local Educational Authorities.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he can state the number of denominational schools, by denominations and departments, and the total accommodation of the same, transferred to the local education authorities, under Section 23 of the Act of 1870, since the coming into operation of the Education Act of 1902.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: The number of voluntary schools, the transfers of which to local education authorities have been finally sanctioned by the Board under Section 23 of the Act of 1870, is, five Church of England schools, having seven departments providing accommodation for 951; one Wesleyan school, having one department, providing accommodation for 161; eighteen British and Foreign Schools Society schools having twenty-eight departments, providing accommodation for 4,613; and six unde-
  774
  nominational, having nine departments, providing accommodation for 1,633. The Board have also approved the transfer, under Section 19 of the Act of 1870, of seventy-one Church of England schools, providing accommodation for 16,030; eight Wesleyan schools, providing accommodation for 3,692; eighteen British and Foreign Schools Society schools, providing accommodation for 7,485; and twenty-two undenominational, providing accommodation for 5,758.

  Rathmines Registration Lists.
  MR. MOONEY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland if the police have yet identified the person or persons who have tampered with the requisition forms in the Rath-mines polling district of South County Dublin; and, if so, will he direct a prosecution to take place.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): This matter has received my careful attention. I am awaiting sonic further information from the police before issuing instructions.
  MR. MOONEYwas understood to ask if it were not a fact that last week the identity of these men was satisfactorily established to the inspector of police. Was nothing being done in the matter?
  MR. ATKINSON: I am expecting a further report.
  MR. MOONEY: I will raise the matter later on.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDinquired if the right of certain persons to exercise the franchise did not hang upon action being taken within the next two days.
  MR. ATKINSON: I can assure the hon. Member that immediately I get the report I am expecting I shall take the necessary action.

  Dredger for the West of Ireland.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can now state what steps have been taken to

  775
  acquire a dredger which would be available for the West of Ireland.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): I explained the position of the Government in this matter in reply to a Question by the hon. Member on the 2nd June†. I have no further statement at present to make.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: But is it the intention of the Government to provide a dredger?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I can add nothing to my statement. It will be done at the earliest possible moment.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: When will the Estimate be before the House? It is now the 21st July.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The hon. Member has as good an opportunity of judging the progress of business here as I have.

  Land Purchase in Galway.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any sales under the provisions of the Land Act of 1903 have taken place within the area of the Parliamentary borough of Galway; and whether, within the same area, any land has been acquired by the Congested Districts Board for the enlargement of uneconomic holdings.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No sales are pending before the Estates Commissioners. The Congested Districts Board has purchased one property.

  Mountpottinger Constabulary Barracks.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Head Constable Ryan, of the Royal Irish Constabulary at Belfast, at present occupies the married quarters in Mountpottinger, although he is not stationed in that district; and whether, in view of the fact that his father-in-law lives with him in these quarters, contrary to the police regulations, he will
  ‡ See (4) Debates, cxxxv., 628.
  776
  consider the advisability of having these quarters occupied by the men at present doing duty in the district.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am in communication with the Inspector-General on the subject of this Question and will ask my hon. friend to postpone it until Monday next.

  Gault Estate, County Tyrone.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any, and if so, what, progress has been made with the sale of the Gault Estate, Trillick, county Tyrone; whether he is aware that an absolute order for sale was made in 1894, and that the tenants have been prevented from having fair rents fixed on the agricultural land by repeated offers of sale; whether the tenants, at the request of the receiver, recently made offers of purchase; if these offers have been brought before the Land judge; and if, when the case was last before the Judge, the solicitor having carriage of the sale stated that the question of title had been settled.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The order for sale was made in 1894, but for the reasons stated by me on the 7th March†the Land Judge was satisfied that the solicitors having carriage of the proceedings were not in default. The solicitors have no knowledge of the fact alleged that the tenants of agricultural lands have been prevented from having fair rents fixed. The tenants have made offers for purchase, but these were not submitted to the Land Judge because no rental had been settled. The case will again appear in the Judge's list in November, when the solicitors will be required to explain what further progress has been made The title has been passed, subject to some simple queries upon which information is awaited.

  Weir Estate, County Sligo.
  MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can give the date on which the Weir Estate, situate near Riverstown, county Sligo, ceased to be administered in the Land
  ‡ See (4) Debates, cxxxi., 317.

  777
  Judge's Court; whether it was during its administration by the Court that the Knockalassa grazing farm, forming part of the estate in question, was sold to a non-resident bailiff; whether he will give the date and circumstances of that sale, and say whether, in the event of the Estates Commissioners or Congested Districts Board now purchasing the Weir Estate, some steps will be taken to have this ranche utilised for the enlargement of the small holdings surrounding it.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The farm referred to was sold by the Land Judge in July, 1903, at a large price and after some competition. The remainder of the estate remains under the administration of the Land Judge, who proposes to offer the unsold lands to the tenants under Section 40 of the Act of 1896.
  MR. O'DOWD: Will the tenants of the small holdings get any advantage from the breaking up of the large lands on this property?
  MR. WYNDHAM: The farm was sold in July last year before the Land Act was passed.

  Rathmines Commissioners' Appeal.
  MR. MOONEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state what is the cause of the delay in announcing the decision of the Local Government Board in the appeal of the Rathmines Commissioners from the order of the Dublin County Council.
  MR. WYNDHAM: There has been no avoidable delay. The Board is now considering the inspector's report and the voluminous minutes of evidence taken at the inquiry.
  MR. MOONEY: According to the right hon. Gentleman the evidence was printed as far back as the 10th of last month, and if the decision is not given before the end of the session the order cannot take effect for four years.

  Dromore Orange Demonstration—Assault on James Gamble.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ire-
  778
  land whether he is aware that a man named James Gamble, while on his way home to Tormore, near Newry, from Dromore, where he had been attending an Orange demonstration on Tuesday last week, was knocked down, and that his wife was also assaulted; if so, can he say what was the cause of the assault on Gamble, and if any arrests have been made; and, if not, what steps, if any, does he propose taking to bring the assailants to justice.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Mrs. Gamble was not assaulted. Her husband is alleged to have been attacked and beaten. He states he will prosecute his assailants.
  MR. SLOAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that parties who know the individuals accused have been trying to induce Mrs. Gamble to persuade her husband to withdraw from the prosecution?
  MR. WYNDHAM: If Mr. Gamble does not prosecute the police will take up the case.

  Section 7, Land Purchase (Ireland) Act.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the proceedings in the Land Judge's Court on the 14th instant, when, in the case of the estate of L. O. Weir, Mr. Justice Ross stated that he would not act upon a request by the Estates Commissioners. under Section 7 of the Land Purchase Act of 1903; and if it is the intention of the Government to authorise the Estates Commissioners to proceed in the Court of Appeal with a view to having the true construction of Section 7 settled and declared.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: The Commissioners have not issued a request under the 7th Section in respect of this estate. They are at present consulting counsel as to the construction of that section.

  Queen's College, Belfast—Lectures.
  MR. MACTEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that although, according to the Charter, the session of Queen's College, Belfast, should begin in October and end

  779
  in June, the lectures do not begin until November and end in May, and that a month's vacation intervenes between those periods, thus reducing the actual period of tuition to five months in the year; and, if so, whether he can state if any representations have been made to the Government as to the necessity of providing assistance to the staff of professors.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The college session began last year on the 20th October and terminated on the 11th June, 1901. The lectures in Arts extended from November to May, but the hon. Member overlooks the fact that the examinations for scholarships and class examinations form also an essential part of the college work. These examinations took place in the intervals before and after the Arts course. There was a vacation of two weeks at Christmas and two weeks at Easter. In reply to the concluding inquiry I refer to the recent correspondence with the college council laid by me on the Table of the House in February last. [Parliamentary Paper No. 68.]

  Irish Section, St. Louis Exhibition.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the bon. Member for Cork, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Irish Department of Agriculture is responsible for the Irish section of the St. Louis Exhibition; if so, will he explain why no advertisements of the Irish exhibits have been issued, while those of all other countries are widely advertised; why a charge of 25 cents is levied on visitors to the Irish section, while Austrian, English, French, German, and other manufactures, have their goods shown free; and whether Sir Horace Plunkett consulted him in the matter.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The position of the Department in connection with the Irish section of the Exhibition was explained by me in answer to the Question by the hon. Member for West Clare on the 4th May last.† The Irish Exhibit Company defray the cost of freight and insurance on exhibits to and from St. Louis. The Irish exhibits are constantly advertised by the authorities of the Exhibition, in the same
  ‡ See (4) Debates, cxxxiv., 388.
  780
  way as all other exhibits. The charge for admission is made by the Irish Exhibit Company in order to recoup it a portion of the heavy expenditure incurred by the company in connection with the Exhibition.

  Constable Anderson, Royal Irish Constabulary.
  Mr. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the placing of Constable Anderson, who was one of the three constables who received an indemnity for procuring, by perjury, as the accomplices of Sergeant Sheridan, the conviction of innocent men for crimes perpetrated by the sergeant himself, in his present office of the charge of men on the fatigue staff of the Royal Irish Constabulary Depot, Phoenix Park, is creating discontent on the part of the men who are required to obey the orders of this man; and that, notwithstanding the pledge given by the Chief Secretary in the House of Commons that Anderson would not be allowed in the room with recruits, a recruit named Rooney, who joined a fortnight ago, is quartered with him; and whether, having regard to the record of this man, steps will be taken to keep him out of contact with the other men of the Royal Irish Constabulary.
  MR. WYNDHAM: This constable is not in charge of men on the fatigue staff at the depot, and he exercises no authority or disciplinary charge whatever. I gave no pledge such as alleged; I stated he would perform routine duties, such as guard, fatigues, and drill. Several men occupy the same room with him. The reply to the concluding query is in the negative.
  MR. LUNDON: Is this the man Anderson who was mixed up in the Sheridan ease and got £25 in lieu of imprisonment?
  [No Answer was returned.]
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to keep this man from being in the same quarters as young members of the constabulary force, so that there shall be no fear of contamination?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is simply repeating the

  781
  Question on the Paper which asks if steps "will be taken to keep him out of contact," etc.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: But he is with recruits newly joined, and I am, therefore, I think, justified in pressing the Question.
  MR. SPEAKER: No.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLWill the right hon. Gentleman consider the propriety of removing this man elsewhere?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  Irish Salt Firkin Butter Regulations.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can say what are the existing statutory regulations under which it is provided that Irish salt firkin butter, containing more than 16 per cent. of moisture, is not genuine until the contrary is proved.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have forwarded a copy of the regulations to the hon. Member. They are identical with the regulations made for Great Britain by I the Board of Agriculture.

  Irish Rent Statistics.
  MR. H ENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state, approximately, what was the annual rental paid by Irish tenants in the year 1881; what is the total amount, in pounds sterling, of reduction of rent on the Irish estates made since 1881, that is, the amount paid last year compared with 1881; and whether he can give approximately the number of tenants who have converted their holdings into free-holds since 1881, the area, and the amount paid or to be paid for purchase of same.
  MR. WYNDHAM: There is no official information of the rental of agricultural lands in Ireland in 1881. An examination of the Land Commission records show that in the case of the holdings in respect of which fair-rent applications or agreements have been served or filed, a formal rental of £7,022,017 is now represented by a judicial rental of £5,198,488—a reduction on the non-judicial rental of 25·9 per cent. In many
  782
  of these cases the tenants, since the rents were fixed, have purchased their holdings. The number of tenants to whom advances for the purchase of their holdings have been made between 1881 and the 30th June, 1904, is 75,292. The area of their holdings is 2,563,279 acres. The amount advanced is £25,089,163.

  Trinity College, Dublin.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that the sole control and management of the funds and property of Trinity College, Dublin, are in the hands of the Board, which consists of eight gentlemen whose average age is close upon seventy, and who have ceased to take part in educational work, and that there is paid to these gentlemen, in addition to houses in college free of rent and taxes and free commons, sums amounting to about £14,000 per annum, being between one-third and one-fourth of the whole income of the college, the Government intend, by legislation or otherwise, to effect any, and, if so, what alteration in the government and administration of Trinity College, Dublin.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Any information that may he available with respect to the emoluments and ages of the senior Fellows of Trinity College is as accessible to the hon. Member as it is to me. I am unable to say whether the emolument s amount to the sum stated; but even assuming that they do, it cannot fairly be urged that these gentlemen are overpaid having regard to their intellectual attainments; to the fact that they won their fellowships in open competition; and that they have lived for the greater part of their lives on very moderate incomes derived almost entirely from students' fees before their election as senior Fellows. The reply to the second part of the Question is in the negative.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any communication from some of the Provosts of Trinity College urging that an investigation should take place?
  MR. WYNDHAM: No, I have not.

  Fenit Pier, County Kerry.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what is the amount of the loan borrowed in connection with the construction of the Fenit Pier, county Kerry; what is the rate of interest charged and sinking fund; for how many years has the loan been borrowed; and what is the total amount repaid and also the amount to be paid.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY of THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH,): The loan for Tralee and Fenit Pier and Harbour amounted to £95,000, repayable by a half-yearly annuity of £2 10s. 6d. per cent. for forty years, equal to an interest barge of 4 per cent. per annum. The amount of principal repaid, to date, is 28,046 15s. 10d., leavinq £66,953 4s. 2d. if principal outstanding.

  Irish Land Stock.
  MR. COGHILL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state the reasons which induced him to issue the Irish,Land Stock at the figure at which it was issued; and what has been, approximately, the loss to the country on the amount already issued.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The price fixed was the highest price which I was advised I could ask at that time without endangering the success of the issue. Since then the conditions of the money market have undergone a change and the price of the stock, along with the price of all Government securities, has risen. But I cannot admit that the higher quotation of a stock in different conditions indicates that a loss has resulted from the issue. I may add that the issue could not have been longer postponed unless the working of the Land Act of last session was suspended.
  MR JOHN REDMONDsaid the hon. Member referred in his Question to the loss to the country. Of course he meant the loss to Ireland. What was the amount of the loss?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not admit that there has been a loss.
  784
  The stock was issued at the best price which it would command at the time. It was issued at eighty-seven.

  Alleged Congestion of Business in the Law Courts.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been directed to the inconvenience to suitors owing to the undermanned condition of the English Judicial Bench and the consequent congestion of business and the loss of time and expense thereby entailed; and whether he proposes any and, if so, what remedy for this defect in the administration of justice.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): My attention has not been called to the circumstances mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. As I understand them, the observations made by the Chief Justice would seem to indicate that the hon. Member's view of the present judicial situation is based on a misapprehension.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Did not the Lord Chief Justice say exactly the opposite some time ago?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Ministers as Company Directors.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that two-thirds of the members of the present Administration act as paid directors of public companies; and, if so, whether he intends by regulation of official salaries or otherwise to take steps to prevent such action in future.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not aware of the facts mentioned by the hon. Member, and I do not propose to make inquiry. Nor do I propose to take action.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Well, I am aware of the fact. And will the right hon. Gentleman consider the propriety of supplementing the incomes of these Gentlemen so that they may not have to eke out a subsistence in this way?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  "Insular Free Trade."
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will, before the debate on the vote of censure, put Members of the House of Commons in possession of the document containing propositions embracing preferntial tariffs or the taxation of food, which was brought by him before the Cabinet held on the last day of the session of 1903, when the document in question, "Insular Free Trade," which was published by the Prime Minister as a pamphlet, was also brought before the Cabinet.
  MR A. J. BALFOUR: The Question seems to be based on a misapprehension, and I certainly do not propose to lay any further Papers on the subject.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLasked whether the statement of the noble Lord the Member for the Ealing Division of Middlesex on his retirement from the Cabinet was based on a misapprehension. His own Question exactly accorded with the noble Lord's speech.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: You had better ask the noble Lord the Question.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I would not be in order in asking the noble Lord a Question as to a speech he made outside this House, but I think I am in order in asking the right hon. Gentleman if he will lay the document on the Table of the House.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly in order in asking me the Question, but I should be certainly ill-advised in answering it—further than to say that what is stated in the Question is contrary to my recollection of the facts.

  Supplementary Estimates.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when will the Supplementary Estimate for the Defence Committee's staff be introduced and the discussion taken, and what other Supplementary Estimates are to be introduced.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think it possible to take any financial business next week, but the week after I hope to put down the Supplementary Estimates.
  MR. BUCHANAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the other Supplementary Estimates are?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not sure I can answer that, but I believe there will be a Supplementary Estimate for Somaliland.

  Imperial Officers and Colonial Governments.
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will bring the question of the relations between Imperial officers and Colonial Governments before the Committee of Defence, with a view to preventing officers commanding Colonial forces, either naval of military, from making any public speeches or statements, while in His Majesty's service, relating to the defence of the Colonies.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Question which the hon. Gentleman asks me is, of course, one of importance. It is not a matter for the Defence Committee at all, but for the War Office.

  The Seizure of the "Malacca."
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury a Question. I have four Questions down on the Paper with reference to the seizures of British merchantmen, which, but for the occurrence of yesterday, would have been put to-day. Will it suit the right hon. Gentleman if I put them on Monday?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, but I do not promise to answer them.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: As this is a very urgent question, can the Prime Minister say whether the British steamship "Malacca" has been allowed to leave Port Said in charge of a Russian prize crew, and will the Government undertake to make, before the end of the session, a statement with regard to the forcible seizure by Russian armed vessels

  787
  of British merchant ships on the high seas, and give an account of the steps they have taken in the matter?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I believe it is a fact that the "Malacca" has left Port Said.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: And in charge of a Russian prize crew?
  MR. A. J BALFOUR: Yes. I understand so. Undoubtedly on this most serious question I shall have to make a statement to the House before the end of the session, but I do not think it desirable that that statement should be premature.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state the business for Friday and for next week.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: To-morrow I propose to take the Report of the Finance Bill, and when that is concluded to take the Report of the Licensing Bill. That means I shall take that stage of these two Bills continuously.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Report of the Licensing Bill will have, of course, a complete day, and not a half-day?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Certainly.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Army Vote in Committee of Supply will be again taken.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid it will not be possible to take Supply at all next week. It is very important to finish the Licensing Bill, so that it may go to another place in time for proper discussion and to allow the House to consider whatever changes may be made in the measure in another place. The Finance Bill must also be passed within a certain date. Those two considerations preclude the possibility of Supply being,
  788
  taken in the ordinary course next Thursday. In saying that I am going on the hypothesis that the House will he unwilling to pass the Report stage of the Finance Bill in the course of to-morrow's sitting. I rather gather that will be the ease; if not. I could, of course, devote Thursday next week to Supply.

RATHMINES REGISTRATION SCANDAL—MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT REFUSED.
MR. MOONEY: I wish to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House, in order to call attention to an urgent matter of public importance—namely, the failure of the Irish Executive promptly to prosecute certain persons in the employment of the South Dublin Unionist Registration Association for fraudently tampering with the registration forms prescribed by the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1884, wherelly large numbers of persons have been unjustly deprived of their votes, or to take any steps by which the said persons might be prevented from flying from justice.
MR. SPEAKER: I cannot put the Motion to the House, because it has been stated by the Attorney-General for Ireland, in reply to a Question to-day, that the question of instituting criminal proceedings is under the consideration of the Government.
MR. MOONEY: My complaint is that the Government have taken no steps to prevent these persons flying from justice.
MR. SPEAKER: But the question of taking criminal prcceedings is being considered and the Government have promised to proceed with the utmost possible despatch. I cannot, therefore, treat this as a matter of urgency.
MR. MOONEY: And while the Government are considering, no steps are being taken to prevent these people getting away.
MR. SPEAKER: In connection with criminal proceedings the Government must have time for consideration.

SUPPLY [18TH ALLOTTED DAY].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr.J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1904–5.

  CLASS II.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £27.750, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which. will come in course of payment during, the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905. for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies including a Grant in Aid of certain Expenses connected with Emigration"
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: I desire to deal with the question of the importation of Chinese labour into the Transvaal, and I propose to confine my remarks solely to that subject, because for many weeks I have been the object of attack, both personal and official, with reference to my attitude on this question, in office and out of office. I think I am entitled to make an explanation to the House of Commons of the real facts of the case. I care very little about the personal attacks, but there is an official question raised with reference to my conduct as a Minister of the Crown. I have been charged with being responsible, as Secretary of State for India, for one of the worst forms of Colonial Ordinances, dealing with the importation of Asiatic labour; and, as always happens in a time of controversy, the least responsible and the most ignorant of the critics made the greatest mistakes. I see the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford in his place. He has criticised the action which I am alleged to have taken, but which, in fact, I did not take. He charged me with being responsible for an Ordinance which he spoke of as more cruel and more severe than the Transvaal Ordinance.
  MR. CHAPLIN: My words were "harsher and more unfavourable."
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: I accept the modification, but I think the local reporter rather strengthened the adjectives thin diminished their force. Now the favourite argument of the Government, whenever they are criticised on any matter, administrative or legislative, is always the tu quoque one— "You did it." If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, there has been an abundance showered on the members of the last Liberal Administration. The facts of the case are very simple. Indian coolie immigration was started sixty or seventy years ago with the consent of the then Government. At the time there was a great deal of uneasiness about the success of the experiment, and complaint was so loud that eventually a Royal Commission was appointed to investigate the actual facts of the case in the Mauritius. As time went on the Ordinances were modified and improved. In 1891, when Lord Salisbury was in office, and Lord Knutsord Secretary of State for the Colonies, the Attorney-General for British Guiana conceived the idea that it would be an improvement if the then existing Ordinances in British Guiana were consolidated into one Ordinance. That was the Ordinance, the, authorship of which is attributed to, and the responsibility for which is thrown, on me. That Consolidated Ordinance, which passed 1891. consolidated nine Ordinances which extended over eighteen years, and the only alterations in the existing Ordinances were a few minor ones, which apparently the Attorney-General of the day did not deem to be of importance. I would like to remind the Committee that the British Guiana Ordinance was passed by the local Legislature, the Court, of Policy, in the year 1891, when Lord Salisbury was Prime Minister and Lord Knutsford was Colonial Secretary. But at that time the Indian Government had sent a Surgeon-Major Comins to investigate the general condition of Indian coolies in the West Indies. The Ordinance was suspended pending the result of that inquiry, and nothing was done apparently between 1891 and 1893,

  791
  when the Colonial Office asked my predecessor for the result of Dr. Comins' inquiry. In 1892 Mr. Gladstone came into power, but I myself had nothing to do with the India Office until 1894. In 1893, as I have said, there was a correspondence between the Government of India and the India Office. In September, 1893, Lord Lansdowne sent home a despatch forwarding Dr. Comins' Report, and the Ordinance met with general approval. In 1894, when I was Secretary for India, I wrote my first despatch upon this question, and, as showing the extent of my responsibility, I may tell the Committee that all I then did was to forward to His Excellency a copy of a letter and its enclosures received from the Colonial Office stating that the Crown had approved of the Ordinance. Later on in December of the same year I wrote again to the Viceroy enclosing the additions which had been made to meet Lord Lansdowne's suggestions. My responsibility was purely formal and official and in no sense personal. But I do not wish to shirk official responsibility. Not only do I approve of the Ordinance but I think it was a very good Ordinance, and I am prepared to stand by it. I will go a step further and say that when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham was at the Colonial Office in 1901 and passed the Trinidad Ordinance I think it was an improvement on the British Guiana one. I have no hesitation in declaring that if the Transvaal Ordinance had been what it is alleged to be, essentially the same as the Trinidad and British Guiana Ordinances, I would have had no complaint at all against it. Both those Ordinances were elaborate and complete. Why did not the British Government, or rather the Transvaal Government, adopt them? Why did they start something fresh? It would have been a very simple matter. I think I can suggest the reason. On 16th January last the present Colonial Secretary sent a telegram to South Africa in which he said—
  "As it stands the draft Ordinance would apply to Indian labour imported. Its provisions being applied to British Indians would probably be objected to by the Indian Government."
  I have no doubt that when the right hon. Gentleman sent that telegram he
  792
  had good ground for expressing that judgment. Lord Milner lost no time in replying. On the 20th January he cabled—
  "We do not look to Indian labour for the mines."
  Why did not they look to Indian labour for the mines? The objection was not with reference to the character and competency of the Indian miner, for there are a large number of Indian miners in Natal already. There is an enormous and growing mining industry in India. The profits of the Mysore gold mines have teen enormous, and that has been done with native Indian labour. I am not certain but—I think the P.&O. do so—I believe some of the largest steamship companies coal in India. Where does the coal come from? From Indian mines and got by Indian miners. Therefore it is not a question of the quality of the men or the labour. There is something else involved. The real question is as to the treatment which the Indian Government insists upon for its Indian subjects, treatment which is satisfactory in the British Guiana and Trinidad Ordinances. But those are not Ordinances which Lord Milner and his colleagues in South Africa were prepared to accept.
  Taking the draft Ordinance as originally drawn it is fair to the right hon. Gentleman as well as to the Opposition to say that that draft Ordinance underwent a considerable amount of alteration in its progress through Parliament, and in my opinion it was very considerably improved by the alterations made. Therefore I am not prepared to judge the Ordinance as now passed by what it was when originally introduced in and discussed in the House of Commons. There are certain points of importance inserted, but the essential dif1erences between the two Ordinances remain. The Ordinance for British Guiana contained 246 sections, and 200 of these sections were practically for the protection of the interests of the labourer. The Ordinance for Trinidad contained 276 sections—a complete code. The Ordinance for the Transvaal contains 35 sections; therefore there must be a great many questions left out which were inserted in the other Ordinances or

  793
  there must be a power of condensation and administrative discretion in the one which is not apparent in the others. The right hon. Gentleman has given the House the regulations which he had called for in order to redeem his pledges to the House. There is a considerable difference between a regulation made by the executive act of the Lieutenant-Governor in his own chamber, possibly without Ministerial advice, and legislation which brings before the notice of Parliament the responsible action of the authorities. The British Guiana and Trinidad Ordinances were in effect Acts of Parliament. They could not be altered except by legislation, which involved public attention and public discussion, whereas the regulations are simply administrative acts. The whole gist and tendency of some of the most important considerations with reference to what is called "the proper control of the labourer" are left to the regulations. This was not the case in the other Ordinances.
  One of the differences of which I complain had reference to the question of wages. The two preceding Ordinances required that there should be a minimum wage, and it was imposed by legislation. One of the complaints against the Transvaal Ordinance is that there is no minimum wage, and therefore the labourers will practically be at the mercy of the importer. The Colonial Secretary gave a pledge to the House with reference to the wages. The right hon. Gentleman on the 21st March said—
  "I stand here and give the House my assurance that the Chinese will receive at least the amount I have specified, namely, 60s. for thirty days work."
  That was a distinct pledge given to the House. Then telegraphic communications followed between him and Lord Milner. Lord Milner fought very hard against the minimum wage and against the figure which the right hon. Gentleman had pledged himself in favour of. The light hon. Gentleman, in strict loyalty to his pledge, told Lord Milner, "I think it very desirable that the wages to be paid to the Chinese labourers should not be lower than those at present paid to the Kaffirs," which were, I think, 15s. or 50s. Then the right hon. Gentleman said, "the rates must be specified in the
  794
  contract." Lord Milner replied that "only the minimum wage will he specified in the contract," which was $15 for thirty working days, with $1 a day far piece work. It was also said that all persons familiar with Chinese coolies were agreed that piece work was the only system by which work could be got out of the coolies; there was no difficulty in getting coolies Oil these terms, but "it is impossible to say exactly how their wages on this system will compare with the Kaffirs, with whom piece work is not, a success." The best calculation that Lord Milner could make was that the coolies would 'earn quite as much as the Kaffirs." At a later period the right hon. Gentleman replied very firmly, and in his despatch said that he could not "defend an arrangement by which the Chinese would be used to lower Kaffir wages current now and before the war." I think that this was a complete fulfilment of the right hon. Gentleman's pledge; but Lord Milner pressed for a minimum wage of Is. a day, and at last it was screwed up to 1s. 6d. I make no charge against the Colonial Secretary. I think that the right hon. Gentleman acted in good faith, and when he found that he could not get the mine-owners to carry out what he had promised the right hon. Gentleman frankly told the House the circumstances. But I find fault with the right hon. Gentleman Ministerialy. A Parliamentary contract is a serious document. The House of Commons attaches strong, and perhaps exaggerated, importance to Ministerial promises aid Ministerial pledges. We have illustrations of that in connection with the proceedings of the Private Bill Committee. If promoters do not carry out pledges given by counsel on their behalf proposals coming from the same quarters subsequently are rejected. What the right hon. Gentleman ought to have done was to overrule Lord Milner. The right hon. Gentleman is the Secretary of State and represents the Crown; Lord Miller is not the Secretary of State and does not represent the Crown. Lord Milner has no direct responsibility to Parliament; the Secretary of State has. In India the constitutional position is that, where the Viceroy and the Secretary of State cannot agree, the will of the Secretary of State must

  795
  prevail; and we could not preserve Parliamentary Government on any other principle The House, when it accepted the right hon. Gentleman's statement about 2s. a day, accepted and affirmed it; and it ought not to have been altered without the sanction of the House. I blame the right hoe. Gentleman—and I am sure he will understand that I am making no personal imputation against him—for an error of judgment.
  There are some points to which I wish to call attention in which the Ordinance is not essentially the same as the British Guiana one and where there is considerable difference. There is the point with reference to the residence of the labourer end his leave of absence. In the case of British Guiana the labourer is bound to reside on the plantation, but a plantation is not a compound. It is a large estate with the cottages scattered all over it. He is bound not to absent himself during working hours, nor to absent himself for such a time as would constitute a breach of the obligation of residence, but he is entitled to 48 hours leave once a fortnight. In the Transvaal the labourer is compelled to reside on the premises, and, as far as I can make out, their area is the premises attached to specific mines. He is allowed to go away, not as a matter of right, but by the will of his master, but he must not go without a permit. There is, however, no obligation to give it to him, but if it is given to him the length of time for which it is available is 48 hours. In British Guiana the labourer is entitled as a matter of right to have a permit once a fortnight and the master cannot refuse. It simply depends on the amount of work done during the fortnight. The labourer in Trinidad and in British Guiana has free access to the magistrate; he has not such access in the Transvaal.
  Perhaps the greatest difference of all is the prohibition of the right to hold property. I will not trouble the House with the details of that singular prohibition, although it would be well to contrast them with the state of things in British Guiana. A labourer in the Transvaal is not entitled to hold any property, or to buy any property. It is a criminal offence
  796
  punishable by imprisonment to do so. Nobody is allowed to sell him property; the man is a pariah. I do not know if he can put money in a saving s bank. If lie is to save money out of his wages, and if he is to pay his passage of seven thousand miles to China, is he to put the few pounds he has saved into a hole? I hope my hon. friend the Member for Sheffield is in the House. He wrote in a jubilant letter the other day about the position of the immigrants in British Guiana, who were living under what he calls "the Rosehery Slavery Ordinance." He told us a few facts about the effect of that Ordinance, viz. that—
  "On March 31, 1903, there were 15,027 indentured Asiatic immigrants on estates in the colony.
  "3. That in addition there were 58,111 East Indians not on estates—a total of 130,756.
  "4. That the proportion of females to males was forty-four and forty-five to 100
  "5. That on 31st December, 1902, the East Indian immigrants had £93,879 invested in the Government Savings Banks.
  "6. That ninety Chinese immigrants had at Georgetown and Berbice alone £7,418 standing at the same date to their credit.
  "That on 31st March, 1903, 2,242 East Indians and twenty-six Chinese had £19,897 to their credit in the Post Office Savings Bank.
  "8. That 1,135 registered letters were sent during the year by immigrants to their friends in Asia, and that they contained Post Office Orders amounting to £2,107.
  "9. That East Indian immigrants own $384,000 worth of property, and Chinese immigrants $200,000 worth.
  "10. That transfers of property took place during the year in favour of 1,252 Indians and Chinese amounting to £22,700."
  Now that man is a citizen and a freeman. He may buy property and he may take his labour where he likes. He does not drink and he does not spend his money. These immigrants form a most desirable class in the community. There is enough in the Ordinance as to the right of personal liberty, and the right to hold property, to at once dispose of the allegation that the two Ordinances are alike. What is the prevailing principle of the Ordinances? The prevailing principle of the one Ordinance is an atmosphere of freedom, and the prevailing principle of the other is an atmosphere of slavery. In the one case the immigrants are welcomed and encouraged and permitted to acquire property; in the other case.

  797
  they are treated as outside of the—I had almost said the pale of civilisation, and their condition is not consistent with freedom.
  The right hon. Gentleman when he followed me in that debate asked whether I meant to say that what was going on under this Ordinance was the same as American slavery. Certainly I did not. I could not for a moment contend that he was introducing a state of affairs which could be likened to that which existed in America. But American slavery was a system that had matured after a long series of years, and it should be remembered that the appetite for arbitrary power is one that grows and becomes stronger and stronger. We have seen that again and again in the history of our West Indian Colonies. What have we done ourselves in the Transvaal? There are many applications of the principle of forced labour, and many illustrations of interference with personal liberty, but they are very different from the unhappy state of affairs which existed in the Southern States of America prior to the outbreak of the Civil War. The history of South Africa shows that our statesmen used language in the early stage of the matter; and altered it as time progressed. In the Sand River Convention under which the Orange Free State was founded in 1852, there was a condition which I want the House to remember. This was the creation not of a subject State; there was no suzerainty at all; it was an absolutely free State, and one of the conditions on which the British Crown made that concession was this: "No slavery is, or shall be permitted or practised." That was a condition of the convention, and it would have been a casus belli if it had been broken. I am not going to say anything of a controversial character, but though slavery was legally forbidden there was something very like it in the Orange Free State, or rather in South Africa generally, as between the Boer farmer and the native labourer. I do not know who was Secretary of State for the Colonies in 1852—I should think it was the Duke of Newcastle; but in 1881, when the Convention for the Settlement of the Transvaal Territory was made between Lord Kimberley on behalf of the British Government, and Mr. Kruger on
  798
  behalf of the Transvaal, it contained these words, "The provisions of the fourth article of the Sand River Convention are hereby re-affirmed," but it added "no slavery or apprenticeship partaking of slavery will be tolerated in the Transvaal State." Slavery in an extravagant and outrageous form had not been practised, but slavery in its essentials of tyranny and cruelty was practised in the name of indentured labour, and those who followed the story of slavery in the West Indies know that there was a long controversy in this country on account of indentured apprenticeship which was allowed for a series of years, until the people of this country determined that indentured apprenticeship should be brought to an end. Then we come to the later stage in South African history, when the representatives of the Transvaal Republic came to London in 1884 when Lord Derby was Colonial Secretary. The new convention then agreed upon contained an article that no slavery, or apprenticeship partaking of slavery, would be tolerated in the South African Republic. The right hon. Gentleman would have been justified in going to war if that condition had been violated. It was an absolute condition, and we should have been bound to put an end to slavery.
  The Chinese immigration is an apprenticeship partaking of slavery. It is not slavery in one sense of the word, but it is of the essence of slavery, and it has all its evil consequences connected with it. At this moment, if we had not taken the South African Republics and annexed them, this prohibition of indentured labour partaking of slavery would have been the law of the Transvaal, and now, having prohibited it, we are by means of Imperial power and under the sanction of this Parliament restoring it. One word more as to what is meant by "partaking of slavery." I have seen a great deal of controversy in the papers as to what is and what is not of the nature of slavery. There was a great lawyer in the 18th century, Mr. Hargrave, who was the leading authority on constitutional law. It was said of him by Lord Lyndhurst that no man ever lived who was more conversant with the law of England. He says "that the law of England will not permit any man to enslave himself by contract; it will not

  799
  permit the servant to incorporate into his contract the ingredients of slavery; it will not permit him to renounce the rapacity of acquiring and enjoying property."
  Is there any necessity in the Transvaal for recurring to this indentured labour? I would put that to the right hon. Gentleman. Is it involving larger issues than we are dealing with today? Well, his own figures, supplied week by week and month by month, tell us. We know that in 1898 before the war, and I think that was the culminating stage of prosperity, there were 82,000 natives employed in the mines. In 1903 they had gone down to 50,000. I will not ask questions as to the why and wherefore of that, although I have a strong opinion that it was on account of the wages question. At the end of 1903 the number rose to 73,000 and in February this year, and I think that is the last date at which the right hon. Gentleman has given the figures—the number has gone up to 78,000. They are increasing week by week. What about the output of gold. In 1902, it was £7,000,000, in 1903 it was £12,500,000, and in 1901 it will be nearer £16,000,000. What is the necessity of these poor starving mine-owners? A friend of mine in this House told me a very pitiful story the other day. He is a shareholder in a South African mine and he told me that he had a letter from the secretary of the mine announcing a reduction of the dividend. On inquiring what the reduced dividend was he told me that it was 90 per cent, for the half year, and my friend added. "I have had 150 per cent." I said. "You are an object for the charity of the House, your appeal ought to be made to them, get up in the House and tell them what you are suffering." I asked what the price of his shares was, and he said that the £1 share was selling at £17. I cannot see that everything is going to the bad and that the South African mine-owner has reason to get alarmed. It appears to me that both in regard to native and white labour the mine-owners are rushing into a panic. That is no reason why this House should sanction Asiatic immigration under the conditions of this Ordinance.
  800
  The circumstances under which these labourers are being introduced into South Africa are not circumstances which will be palatable to the British working man. The whole of these arrangements for mmigration are made by private licensees and not by the Government. In British Guiana and in Trinidad this work is done by the Government. It is done by the Government on behalf of the importer, and on behalf of those who are imported. In this immigration what is done is done by private speculators, licensed no doubt by the Government, but over whom the Government have very little control. In connection with that I would like to read to the House what was said by a leading, Conservative newspaper, the Standard, which is generally a strong supporter of the policy of His Majesty's Government. It says—
  "But it is of no use to shut our eyes to patent facts. Whatever excuses may be alleged in its favour, the admission of the coolies has evoked deep resentment among the working classes of this country. The working-man voter does not like it, and his objection takes a tangible form at the polls. The question will have to he very carefully handled if it is not to cause further trouble. In its original form, the Ordinance was exposed to much legitimate criticism. As the result, various modifications were made, which, it was supposed, would remove many of the more disagreeable features. Unhappily, the impression has been permitted to prevail that these Amendments have not been carried into effect in the spirit in which they were sanctioned.
  The mode in which the first batch of Chinese have been brought into the colony has revived a good deal of the opposition which the proposal promoted at its inception. There is something extremely repellent to English notions in this immigration of a draft of labourers, under precautions and restrictions which would seem better suited to convicts than to free working men. The smuggling-in of the coolies under guard, their virtual inprisonment en route and the obvious denial to them of their personal liberty, may be necessary, but all these things have an ugly look."
  That is not an article in a Radical paper. That is not tile utterance of a paper which may guide those on this side of the House who are unable to rise above Party considerations. That is the deliberate criticism of one of the leading papers in the country, and a paper which has been the staunch supporter of the Conservative Party during the whole course of its existence. I repeat the allegation for which I have been blamed, the allegation with which the Colonial

  801
  Secretary was so angry when he spoke last—that this proposal, even amended and improved as it is, is an apprenticeship partaking of slavery, which ought to have been prohibited by the Colonial Office, and which I believe will be rescinded by Parliament. I beg to move that the Vote be reduced by £50.
  Whereupon Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £27,700, be granted for the said Service." —(Sir Henry Fowler.)
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I venture to ask the indulgence of the Committee, and especially of my opponents, if I intervene very early in this debate to say a few words on the important question which has just been raised by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton. I do so because I think, in a certain sense, I stand between the two parties. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh, oh!"] I will explain what I mean. I have had, of course, a very considerable experience of colonial affairs, and I have, perhaps, more personal knowledge of the state of things in South Africa than most Members of this House. At the same time, this particular question of Chinese labour did not arise in any practical form during my tenure of office, and I am not committed to it otherwise than in the most general terms. I do not want to go closely into detail in connection with this matter, which I leave to the much more competent hands of my right hon. friend and successor. But I do want to be allowed, with all the earnestness of which I am capable, to put before the Committee a few general considerations on the subject. This is really a very delicate matter. We are dealing undoubtedly with the domestic policy of a great and powerful colony or colonies—in fact, with the whole of South Africa; and although we have, technically, a control over their legislation, I do not believe there is anybody in this House who would pretend that we should be wise to exercise that control in its fullest sense, or that we should be wise to Interfere in any decision which these colonies might arrive at, unless we could clearly show that some definite Imperial interest was concerned. In the debate which is now going to take place I plead, in the
  802
  first instance, for moderation on both sides; and I beg the Committee to re-member that every word that is said here, even by persons who do not hold responsible situations, is very likely to be reported, perhaps imperfectly reported, there, and may do a harm which they themselves would be the first so deprecate. [OPPSITION cries of "Oh, oh!"] Let us in everything we say recognise their right to consideration and, above all, let us avoid saying anything which can hurt that independent feeling which makes its appearance from the ye first beginning of a British colony, whether it is a Crown colony or a self-governing colony, and which we on both sides of the House are bound to respect. Do not let us pretend to superior virtue, superior knowledge, which we cannot possess, but do let us give every kind of generous and reasonable consideration to what we may find to be the views of our kinsfolk and our fellow-subjects. [OPPOSITION interruptions.] I am not making an aggressive speech, and I venture to think that aggressive interruptions are out of place.
  My right hon. friend the Member for Wolverhampton appeared, at all events at the beginning of his speech, to be chiefly concerned in defending himself against a charge of being personally responsible for the British Guiana Ordinance. I am not going to enter into that; it appears to me to be absolutely irrelevant to the present matter; it does not matter, in the controversy we are now entering upon, who was responsible for the British Guiana Ordinance or the Trinidad Ordinance. I am satisfied to note a most important admission, both generously and justly made by my right hon. friend, that those ordinances are good ordinances in the main, and that they have been valuable and beneficial, as he believes and as I believe, both to the colonies in which they have been passed and also to the people for whom our sympathy is now asked —that is to say, for the natives from other countries who have been imported to do labour in those colonies. It is true my right hon. friend has made one observation— I only notice it in passing—which I regret. He talked of what I think he said was a fact that wherever the dominant race came into contact with an inferior race in matters of this kind there had always been on the

  803
  part of the dominant race cruelty and tyranny. I think that is too wide. Take the British race, for instance; they are much the same whether you meet them in the Colonies, or whether you meet them at home, and I do not think cruelty and tyranny are really characteristics of the British race.
  Sin HENRY FOWLER: I said there was a tendency.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Well I regret even that expression, because I think it is calculated to lie misunderstood in the colony. That is part of my point; I wish nothing to he said here which can possibly even be misunderstood in the colony. I was saying that the British race is much the same. I do not care what department of our domestic life you take you will find individuals of whose conduct you must disapprove, you will find in trade men who are tyrannical and even cruel, you will find in all classes in life exceptions of that kind. But you are not to condemn the race on that account; and you are not to suppose that the race, or the legislation of the race, will ever give any assent whatever to conduct of that kind. It is our unanimous object here, as the representatives of the people of this country, whenever proof is brought to us of any exceptional instance of this kind, so far as our power extends, to make it impossible, to put it down and to punish the offender. I do not think there has been in our history abroad any general cruelty or tyranny; and where there have been exceptions every effort has been made to correct them. No doubt such exceptions have occurred in connection with the introduction of foreign labour into our Colonies; and the result has been these ordinances, of which the right hon. Gentleman approves, and which have been distinctly designed to prevent the occurrence of such conduct. But let us bear in mind also that this system of the transfer of labour is of enormous importance to the Empire and is of the greatest importance to the inferior races of whom the right hon. Gentleman speaks. Take the case of India. India is a country with a vast population, the great majority of whom at present are obliged to live in very straitened circumstances, and to open to them a new field of labour under proper conditions is an enormous advantage to India. In the case of British
  804
  Guiana, Trinidad, Mauritius, Singapore, the Malay Straits, and many other places that I could quote, foreign labour, either Indian or Chinese, has been introduced with the greatest possible advantage to both parties. The business, the commerce, and the prosperity of these States has been assured by the introduction of this labour, without which no enterprise was possible; and, on the other hand, the labourers themselves have achieved conditions of life which would have been absolutely impossible to them in their own country.
  The right hon. Gentleman commenced his criticism of what has been done in South Africa by asking why we did not take Indian miners. There is a great deal to be said on that subject; and I myself would favour the introduction of our fellow-subjects as labourers, if it were possible, rather than the introduction of labourers from any other country whatsoever. But there is a practical difficulty. The House must bear in mind the situation of every one of our forty colonies is different. To attempt to apply a stereotyped rule, to do more than apply principles, would be fatal to the existence of such a multifarious Empire as ours. If we attempt to cut down our colonies to a Procrustean bed on which every one is to be of the same length, I am afraid we shall come to utter disaster. The case of South Africa is to some extent exceptional. South Africa is within easy reach of India; South Africa is inhabited at the present time by a million of white inhabitants. Nothing would be easier, nothing would be less surprising, if there was absolutely open intercourse between India and South Africa, than that South Africa should be overwhelmed by the introduction of Indian immigrants, against whom I say nothing in themselves, but who would simply sweep out of political existence the whole of the white inhabitants. A few years might very well see such an immigration of the underfed, over- numerous population of India as would altogether alter the character of South Africa, and once and for ever would preclude any idea of its being a white man's country. Now, although we do not feel that perhaps, every white man in South Africa is intensely conscious of that danger, and you must take that into account in considering this question. What has been the result? A considerable number of immigrants have come in

  805
  from India. Their character and their action is criticised very severely by the white inhabitants of South Africa, as I myself was frank enough to tell them I thought, without reason. I thought these immigrants were as a rule sufficiently moral not to fear comparison even with the white inhabitants. They are extremely industrious, extremely sober, and extremely thrifty; they work for much lower wages than the white inhabitants, and, somehow or other, they have contrived to take a great deal of the retail trade which was hitherto enjoyed by white men. Therefore, I refuse to lend myself in any way to any denunciation of our Indian fellow-subjects, as men and as citizens. But I did sympathise, and I do sympathise, with the natural desire of the white inhabitants—which would be equally strong if they had to fear the immigration of Italians or of Frenchmen as of Indians—I do sympathise with their desire to keep this country for Britains and Boers, that is to say, for the two races which at present enjoy it. I recognise that they are entitled to take strong steps to prevent such an overflow of immigration as I have spoken of. These steps involve certain hardships upon existing immigrants in South Africa, and the Indian Government has always protested against it.
  Now, I think the Indian Government is unreasonable. The Indian Government takes, as it ought to do, the interests of India solely in to amount. I think the Government of every nation should also occasionally, take into account the corresponding interests of those with whom it is dealing, whether they be foreigners or from other portions of the Empire. The Indian Government ought to appreciate this fact—that the people of South Africa will not have an overwhelming settled immigration of any other race upon that continent. But when we proposed to the Indian Government a large immigration of Indian coolies they took the same objection, and proposed to make conditions as to the treatment both of existing Indian immigrants in South Africa and with regard to future immigration. In my opinion, in these objections the Indian Government ought to have been overruled. Let me be clearly understood. They had a right to demand that fair consideration should he given to those Indians who are at present
  806
  settled in South Africa, and who are our fellow-subjects there. But they had no right to do anything which would make it easy to produce this tremendous influx of further Indian immigration against which the South Africans protest. If the Indian Government had been overruled, then what I think might have been easy would have been the introduction of a large number of coolies on very similar conditions to those on which they are introduced in the West Indies, who would have done what I may call the surface work in South Africa. I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we should ever have found from India any sufficient number of labourers who could safely work in the mines. I do not think they would have willingly worked in the mines, and I do not think their constitutions would have stood miners' work. But we might have employed a large number of coolies on the railways and the farms, and so on, and that would have set free, no doubt, a considerable number of Kaffir labourers who might have been employed in the mines. But, even then, I hold it would probably have been found that the labour would still be insufficient to promote the real and complete prosperity of the country, and we might have had to look for labour from other sources. We must go to China in that case. There is there the largest amount in the world of underpaid and ill-fed labour, ready to come for slightly better terms, and at the same time so attached to their own country that to them, at any rate, it is no hardship at all to make it a condition that they should only come to their new country temporarily, and that they should go back again when they have done their work. That complied with the opinion which I have explained of the South African population that labour of this sort should not be introduced permanently to remain. There is no reason why it should not be introduced in a form in which it is perfectly certain that the labourers will not constitute a permanent portion of the population.
  Objection is taken to the Chinese, as I understand, partly because they are imported labour, and it is said it would be better to depend upon the native labour of the Transvaal. Does the House know that by far the

  807
  larger proportion of the so-called native labour is already imported labour? I am told 90 per cent. of it; but at any rate the great majority of the native labour in the South African mines at the present time is imported labour, imported from Portuguese and other possessions; and it is certainly inconsistent and unreasonable, having depended so largely on imported labour, that we should take any objection on the ground that the new labour is imported. I do not understand that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton does object on so shallow a ground as that; but he seems to think that everything would have been satisfactory if the conditions of the importation had been exactly the same as in those two precious ordinances for British Guiana and Trinidad. Permit me to tell him that there he is taking a view which may seem reasonable to a man who has never been outside his own country, but which appears absolutely unreasonable to those of us who have seen the extraordinary difference in the conditions which prevail in Mauritius and in Trinidad, Jamaica, and other West Indian colonies. The coolie is welcomed there by the population, both as a labourer and as a settler. In Mauritius the whole character of the population has been changed by the immigration of coolie labour, and I believe at the present time coolie labour forms the bulk of the population. There is no objection to it from the Imperial point of view, and so far as I know there has been no agitation against it in these colonies. As to the introduction of coolie labourers, so numerous have they become that, while I was Secretary of State for the Colonies, I insisted that some representative of this population should be placed upon the Legislative Council, and a Chinese member sits, in consequence, upon the Legislative Council of Mauritius for the first time. There you have not got any of the difficulties which arise in South Africa, where the idea of a permanent settlement of the yellow race, or even of the Indian race, in the country, is odious to the whole of the white population, whether they be Dutch or whether they he English. I say, therefore, you are bound to take that into account. You should not apply to every country a
  808
  stereotyped Ordinance which has worked exceedingly well, although you should apply the principle. The principle of these ordinances is that the governing authority should see that any contract that is made is made voluntarily, and in the second place that the contract, after it has been made, is strictly carried out by both parties, because Government interference is necessary, both in the West Indies and elsewhere, on both sides of the contract. Both parties may, at some time or another, wish to get rid of a profitable contract after they have enjoyed it for a certain period, but it is the business of the Government to see that the contract is carried out to the end.
  What are the points of difference of which the right hon. Gentleman takes notice? As I understand him, he does not complain that there is no minimum wane in the contract which is signed by the Chinese. As I understand, there is. But he does complain that the minimum wage is not high enough, and he refers to a pledge which, he says, was given by my hon. friend. As to that I say nothing. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh"] It would be an impertinence on my part to interfere as to a pledge which I did not hear, and about which I know nothing. As I understand, there is no difference in principle between the British Guiana and Trinidad Ordinances and the present Ordinance under which Chinese labour is to be introduced into the Transvaal. Both have a minimum wage.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: The minimum wage in Trinidad and British Guiana has to be the average native wage paid for similar labour.
  MR J. CHAMBERLAIN: Very good. Then it is not the principle whether there should be a minimum wage, but it is the detail what that minimum wage should be. You have no right whatever, in this country at any rate, to interfere in that business or to make wages for the Chinese, provided you have satisfied yourself that the contract on their part is an absolutely voluntary contract. If You can prove in any way that there has been deception practised on the Chinaman, or insufficient care taken to see that he understands the terms of the

  809
  contract signed by him, by all means have that contract altered; but if he willingly agrees to leave a country where his wages are ld. a day to accept 1s. 6d. a day, it is no business of yours to secure for him 2s. 6d. The second point is that in the case of British Guiana there is not so stringent a condition as to residence. That is quite true; and the reason is clear. In the first place, British Guiana welcomes the coolie as a permanent immigrant, and is very glad when he decides to settle in the country, and thus saves the colony the expense of repatriating him. But the fact is that South Africa will not, admit those people as permanent residents. If the Chinese do not like that, why do they come? I can conceive it possible that many Chinese may be deterred from coming, because, while they would be glad to come there as small traders, and to do all kinds of work by which they would make even more money than they are likely to do in the mines, they would be unwilling to come there for the particular labour for which they are required. The choice is with them. You have no right to interfere with the conditions which the colony makes, or the conditions which the Chinaman is willing to accept. It seems to me that the distinction which is made is a distinction which is absolutely necessary in the state of affairs with which we have to deal, and is one that ought to be recognised by this House as well within the province of the Legislature of the colony concerned.
  Then the right hon. Gentleman says that the coolies have not free access to a Court of justice. If that is the case, I am entirely with him that they ought to have such access; but I leave that to be answered by my right hon. friend the Colonial Secretary. That is the only point in which I feel the right hon. Gentleman has raised a serious question which this House ought to satisfy itself about. The right hon. Gentleman's fourth complaint is that the Chinaman has no right to hold property. What kind of property does he mean? If he means landed property or house property, that is a common provision in heaps of countries. I think there is a
  810
  provision of the kind in many of the United States of America; and does the right hon. Gentleman actually tell us that the Chinaman becomes a pariah in South Africa, because he submits to the same conditions as the Englishman in the United States of America? On the other hand, if he means to say that the Chinaman cannot hold personal property, that clearly is a mistake. It is ridiculous. Tee Chinaman holds his wages, and arrangements are made for their transmission to his relatives in China if he so desires. But if he prefers to keep it in a bank, or in his pocket, or to bury it in the ground, he has absolutely the freest liberty to do it. The property is his, and nobody can touch it. I do not wish to say anything that could possibly be objected to; but it seems to me that when the right hon. Gentleman piles up objections of this kind, which have so little foundation, it is a kind of special pleading to which we ought not to be treated.
  The right hon. Gentleman came to another point, with which he dealt with more moderation, but which has been treated in the country with great virulence; and I venture to think that that is most unfortunate, having regard to the interests concerned. He says very truly that the Sand River Convention prohibited slavery in the Orange River State. He then went on to make an extraordinary statement. He said that if President Kruger had imported Chinese labour, we should have had a right to go to war with him. Well, I have been accused myself of going to war without sufficient reason. But those who think that of me must thank Heaven that the right hon. Gentleman was not in my position. I can only say that, although I should have been justified in preventing slavery in the Transvaal, I should not have felt myself entitled to say a single word about the introduction of Chinese labour under proper conditions. On what grounds does the right hon. Gentleman say that the contract for Chinese labour is a form of slavery 1 He goes back to a distill guished lawyer of the 18th century, Mr. Hargrave, who said that the English law would not permit a man to renounce the right of acquiring property. I beg to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that

  811
  the sole object of the Chinaman and the Chinese Government in the whole of this business is that the Chinaman shall acquire property, and he is going to acquire property in three years upon which he and his family will live for ever after. He is going back to his own country, I will not say as a millionaire, but at all events in a pecuniary condition which will make him the envy of all his fellows. Can it be seriously argued that a voluntary contract of this kind by which both parties profit, by which the labourer at any rate profits enormously—the object of which is to enable the labourer to acquire property—is to be condemned as slavery under the dictum of Mr. Hargrave of the 18th century? The thing is absolutely absurd. The whole question of slavery is disposed of by the voluntary character of the contract. Of course there certain voluntary contracts which it is not lawful for a man to make. But it is not contended that there is anything in this contract which makes it different from any contract that may be entered into between employer and employed.
  The right hon. Gentleman towards the end of his speech went into some more general considerations. He did not go into them at any length, but he was appealing rather to prejudice than to reason. He talked about the profits of the mines. Let us understand what that means. Certain mines have upon their original capital made enormous profits. Nobody denies that mining is a speculation, and that for one success there are a hundred failures. If mining did not offer these extraordinary chances no one would mine. But if you take the average of mining in South Africa it is not profitable at all. I do not hesitate to say that if you take the whole of the capital invested in South Africa, and take the returns from it at the present, I believe the owners of that capital would have done much better if they had invested it in Consols. But we are not interested in the mines at all, except incidentally. The right hon. Gentleman is enough a man of business, and has enough of general knowledge to know that it is not the mines that we are concerned about, but that it is the whole future of South Africa. There is not a man of any experience in this House, who regards this question impartially, who
  812
  does not see that all that makes for the prosperity of a country and its development depends upon the capital invested in it. The mines are the one attractive feature of South Africa, and unless they are on the whole, or on the average, successful, or sufficiently successful to tempt further capital, none of the work we are trying to do to mike the country ultimately a great agricultural country as well as a mining country can be done. You cannot have railways and irrigation, to which I look to make what is very little of an agricultural country one of the greatest agricultural countries in the world, without a large revenue, and you must have an industry which can provide that revenue, and you cannot have that revenue without an industry which can provide it, and there is none in South Africa that can provide it except the mines; and, therefore, though I care no more for the mines than any hon. Member on the other side, I do care very much for promoting in every way I can the strength of that great instrument which I anticipate will ultimately benefit the country generally.
  There is only one other matter to, which the right hon. Gentleman referred, and that also was a matter of prejudice. In the country we have been told again and again that the introduction of Chinese labour into South Africa is really the introduction of competition with British labour in that country. The right hon. Gentleman did not dwell upon it, he merely suggested that working men did not approve it. If they take their facts from the misrepresentations which again and again have been made to them, they will rightly disapprove of any system whatsoever which will injure British labour. But the right hon. Gentleman did not deal with that matter; he merely suggested it. He was too straightforward to say that any fear of this kind attaches to this proposal. Every man who knows anything about South Africa, to whatever politics he may belong, will, I am certain, say the same thing— that in that country, as in all countries in which similar conditions exist, white labour will not work side by side on equal terms with coloured labour. I think white labour is right. After all, we do hold our position by virtue of being the dominant race, and if we admit equality

  813
  with these inferior races we shall lose the power which gives us our predominance. The white workman is right in not degrading himself to the level of the native, in ref using to work side by side with him excepting in a position of superiority as a foreman or ganger. But for every Kaffir or Chinaman employed in South Africa to work these mines you know perfectly well there will be a proportionate increase of British labour, I which will be taken from the best class of labour in this country. It is really a monstrous thing to play upon prejudice in the way some irresponsible people have played upon it.
  Sir, I have said all I intend to say. I shall conclude as I began. The discussion will go on. If hon. Gentlemen opposite can point to any defects in the Ordinance under which it is possible for either cruelty or tyranny to be practised on the Chinaman let them be brought forward in the House of Commons and I am convinced the Government will do what I should have done if in their place—endeavour in every way in their power to remedy the matter by amending the Ordinance. But do not let us take upon ourselves a duty which does not belong to us. Do not let us take upon ourselves to dictate to our Colonies. My appeal is to both sides of the House. I have not discovered on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite any reluctance to intervene and instruct our Colonies—or anybody else—as to what is virtue and justice and right; but I implore them really to rise to the seriousness of this occasion and to understand that this is not the time for that sort of impertinent intervention, and that unless our Imperial interests are touched, or unless some practical defect can be discovered, we should allow the Legislative Council of the Transvaal and the people of the Transvaal to have a policy which it is perfectly well known the vast majority of them support.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the right hon. Gentleman had kept his eyes completely on the Transvaal, and had entirely neglected the bearing of the matter on the Empire as a whole. They could not but regard the opinion of the self-governing Colonies, and
  814
  of the South African Colonies themselves, which as a whole was as bitterly opposed to the policy which had been pursued as was the opinion of the Australian Colonies and New Zealand. In his most able defence of the introduction of Chinese labour from the Transvaal point of view, the right hon. Gentleman had put out of his view the bearing of the matter on South Africa generally, and upon labour throughout the world. He had contended that this House had no right to interfere in the wages question. That, however, was not the view of a single Member of the House when the question was first discussed. The Government themselves felt that under the circumstances they were bound to interfere in the settlement of wares in the Transvaal, and the complaint of the right hon. Gentleman who opened the debate was that the pledge given by the Government had been broken, and that the security which the Government and the Opposition had agreed ought to be given had been over-ridden by the action of Lord Milner and the authorities in the Transvaal. The right hon. Gentleman had put out of view all the rights which Members of this House were bound to guard—the rights of the overwhelming majority of the population of South Africa, viz., the natives.
  It would not be in order to discuss the bearing of Chinese labour under such an Ordinance upon the conditions of labour throughout the world, but it would be in order to consider its bearing upon the conditions of labour in the Transvaal itself, and the injustice which this country was not only allowing but perpetrating by this Ordinance—for which we were really responsible—upon the Kaffir population of the Transvaal. Why did the House of Commons interfere? It was on behalf not of the Chinaman, but of our own subject, the Kaffir labourer, whom in the condition of opinion amongst some of the Dutch and some of the British we were specially bound to regard, with whose interest we were charged, and in whose defence we interfered again and again I with the recent Government of the South I African Republic. The right hon. Gentleman had gone so far as to declare that the Indian Government ought to have

  815
  been overruled when they made conditions with regard to Indian labour in the Transvaal. There had never been a case in the whole of our history when stipulations laid down by the Government of India on behalf of British subjects emigrating from India had been overruled by the Home Government. However much the interest of the same Government in their diplomatic dealings had been engaged on behalf of the demands made by their allies for Indian labour, they had constantly been forced to uphold the view of the Indian Government. Over and over again, with the support of the Foreign Office, France had appealed for leave to employ Indian labour in some of her colonies the Indian Government had made stipulations which they would have made ten times over with regard to this Chinese Ordinance, and the Government had had to support those stipulations against the wishes of the Foreign Office and of the French Government.
  He was not in a position to defend the differences between the Chinese Labour Ordinance and the Guiana and Trinidad Ordinances, because those with whom he acted in the Anti-Slavery society and the Aborigines Protection Society, although they had condemned the Chinese Ordinance far more strongly than any other Ordinance, had protested against points in all the previous ordinances, and had never been satisfied with the conditions those ordinances imposed. It was impossible to make Party capital out of the Guiana Ordinance question, which was immensely older than the date assigned to it. There was an Ordinance in Guiana, against which Lord Brougham protested violently, as long ago as 1836. In 1844 there was another against which the Anti-Slavery Society protested, and in 1871 there was a British Guiana Ordinance, not very dissimilar to the other, against which the Aborigines Protection Society protested. But all those ordinances were mere trifles as compared with Lord Milner's Ordinances and the principles which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had just laid down. The points at issue in the speech just delivered were enormously larger than the points of details against which protest was made on the occasions to which he
  816
  had referred. The mere fact, which the right hon. Gentleman had admitted, that n the earlier cases the people brought in remained in the Colonies at the end of their term of service, were able to hold landed property, and in some cases to form the bulk of the population, made an essential difference between the two cases. The right hon. Gentleman had frankly faced that fact and endorsed the opinion taken by South Africa upon this subject. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had always maintained that the result of the departure from the principles this country had al. ways maintained in regard to the employment of Chinese labour in South Africa would be an increase in the employment of white labour, but there was no mention of this point in his speech. [Cries of "Yes."] He did not hear it. The right hon. Gentleman said this importation of Chinese labour in the long would develop agriculture, but he 'did not hear I him say that it would have any direct or immediate effect upon white labour. He had read carefully the circulars issued officially from the Emigrants' Information Office, and there was not a sign in them of any demand for white miners. On the contrary, in the latest circular, dated. July, it was stated, "There is no demand for white miners."
  The Colonial Secretary induced the House to accept this painful Ordinance by promising not only a minimum wage but also other things, and in order to meet the views of the Opposition he said on 16th February—
  "Chinese labour can be introduced …without presenting the aspect or the reality of slavery … A perfectly legitimate demand …The House will allow me to meet it shortly and, I hope, conclusively. I entirely agree that the provisions for the reception and accommodation of the wives and children … should be clearly made. I undertake that they shall be made … Manifestly it would be most wrong that they should go wit} out their woman folk."
  But then he immediately watered that statement down by adding, "if they wish it." Now they were being introduced at the expense of the employer, who did not "wish it."
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON,)said they might register

  817
  them, and if they did not propose to take their wives and children with them at first they might send for them afterwards at the expense of their employers.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that this promise was viewed by employers with consternation when it was made. This was a point of first class importance, in view of the comparisons which had been made with previous ordinances. The Archbishop of Canterbury, who gave a most unwilling assent to the proposal of the Colonial Secretary, made this his main point and showed that in 1852, 1854, and 1858, the matter was fully discussed as regarded British Guiana, Trinidad, and other colonies, and he said it received on that occasion—
  "An amount of careful consideration it does not seem to me to have received on this present occasion."
  On the occasion of his first speech upon this subject, the Colonial Secretary had a little argument with him upon the subject of truck, and he complained that this Ordinance was a violation of the whole principle of truck, and was destructive of the rights of labour. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the House ought to Le satisfied on this point with his statement that the Transvaal had an admirable law of truck. What was the use of that law in face of the conditions of this Ordinance? Truck affected not only Chinamen hut also the natives who worked in the mines. What was the result of the recent inquiry into this question which had been held in South Africa? The complaints of the natives showed what they might expect from the Chinese. One of the main complaints of the natives was in regard to the truck shops. They were also puzzled by the month of thirty working days, and it was a great puzzle to them to understand how many days there were in a month as it was for hon. Members to understand Low many days there were in a Parliamentary week. The native counted his month by the moon, and he understood that it meant twenty-eight days, but he was now obliged to work thirty days per month, and Sunday labour was enforced by penalties in a way that would cause labour to suffer throughout the world. The Cap e Commission complained o the enormous mortality amongst the
  818
  natives, which was not due in the larger part to the climate, although pneumonia might be traced to this cause, but to the truck shop conditions and the food, be, cause half the deaths were due to scurvy and dysentery. The natives recently employed came mainly from the Portuguese territory. There were nearly 60,000 Portuguese in the mines of the Transvaal alone; while there were only 18,000 from the Transvaal, the Cape, Natal, Zululand, Orange River, Basutoland, Bechuanaland, and Swaziland together. The reason native labour could not be obtained was because the natives knew the conditions of labour and they would not submit to them.
  One of the reasons put forward in defence of the recent war was the treatment of the Indian natives in South Africa; but there was another side to this question which those who were favour of the war ought to remember. That treatment was now being continued and had grown worse, and it was now being affected by Transvaal laws, which were never enforced by the Transvaal Republic, although the present Government in South Africa were enforcing those laws in an aggravated form. Lord Lansdowne, speaking as an ex-Secretary for India at Sheffield, in November, 1899, said—
  "India has a special interest in the Transvaal question. A considerable number of the Queen's subjects are to be found in the Transvaal. Amongst the many misdeeds of the South African Republic, I do not know that any fills me with more indignation than its treatment of these Indians. The harm is not confined to the sufferers on the spot. These poor people return to their country to report that the Government of the Empress is powerless to secure redress at the hands of a small South African State."
  Now they had gone further in this direction than anyone previously had attempted to go, and the result was that the matter had been brought before the Supreme Court of the Transvaal, and a judgment given by the Chief Justice of that Court supported the view that the British Government at that time took as to what was the condition of the Transvaal law, although it was not then enforced. On the 11th of May the Chief Justice of the Transvaal delivered judgment in the following terms—
  "He had no doubt as to the meaning of the language of Law 3 of 1885. If the Legislature

  819
  had intended to restrict Asiatics' trading operations to certain localities, it would have been giving with one hand and taking away with the other, as Asiatics were allowed into the country for trading purposes. The law gave the Government power to assign certain wards, streets, and locations for Asiatics to live in. This provision was for sanitary purpose s, and it is …clear that it did not give the Government the right to appoint certain localities outside of which Asiatics could not trade.
  "The interpretation which the Transvaal authorities now seek to place upon that law is the one which the late South African Republic always advocated, and which the British Government always consistently opposed. It …struck his Lordship as remarkable that this Government without fresh legislation should put forward a claim which the Government of the Crown in England has always contended was illegal, and which in the past it has strenuously resisted."
  Two or three leading officials had been fanning this flame with inflammatory speeches just as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had done that day, and they had stated that this matter could not remain where it was, and the opinion of the Chief Justice could not be left alone. They had, in fact, pointed not indistinctly to further legislation upon this subject, and when the Colonial Secretary was asked whether he would veto such legislation, he said that he would carefully consider it. The House knew very well that that Legislation would not be vetoed, and the speech just delivered by the ex-Colonial Secretary was a clear invitation to those officials to go on with that policy and carry legislation which would be infamous under the circumstances. At the commencement of the war they declared an intelligent policy, and it would be monstrous and infamous, if after the judgment of the Supreme Court, legislation should be introduced into the Transvaal to go beyond that judgment. There was another point in connection with this matter. The Chief Justice, in that judgment, said that the immigration of British Indians to South Africa was permitted. It was not until lately that the Government had been making use of the Peace Preservation Ordinance to prevent the immigration of British Indian subjects to South Africa. In his opinion it was a monstrous use to make of that Ordinance. It had been used for many strange purposes. It had been used to prevent individuals from coming back whose presence in the Trans-
  820
  vaal might have been obnoxious to certain people, but not dangerous to the State. But to use it to prevent British Indian immigrants entering the Transvaal as they had a right to do, because they were British subjects moving freely at their own cost, was a principle destructive of the unity of the British Empire. British Indians were ruled in every circumstance of their lives by the most rigid code of municipal regulations the world had ever seen. Not one of these men had a right to a municipal vote. They were asked to bow down and defer to the opinion of the white majority without waiting for representative institutions in a Crown Colony fur the government of which in these matters they were responsible.
  MR. MARKHAMsaid these matters were settled by a public vote of the electors. In this matter they had unanimously decided that they would not agree to the course suggested by the right hon. Gentleman.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he would tell his hon. friend something which had a bearing on what he had stated. The Privy Council had decided that a South African Ordinance referring to "coloured" persons did not apply to British Indians, but to the native population. The Government of the Transvaal had overruled the Privy Council on that point, and, holding that "coloured" included Indians and all Asiatics, disfranchised British Indians in all local elections. He had nothing more to say on these subjects. While he did nut wish to divert the debate into other topics, he hoped the afternoon would not close before they had heard something regarding the Government of the Transvaal upon other matters, important as this matter was. The financial dealings of Lord Milner in connection with that Government, and the finance of the South African States, which had lately come under our control, was a matter that must be dealt with also in the course of this debate. The pretence was put forward first that South Africa was bankrupt and could not pay anything, and then at another moment that it was in a prosperous condition and could do anything. The ups and downs of Transvaal finance would compare, he thought,

  821
  with the proceedings of some of the less reputable of the gold mines on the Rand. Some of these mines had reduced the average earnings in the way described by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The right hon. Gentleman had complained that it was not fair to instance companies which paid 120 per cent. The average profits of some people had been very high, but the average profits of the people who were swindled had been pretty low. Having studied Lord Milner's finance in South Africa he thought his methods had been worthy of the less reputable portion of South African financiers. There was one portion of his finance which had a close bearing on our finance. We had the prospect of obtaining at some time or other some of the money we had spent on the Transvaal if we kept our eyes open. But we should have to keep our eyes open if we were to obtain the money. We had to complain that promises made to this House on behalf of the Transvaal had been broken, that solemn assurances given by Chancellor of the Exchequer after Chancellor of the Exchequer had been distinctly violated, grid that these most strange methods of finance had been resorted to for the purpose of enabling the Transvaal Government to break their promises.
  There was one branch of the matter of great imperial concern—he meant the question of the South African Constabulary and its finance. He would mention it briefly. Twelve thousand men were to be kept pup there, but that intention had been abandoned. The House would see the bearing which this had on the number of troops in garrison to be kept there at our cost. First of all it was said that 12,000 were to be raised for the constabulary, then 10,000, and the number now was 4,470. The original estimate of cost was £250 per man. The last solemn promise made to this House and adhered to by two Chancellors of the Exchequer was that 6,000 men would be kept up at the cost of the local exchequer, though, as he had said, the number had fallen to 4,470. The Transvaal Government had told the local Assemblies and the local Press that they were opposed even to this expenditure on constabulary. They thought it ought to be greatly reduced, and they counted upon our keeping up an enormous
  822
  garrison at our own cost in order that they should pursue their policy, whatever it was, at our expense. He knew that the present Colonial Secretary believed in keeping the Empire together. He supposed the right hon. Gentleman thought that it could only be kept together by giving a fiscal preference to certain colonies. The right hon. Gentleman thought the Empire could only be kept together in South Africa by our doing everything, proposed by Lord Milner. On the Opposition side of the House they did not believe that, but they believed, notably in connection with the labour question, that it could best be kept together by adherence to the principles on which it been built.
  SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREEsaid he fully believed that if better treatment in South Africa had been promised to their Indian fellow-subjects there would have been found a supply of labour quite adequate to the requirements of the Transvaal. A promise of fair treatment to Indians would have prevented all the agitation and difficulty which had been raised throughout the United Kingdom on the question of Chinese labour. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had urged as an argument against the importation of Indian labour that, because South Africa had to be retained as a white man's colony, a large influx of Indian labourers could not be permitted, as it would practically swamp the white people. He entirely differed from that view. There was no real danger of the immigration of Indians becoming overwhelming. The right hon. Gentleman had complained of the protest made by the Government of India against the harsh treatment of British Indian subjects in Africa. That was strange. The Indian residents in Africa wished to be simply safeguarded against unnecessary and unreasonable measures of ill-treatment and degradation, and among his many great deeds as Viceroy, Lord Curzon had done nothing more popular or just than this truly Imperial service of courageously standing out as he did for the rights of the King's Indian subjects. He had been surprised to hear the ex-Colonial Secretary say that the Indian Government should have

  823
  been forced to abandon this attitude. He was thankful that it had never occurred to anybody to make the Indian Government abandon the position they had taken up. Lord Curzon demanded fair treatment only for the Indian coolie, and that the higher class of Indians who went to Africa for the purposes of trade should have protection against insulting and disabling legislation. It was because Lord Milner and the South African Administration refused to allow this simple demand that the whole question of labour in the Transvaal mines had become difficult, and given cause for so much agitation here. He felt aggrieved in connection with the question of Chinese labour particularly on the ground that, after giving British working men full scope for their energy, if additional labour was wanted in the Transvaal it should have been obtained from other parts within our own Empire, and he submitted that the Indian population had a legitimate and an inherent right to find such employment under the British flag. He believed he had the sympathy of hon. Members on both sides of the House when he contended that it was an abuse of the powers and authority that rested with the British Administration whether in Africa or any other portion of our dominions, to exclude Indians and prefer men of other nationalities for such fields of labour.
  But apart from this question of labour, there were many other acts of injustice towards their Indian fellow-subjects which he was sure hon. Members would condemn. The tale of these hardships was so long that he could not hope to recount them at length, as many speakers were waiting to discuss other important matters; nor did his right hon. friend need to be reminded of them, as he was fully acquainted with these grievances. He thanked him for the sympathetic attention which he had given to his representations, but he was afraid the matter had been allowed to get beyond the right hon. Gentleman's control. Time after time, in spite of pledges which the right hon. Gentleman had willingly given, determined attempts had been made in South Africa, even with the countenance of the responsible administrators there, to oppress and tyrannise over British Indian subjects and trample under foot their few remaining rights. The right hon. Gentleman the
  824
  Member for the Forest of Dean, whom he wished to thank for his powerful advocacy of Indian interests, had referred to the judgment delivered a few days ago in the Supreme Court. When he asked the Colonial Secretary the other day in regard to the speech of Sir Arthur Lawley, in which he was alleged to have stated that the position created by that decision would not be tolerated, the right hon. Gentleman informed him that the report furnished was a mistaken one and that the speech did not bear the meaning which some people had put on it. He would, with the permission of the Committee, read a few words on this particular subject from Sir Arthur Lawley's speech on 18th May last. He said—
  "The present Administration stepped into the shoes of the late Government, and they were determined to adhere to the old law. They understood that those men who had been allowed—largely, it must be admitted, through the intervention of the British Government—to build up vested interests should be undisturbed for the period only of their lives, whilst any new-corners—any traders who had not received a licence prier to the outbreak of hostilities—should be required to reside and trade in bazaars set aside for that purpose. The present decision of the Supreme Court had told them that the law under which they proposed to carry their intentions into effect did not so provide, and that they had no power to enforce his residence and trading in bazaars. That was the position to-day. He hoped that before long they would be in a position to introduce legislation which would accurately define the status of the Indian who was there now, and dearly define the disabilities under which any incoming Asiatic would in the future reside in the Transvaal."
  If that was not denying the full advantage to British Indian subjects of the decision of the Supreme Court, he did not know what those words meant. Sir Arthur Lawley said that this judgment would not prevent legislation being introduced to override it; but he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would give a promise in the course of the discussion that he would refuse his sanction to any such legislation. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary when he was going to solve this great problem of the status and treatment of British Indian subjects in Africa. This difficulty had arisen years ago in spite of pledges given to the contrary. As long ago as May 1843, Sir George Napier, Governor of Cape Colony, stated on behalf of the British

  825
  Government in a proclamation on the annexation of Natal—
  "There shall not be in the eye of the law any distinction or disqualification whatever founded on mere distinction of colour, origin, language, or creed, but that the protection of the law in letter and in substance shall be extended impartially to all alike."
  He did not want to take his stand on the strict obligation to abide by theoretical promises of this nature or to observe the letter of such proclamations. He could quite realise that in the progressive history of nations circumstances might require that expediency should modify their original intent; and he did not demand that all these promises made to British Indian subjects should be maintained under the creation of unforseen conditions in an entirely literal sense. What he asked for was that they should be treated with some semblance of fair play, and not be subjected to race hatred. But when they were victimised to mere capricious prejudices, which were looked upon with disfavour by the great bulk of the British nation, he wondered that British administrators could be found to give any encouragement to the indulgence of these prejudices. When this very question of the trading rights of British Indian subjects in the Transvaal under the old Kruger Government was adversely decided, the right hon. Member for West Birmingham said on 4th September, 1895, in a letter to the High Commissioner to the South African Republic—
  "In conclusion I would say that whilst desirous loyally to abide by the award, and to allow it to close the legal and international question in dispute between the two Governments, I reserve to myself the liberty later on to make friendly representations to the South African Republic as to the traders, and possibly to invite the Government to consider whether when once its legal position has been made good it would not he wise to review the situation from a new point of view and decide whether it would not be better in the interests of its own burghers to treat the Indians more generously and to free itself from even the appearance of countenancing a trade jealousy which, I have some reason to believe, does not emanate from the governing class in the Republic."
  But since those words were written, since, in fact, British Administration had been established over the Boer territories, the position of their British Indian fellow-subjects had been made much worse, and they had lost right after right. Let it not be supposed that this ques-
  826
  tion only involved the treatment of emerely a few Indians in South Africa. It was essentially a question which affected 300,000,000 of their fellow subjects in India, and he was sure that if this course was to be pursued it would build up a great platform of dissatisfaction among them. They already felt that absolutely unnecessary restrictions and disabilities were allowed to be imposed, day after day, in the Transvaal under the rule of Lord Milner. A promise had been made to him by the Colonial Secretary to bring this whole question to some fair solution and he was told that it was under consideration by the Cabinet. He would be satisfied with that, if it was to bring any solid result; but he was at least entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman to make a declaration that afternoon as to how far this great question had proceeded in the deliberations of the Government, and what representations were being made to Lord Milner and Sir Arthur Lawley to discourage the unreasonable prejudices which were entertained in the Transvaal in regard to their Indian fellow-subjects, and whether there was any likelihood of any relief being afforded in regard to the matter. If the right hon. Gentleman could not hold out any such hope, let it be known once for all that the Imperial Government were helpless in the matter, and that things in South Africa were to be left to the one-sided decision of the local authorities. The people of India should no longer be left in the enjoyment of the false hope that their rights would be secured by the intervention of British influence against local prejudice if they went to the South African Colonies. If matters came to that pass, statesmen might well pause to consider what would be the ultimate effect of giving grave cause for discontent to millions of His Majesty's Indian subjects for the sake of pleasing a few thousand colonists in South Africa. On this ground he contended the question was one of Imperial concern, which required His Majesty's Minister to see that some measure of justice should be secured to their British Indian fellow-subjects in South Africa, and that they should not be subjected to the hardships an humiliations now inflicted upon them by

  827
  local legislation. They should be assured that they would be treated with equal justice and fair play in all parts of His Majesty's dominions. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would lee able to give some assurance, which would have a soothing effect on the people of India, that the grievances from which their countrymen in our Colonies had suffered for much too long a time would be removed.
  MR. MARKHAMsaid he had not intervened in these debates in respect of South Africa because he did not wish to give offence to Members of his own Party on this subject of Chinese labour. But so far as his own constituents were concerned they differed from him very widely on this question. He regretted it. During the time he had been in the House he had advocated Chinese labour as the only possible means of developing the resources of the Transvaal. He advocated it to the late Mr. Kruger in 1896, and also to the Chamber of Mines in Johannes-burgh in the same year. He had no interest, financial or otherwise, in South Africa, he was not speaking on behalf of the the mine-owners; and he thought his worst enemies would perhaps acquit him in that regard, after having spent two years in conflict with South African people at a very heavy expenditure to himself. He would not therefore come to this House to advocate an unpopular cause but for a conscientious belief in it. He wished to say that, in his opinion, the prosperity of the Transvaal depended solely and wholly on the mining industry—not only the Transvaal but the Free State and all South Africa, on the development, directly and indirectly, of the gold mines in the Transvaal. Within the last eighteen months they had only emerged from a great war, and more than ever before the development of these countries depended on the mining industry. He knew that hon. Members on his side of the House said that there was no deficiency of labour before the war, and that other industries besides mining could be developed in those countries without bringing in outside labour. It was one of the chief arguments that there was a sufficiency of labour in South Africa, provided the Kaffirs were properly treated and were well paid. He would like
  828
  to read an extract from a speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth on 18th April, 1901. That right hon. Gentleman then said—
  "How are you going to get any revenue out of the gold mines? You will not get it out of the gold mines, because, first of all, the gold mines will not give it to you. And if they will not give it to you, remember there is no other population from which you can rely to get any revenue at all Therefore, if they will not pay, you will not get it. But they cannot pay, and I will tell you why. The whole question of the development of the Transvaal is the question of labour. Now even in the flourishing times before the war there was an immense deficiency of labour in South Africa."
  The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that—
  "The Member for Mansfield in an article which appeared in the Nineteenth Century, tells us that the present labour in the Transvaal comes from Portuguese East Africa, and from nowhere else, and then he is reduced at last to say that you must have Chinese for gold-mine labour. It comes, then, to this, that the hope of gold mining in South Africa depends upon the introduction of Chinese labour, which has been rejected by every society of white men, whether in America or Australia."
  Now a very remarkable change came over the right hon. Gentleman when the question of the introduction of Chinese labour was mentioned. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton had stated in the course of the debate that statesmen altered their language as conditions developed. Well, this was what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth said on 24th March, 1903—
  "But what is the urgency of the present occasion when we have to consider what is to be, done with regard to labour? There is a deficiency of labour now, but there was no deficiency before the war."
  Two and a half years previously the right hon. Gentleman stated that there was an immense deficiency of labour. On that occasion he contradicted the right hon. Gentleman, who replied that it was stated by the Industrial Commission in 1897, that they could get all the labour they required, but one of the chief questions before the Industrial Commission was the deficiency of native labour in South Africa. He absolutely concurred in the statement made by the right hon. Member for West Monmouth in 1901 that there was a deficiency of native labour in South Africa, but he did not agree with his statement in 1903. Seventy-two per cent.

  829
  of the labour in the Transvaal mines came from outside the Transvaal itself. Long before this question of Chineselabour came up the system of native labour in the Transvaal was a system of forced labour. Hon. Members never gave a thought to the conditions of native work in South Africa; they were not aware of the way in which the natives were recruited. These natives were recruited under what was called the area system; a system under which areas were leased out to speculators and jobbers who had the control of those districts administratively. and who sent up natives, some of whom never came back, to work in the mines whether they liked it or not. From his own personal experience, Mr. Selous, who was perhaps more conversant with this system than anyone else, characterised this native labour as forced labour, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean had repeatedly argued the same way. The terrible mortality among the Kaffirs was entirely due, in his opinion, to the ignoring of climatic influences. These men, who had never a rag upon them from the time they were born, were brought from a tropical climate to a land where it was very cold in the mornings. They were savages, and had no idea of taking any care of themselves, and no care was taken of them, and so long as they were brought up to the Rand in that way this mortality would continue. He brought this same point before the late Mr. Kruger, but, unfortunately, neither the late Transvaal Government, nor the British Government, nor Lord Milner, had taken any steps to put a stop to this system of recruiting in tropical South Africa. It was notorious that the Kaffirs would not work in South Africa, and so lone, as they could subsist on the prolific bounty of the land without working no one had a right to force them to work in the mines for so-called civilisation, but really for the benefit of stock jobbers and gold mine-owners. This country was not entitled, in his opinion, to levy any charge on the Kaffirs in South Africa more than the cost of the administration that was given and of the protection afforded under their form of government. In Swaziland the tax was 40s.; in Basutoland 20s., and 20s. for each wife; and in the Transvaal 40s., and 40s. for each
  830
  wife. That had not had the effect of making the Kaffir work, for the Kaffir did not work and would not work unless he were forced to work. That was a condition to which no one in this country desired to be a party.
  What was the alternative to this condition of affairs in South Africa? He was opposed to the compound system and in favour of giving greater rights and more liberties to the Chinese than the Ordinance gave. But who were the people who had forced these restrictions and regulations on the Chinese? The trades union leaders. They had forced these conditions on the Chinese; they had complained that the compound system was not strict enough and they had asked that far more stringent regulations and rules should be imposed on the Chinese to prevent them competing with white men. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton referred to this question the right hon. Gentleman took care to make no mention of that fact. He asked why the Ordinance in this case was not the same as that in the case of British Guiana? The reason was because the men in the Transvaal would not have it. The complaint that coloured labour was displacing white labour and would do so still more was not justified. The Return asked for by the hon. Member for Camberwell showed that the number of white men in the mines was continually increasing. That Return, however, was of no value because the hon. Gentlemen omitted to ask for the numbers of the different classes of miners working in the producing mine and the non-producing mines. Had the hon. Gentleman been familiar with South Africa he would have known that there was a return by the Government mine inspector which gave the number of white men engaged in the mines. Before the war there was one white man to every seven Kaffirs, in May, 1904, there were 13,892 white men employed in the Transvaal mines, and the number had been steadily increasing from that time onward. But that was due to the development of the diamond industry. He had always contended-that the Premier Diamond Mine should have been worked with white labour, by the State for the benefit of the Transvaal but the House last year took no interest

  831
  in that question. That mine could have been worked entirely with white labour, and if the Government had taken it over last year, and thrown it open to public pegging by white men, and had allowed white men only to work in it, there would have been no necessity for Chinese labour now. But it was allowed to be leased to a company, who were only working a part of the area, and whose profits had risen from £300 a month last year to £100,000 a month, with diamonds selling at 32s. a carat which only cost 2s. a carat to obtain. When fighting that question in to the House last year, he got no support whatever from the Liberal Party in his endeavour to get the mine thrown open to the public. They were in favour of a monopoly, as was also the Liberal Press, with the single exception of the Daily News. No one except Members of this House who did not know what they were talking about advocate 1 that the gold mines should be worked with white labour. No one in South Africa or any mining engineer in this country would ever suggest such a thing. Even Mr. Creswell, of whom a great deal had been heard, admitted that it was impossible to work the gold mines on the Rand entirely with white labour. There must be a percentage of Kaffir labour, otherwise the percentage of gold obtained would not be sufficient to pay for the working of the mines. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Wight opposed the introduction of Chinese labour into the Transvaal on the ground that colonial sentiment was against it, but the Western Australian Government sanctioned the introduction of Chinese labour into Western Australia under conditions far more onerous than those in the South African Ordinance. Australia was a white man's country and South Africa was a black man's country, yet in 1898 Western Australia passed a similar measure to this.
  Up to this point he had been entirely opposed to Members sitting on his own side of the House, but he now came to the point of disagreement with the Government and agreement with his hon. friends. When the question was first thought of and before it was introduced into Parliament he wrote to the Colonial
  832
  Secretary in relation to the action the Government ought to take, and suggested to him that during the interregnum of Crown government it would be a deplorable and short-sighted policy for the Government to sanction the introduction of Chinese labour without first taking a vote of the people upon the subject. He failed to convince the right hon. Gentleman. Hon. Members might ask why, then, he did not vote against the Ordinance. Nobody felt more strongly than he did that it was for the people of South Africa to decide this question, but he was unable to come to the conclusion to vote against the Ordinance by reason of the misrepresentations that would be put forward in the country. For that and no other reason he abstained from voting on the question. Whether his views were right or wrong he claimed that consideration to which all Members were entitled, and he strongly objected to hon. Members like the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight, who knew nothing whatever about mining, coming down to the House of Commons and raising the bitterest partisan feelings. Whether the hon. Member was right or wrong on the moral and ethical side he expressed no opinion; people were at liberty to set up their own standard of morals and ethics.
  On the question of wages, there was a very distinct pledge given by the Colonial Secretary as to the late to be paid. Time after time the right hon. Gentleman had stated that there was no intention or desire on the part of the Government to introduce any labour in South Africa unless it was paid at the same rate as Kaffir labour. He did not wish to tie the right hon. Gentleman down to the exact figure of 2s. a day, but the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly correct when he said that the rate was 2s. Lord Milner and the cosmopolitan crowd by which he was surrounded at Johannesburg had been able to bring sufficient pressure to bear to bring about a rate of wage for the Chinese which was lower than the Kaffir rate. In the Report of the Labour Commission the rates of wages were given as stated by several witnesses. The Chairman and Managing Director of the Witswatersrand Labour Association stated that the rate of wages for Kaffirs was 50s. for surface work and 60s. for

  833
  underground. The question and answer on the subject were as follows—
  "(Q.)—You tell us that boys receive 60s. per month. That is a standing wage, or is it piece work? (A.)—1t is the standing wage for all boys with the exception of raw boys coming from the east coast. The latter do not necessarily receive the minimum wage of 60s. but they do receive 45s. when they first come up, and later on they rise to 60s. The boys from the Northern Transvaal receive 60s. at the start."
  From a Paper appended to the Report, it would be seen that the average cost of native labour from January to June, 1903, was 2s. 7d. Sir George Farrar, who introduced the Chinese Ordinance into the Legislative Council, stated on 28th December—
  "Now what were the wages paid before the war? 47s. since the war; up to 1902, 33s. In April of this year we went even higher; we paid surface boys 50s. and underground boys 60s., and to day the rate of wages is 54s."
  On 15th April Lord Milner telegraphed to the Colonial Secretary—
  "Having regard to the cost of bringing Chinamen to the Rand, it seems to me that mine-owners must protect themselves to some extent."
  And he went on to make the extraordinary statement—
  "The more I think of it, the greater appears to me to be the danger of fixing the minimum of Is. 6d. It is plainly quite unnecessary in order to get the coolies and its consequences will be very serious for all the industries of the country."
  A rate of 1s. 6d. serious for all the industries of the country when the Kaffir standard rate was 2s. Why had the Colonial Secretary been bullied by Lord Milner? Why had he given in to Lord Milner and the mine-owners, seeing that he had a stiff back at one time? The right hon. Gentleman would not deny that the rate was 2s. a day.
  MR. LYTTELTONintimated that he was prepared to deny it.
  MR. MARKHAMasked on what evidence the right hon. Gentleman based his denial. According to the evidence of Sir George Farrar, of the recruiting agents of the Labour Association, and the evidence afforded by the interview between Mr. Brownlee and Mr. Macfarlane, even the inferior Kaffir received 2s. a day, while many got as much as £6 a month. Therefore, the Chinese were being brought
  834
  in at wages which were under the standard Kaffir rate, and that, he submitted, was absolutely wrong. The Government had no right to bring into South Africa outside alien races to compete in the native market. The right hon. Gentleman had given a pledge that the rate of wages for the Chinese should not be less than those paid to the Kaffirs, and yet, forced and dragooned by Lord Milner, he had sanctioned a lower rate, although Lord Milner's policy in South Africa had been from beginning to end a ghastly failure, as the country was now beginning to perceive.
  Under these circumstances it was very necessary that the Committee should know definitely whether or not the Chinese were going to do overseers' work. The many Questions which he had put to the Colonial Secretary had been treated as though the point were of no practical importance. The view of the President of the Mines Association was stated on 24th January last in these words—
  "With regard to the introduction of the Chinese, they were now informed that they were bringing overseers with them. If such a state of things took place, after the public statements made by Lord Milner and Sir George Farrar, they could write those gentlemen down as being the greatest and most arrant liars of this age."
  He himself had cabled to South Africa to find out whether or not Chinese overseers were actually working in the mines, but his friend had been unable to give him the information because he could not get into the compounds to find out. The question was a very important one, and the right hon. Gentleman had not convinced him that the words of the Ordinance prevented Chinese overseers. Where they got one straightforward mine-owner the v would get a dozen rascals who would take every possible opportunity of squeezing out white men in order to work the mines more cheaply. Personally, he was not in favour of trusting individuals at all. He would rather have such safeguards inserted as would leave no loophole whatever. He hoped, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would give a definite pledge that no white man's job should be taken away by reason of the introduction of the Chinese. Such an assurance would give satisfaction not only in this country but also in South Africa. Many of his

  835
  own constituents were miners, and basing his statement on the pledges of the Government he had assured them that so far as overseers were concerned the Chinese would not take away their work.
  No possible equality could ever exist between blacks and whites. He believed that equal civil rights should he given to all civilised white men, and that whether men were black, yellow, or any other colour, they should enjoy the rights of citizenship when they became civilised men. But so long as South Africa existed they would never get the white workmen to assent to any equality what- ever between the two races. He implored the Government to remove this question from the British Parliament at the earliest possible date, and allow it to rest with the people of South Africa themselves. His statement last year that we had lost South Africa was received with cries of "nonsense," but he could assure the Committee that the position was never more grave than it was to-day. There was bound to be an alliance between the Boer party and either the capitalists or the workmen. He feared the Boers would like to throw in their lot with the capitalists, and then the workmen whom the capitalists were so anxious to keep out of South Africa might go where they liked. The majority of the people in the Transvaal were Dutch, and by reason of the deficiency in the native labour supply the British population instead of increasing was decreasing, and until there was a better supply of native and coloured labour that decrease would go on. He apologised to the Committee for detaining them at such length, and expressed his gratitude for the indulgence they had extended to him.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I do not think the hon. Gentleman need apologise for the speech he has made. It contained many most interesting facts. The facts which he vouched for of his own knowledge I believe were accurate; upon those from which he quoted evidence he must allow me to exercise my own judgment. Broadly speaking, I am entirely in agreement with my right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham; for I have never been able to see that an Ordinance which gives the indentured
  836
  Chinese many times the earnings they get in their own country, which returns them, consonant with their habits and wishes, at the end of the period of service, with sufficient money in their pockets to make them, as compared with their fellows in their own country, comparatively wealthy men, able to buy their own land and cultivate it —personally I have never been able to see that such an Ordinance can be other than a benefit to the Chinese. I never have disguised the fact that there are certain disabilities which this Ordinance lays upon them, when they are in Africa, which I do not think are altogether pleasant, and which I myself, were. I employing a man, should not like to impose. But these disabilities are imposed not by the will of their employers, but by the inflexible will and expressed desire of the vast majority of the inhabitants of the Transvaal [Cries of "No."], who insist that on those terms, and those terms only, shall these immigrations take place. [An HON. MEMBER: Where have they said so?] I will deal with that in a moment. Again, I am in entire agreement with my right hon. friend when he says that the Government and the House ought to welcome any criticism of the Ordinance which can show that the contract is not thoroughly understood by the Chinese, that it is not thoroughly well carried out by their employers, or that the labourers are not abundantly protected by every provision which ingenuity can suggest. The provisions which have been made have not been challenged, and therefore I need not deal with them again. The point which I address myself to is this, not whether this House would pass this Ordinance in its precise shape, but whether I have a case to advise His Majesty to veto the Ordinance as passed by the Legislative Council of the Transvaal.
  The right hon. Gentleman who opened the debate referred to our own precedents for legislation in this matter. I frankly accept the fact that both Parties in the State are responsible for colonial legislation relating to imported indentured labour, which has existed for the last fifty or sixty years. Every detail of every Ordinance in the Colonies cannot be very strictly scrutinised by the Secretary of State for

  837
  India or even the Secretary for the Colonies. It is unnecessary to say more on that part of the case, which I admit is the partisan aspect of it. But all that part of the case is entirely gone. The right hon. Gentleman says with perfect frankness that he entirely approves of the British Guiana Ordinance. It is far stronger than if, by some negligence, the right hon. Gentleman and Lord Ripon, and the hon. Member for Poplar, had passed this Ordinance in haste or per incuriam. The position deliberately taken up by the right hon. Gentleman is that he approves of the Ordinance which amended and consolidated no fewer than nine other Ordinances relating to the same colony and dealing with the same subject-matter. Therefore I am absolutely entitled on behalf of the Government to say that this Ordinance passed by a Liberal Government in 1894 does in truth and in fact embody the deliberate, persistent, consolidated legislation of forty or fifty years connected with the passing of British subjects as indentured labourers into a British Colony, with the approval of the Indian Government.
  Going back for a moment, if I may do so, to the test which I in my responsibility have to consider—that is to say, what sort of a case would I have against the Transvaal Government if they said, "We desire this legislation. Our necessity is great for it." The native labour in the mines in the month of June was only 68,000, while there is not the slightest doubt that before the war there were 100,000 native labourers, and probably 110,000 employed. Before the war the country had few burdens and obligations, and I fully accept the right to criticise claimed by the right hon. Member for the Montrose Burghs, of the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries, and of the hon. Member for Carnarvon. They have criticised the war from the beginning. They accepted the unpopularity which attached to such a position, and though I profoundly differ from them, their views were in accordance with their convictions, and they honestly maintained them. They are in a different position from those who accepted the popularity of the war, who supported it on this side of the House and on that at the time. I never believed for a moment, and I do not think anybody on this side
  838
  of the House believed, that they would flinch from the consequences of a war which they believed to be just. But what is the position of those hon. Gentlemen who accept the popularity of the war and declare its justice, and then come down to this House and elsewhere and point out with lugubrious voices that its consequences must be faced, and faced manfully, by every one who has to deal with the colony which is the subject of the war?
  Now, what is the position? The position is that, of course necessarily, the country which was engaged in a war of exhaustion has been largely devastated throughout, that immense cost is necessary to repair the ravages of the war, that a suspension of business has prevailed for a long time, and that immense repairs of the havoc of war are absolutely essential. To carry out these repairs the country itself has to make great efforts, but it has also had accorded to it by this country a guaranteed loan of £35,000,000 to pursue the work of development. It has also most loyally and patriotically undertaken to make a contribution of £30,000,000 to the cost of the war. The position is this: Upon that country, therefore, there is now laid a burden of £65,000,000. Are we, with our own record in this matter, to refuse the opportunity to those who have to earn this money which is absolutely necessary to discharge these burdens? Are we to turn round and say, "Yes, it is true we have imposed the burden in a period of great distress. We have allowed British subjects in British Guiana and Trinidad to come in under sometimes more onerous conditions than those in force in the Transvaal? "Are we who have rightly committed ourselves to that legislation to say to the Transvaal in a period of almost unexampled distress, in a period when the economic reparation of the country is absolutely necessary— are we, having permitted that legislation, having amended it, having consolidated it, and having allowed it to exist for forty or fifty years of our history, to say "No, we refuse you in your need similar legislation?"
  I venture to think that such a position is impossible, and I will tell the House

  839
  frankly why. We have often heard Englishmen called hypocrites, and I think everybody to whom it has been addressed has justly resented the charge, but how can we say that it would be otherwise than hypocritical to veto a proposal made by the Transvaall [Cries of "No, no; the Legislative Council," from the OPPOSITION.] If we were going to argue this matter with the working men of the Transvaal, what kind of a case should I have? I take the right hon. Gentleman's selection of the differences between the two Ordinances, because I know that his experience has been sufficiently long to make him select the strongest cases of difference he could find. I think the first difference he selected was that under the Transvaal Ordinance the labourer was bound to reside on the premises, while in the British Guiana Ordinance he was bound to reside on the plantation. Personally, I do not see very much difference. The premises in the case of a mine are the whole land adjacent to the mine, and not merely the mine in which he is employed. I confess I fail to see any substantial difference whatever between the obligation to live on a plantation and the obligation to live on mine premises. I admit that there are somewhat longer holidays permissible in the British Guiana Ordinance than in the Transvaal Ordinance. But when the right hon. Gentleman says that there is not free access to the Courts, I do not think he can have studied the regulations, which most carefully provide for free access by the labourers to the Courts. Particular care has been given to this point. Section 41 of the regulations provides that every labourer is entitled to proceed to the office of the superintendent for the purpose of making a I complaint against his employer or to enable him to have access to a Court of law for the redress of any injury. The right hon. Gentleman, if he thinks of it for a moment, will agree with me when I say that to ask a Chinaman to go into a Court of law totally ignorant of the language and the procedure would be a foolish and futile provision. Access is given to the person who is appointed under the sanction of his own Government to protect the China-man's interests, and he will protect him and bring his case into Court.
  840
  There is a further provision that a substantial penalty will be inflicted on the employer if such access is not given. The right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that that is a far more effective and reasonable way to protect the Chinaman than is provided in the British Guiaan Ordinance.
  The right hon. Gentleman drew a picture of the Chinaman, one of the shrewdest of men, being totally guileless and ignorant of what he should do with the money he earns. If the right hon. Gentleman will read the Ordinance he will see that there is nothing to prevent the Chinaman from earning money, nothing to prevent him from dealing with personal property in any way he thinks fit; and the restriction imposed by the will of the inhabitants [OPPOSITION cries of "No."] simply applies to land. Let me develop that for a moment. Is there really any substance in the argument of the right hon. Gentleman? You employ a Chinese coolie for three years; you pay him for a ten hour day. Is it not ridiculous to suppose that a Chinaman during his period of indenture will become a landowner?
  Then there is the last point of the right hon. Gentleman. From the first I have always taken blame to myself for having made a blunder. The right hon. Gentleman said that there is a minimum wage in the British Guiana Ordinarce, while we have not provided properly for a minimum wage in the Transvaal. The minimum wage in the British Guiana Ordinance for time-work is not according to the current rate, but 1s. 1d. From the first, I admit, I said that there was no need to impose a minimum wage; and I stated quite strongly that the Chinese labourers would have 2s. a day.[An HON. MEMBER on the OPPOSITION Benches: At least 2s.] That was an error; but I made that statement in relation simply to the question of the possibility of undercutting the Kaffir. To that extent I regard the pledge as binding. I am sure that no rational man would desire, when the Chinaman was willing to come for a certain wage, and a wage much greater than that he received in his own country, that that wage should be doubled, although such doubling is not necessary to protect

  841
  the Kaffir from being undercut. No one wishes that Kaffir labour shall be appreciated by the introduction of Chinese labour.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: My contention is that the Kaffir is practically being undercut.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I quite accept that issue. Directly I found that my information was incorrect and that the Chinese would come for less than 2s. a day, I changed my policy and insisted on a minimum wage. That wage must necessarily be experimental. The minimum Kaffir wage is 45s. Lord Milner assures me that the average wage earned by the Chinaman will be 50s. I quite agree that that assurance may prove incorrect; but in order to protect the Kaffir against Any injustice or undercutting, it is now part of the contract that, if the Chinese as a whole do not earn on the average 50s. a month, besides board and lodging, then the present minimum wage of 30s. shall be raised to 45s. I ask the House to consider that as business men; and if they do not think that this arrangement affords sufficient protection to the Kaffir, then I am afraid that nothing I can say will persuade them. If criticism is to be made upon me at all in this matter of the wage, it might almost legitimately be said that I have taken more care of the Kaffir than really I was obliged to do; because though I hold strongly that you ought not to allow the native labourers to be unduly undercut by an alien invasion, yet I very much doubt whether it is not almost insulting to apply that provision in all its strictness when nearly 80 per cent. of the Kaffirs are not British subjects at all. That is the last distinction which the right hon. Gentleman drew between the British Guiana Ordinance and this Transvaal Ordinance; and these distinctions are so small that it would be impossible that they should carry such a heavy burden as affording to me justification for advising the King to veto legislation which has substantially obtained for years in other Colonies.
  But the right hon. Gentleman might have drawn one other distinction. It is true
  842
  at the end of the period of service, in one case three years, and in British Guiana five years, the Indian coolie is permitted to continue in the country while the Chinese labourer, by the unanimous wish of the working population of the Transvaal, is to be repatriated. As a lawyer I understand the doctrine of "relation back." But it is impossible to contend that that which is slavery during the whole period of service changes its character because of something which occurs at the end of the service. This Ordinance was desired by the people of the Transvaal.
  DR. MACNAMARA: Try the referendum.
  MR. LYTTELTON: The hon. Gentleman's interruption is more apropos than some have been. I am just coming to that.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: I do not adopt the right hon. Gentleman's kind suggestion as to the argument I might have used.
  MR. LYTTELTON: Then the right hon. Gentleman sweeps aside the argument on which the hon. Member for Poplar has chiefly founded himself. As to the referendum, I have never concealed from myself that if this case had not been one I of great urgency it would have been most desirable to have a referendum. It would obviously show whether what we believe to be the will of the people of the Transvaal is their will. I and the Government are not at all afraid of that issue.
  DR. MACNAMARA: Then take that step.
  MR. LYTTELTON: But when he speaks in this debate I should like the Leader of the Opposition to say whether, in the event of this Ordinance receiving the sanction of the majority of the elected representatives of the Transvaal, he would advise the King when he comes into power to repeal this so-called slavery Ordinance.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The right hon. Gentleman means a fully-constituted, represetative, and independent Colony, and lie asks whether, if such a Colony did certain

  843
  things, we should interfere to stop them? Let us see them in that position first.
  MR. LYTTELTON: If this was slavery or akin to slavery it could not find a place on the Statute-book, even though it was approved by a self-governing colony. But the measure of the indignation of the right hon. Gentleman is to be found in his answer to the question whether he would repeal this Ordinance if put into power. "If you put me there I will tell you." I prefer the attitude of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton. But the right hon. Gentleman and others who have interrupted me in the course of my speech and asked for evidence of the will of the Transvaal people will have an opportunity next year of ascertaining that will for themselves, because His Majesty's Government have decided to give representative institutions to the Transvaal. Do not let me be misunderstood. I use that phrase in the technical sense. Full self-government is called responsible government, but the decision of His Majesty's Government is to substitute for the present nominated element in the Transvaal Legislative Council an elective element. So that upon a question upon which you are to ascertain the voice of the country as a whole you will always have the machinery, by virtue of your elected members, wholly apart from the official members, for seeing whether or not the measure is consistent with and in harmony with the feeling of the country. When the question is put before those representatives elected from the country we shall see who is right and who is wrong upon the great issue—Does the country approve of the Ordinance? It will be very interesting also to know whether, if the decision of those representatives is in favour of the Ordinance, any modification will be made in the language we have heard in increasing force until it reached Chertsey, and whether it will in time assume the character of that language which is used when a general election is near.
  MR. BROADHURST: Upon what franchise will the members be elected?
  MR. LYTTELTON: It would not be in order to go into details upon that; but I think that if the hon. Gentleman studies the matter he will see that there has not been any indisposition on the part of the Government of the Transvaal to make a very free and popular suffrage in local government. We have municipal institutions spread all over South Africa. There are twenty-three urban districts, and there are municipalities, for the first time of any power, in all the larger towns. I think, speaking from memory, the ratepayers' franchise is on £100 fixed property and £24 annual value, a very fairly popular basis.
  I ought to refer to the evidence in relation to the hon. Member for Mansfield's speech. He read certain evidence, which is, I will not say out of date, but not nearly so recent as mine. The evidence on which I rely in fixing 50s. as the average wage of the Chinese labourer relates to the average wage of the Kaffir, and my authority is the report of the Government mining engineer for the six months ending December, 1903. It shows an average wage of £47 5s. 3¼d. per head for Kaffir labour.
  DR. MACNAMARA: Are they all adults?
  MR. LYTTELTON: I believe so, certainly. That is the average the Chinese have to earn in the first six months and it they do not earn it the minimum wage is put up to 45s. In regard to white labour I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I know no one, from the Member for Aberdeen downwards, who is acquainted with tropical countries, who has ever had the hardihood to say in this House that white labour will ever compete with Kaffir labour below ground.
  MAJOR SEELY: What about West Australia?
  MR. LYTTELTON: I will not say what I think about that interruption. [Cheers and cries of "Why not?"] It illustrates the fundamental error that has been made by hon. Gentlemen on the other side in connection with this topic—an error extraordinary to any one with the most elementary knowledge of the problem—the confusion of New Zealand

  845
  and Australia, which are white men's countries, and in which there is practically no aboriginal population at all, with South Africa, which contains a native population many times exceeding that of the whites.
  The right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean was good enough to say that I had broken my pledge in regard to the women and children. The only pledge that I gave was that every facility should be granted to the Chinese labourers to take their wives and families with them if they desired to do so. The right hon. Gentleman did me the justice to read out that, and I frankly accept information and instruction at his hands if he will point out to me any way by which a man could be compelled to take his wife and family with him. I imagine that the right hon. Gentleman has considered that problem, but he is not ready with a reply to it. Provision has been made in the Ordinance that wives and children shall be taken at the employers' cost in the first instance, and that the right of every Chinaman to take his wife and family shall be pointed out to him clearly; and, in case a man wishes to find out for himself what the country is like and whether he would care to take his wife and family there, elaborate machinery is provided by which he can do that. He is allowed to register his wife and family at the port of embarkation, and then, if he finds the country to his liking, he is at liberty to send for his wife and children, who can be brought over at the employers' expense. I think the right hon. Gentleman did me scanty justice in saying that I had broken my pledge when I have not only made provision for what I promised but for a good deal more. Then, again, he conveyed to the House the idea that I had misled them by saying that the Truck Act, as we understand it in England, would not be applicable to the Chinese and they would be bereft of that safeguard. If he looks at the 24th Regulation he will find that the wages of every employee shall be paid monthly in the current coin of the realm or the colony, and no payment of wages to any labourer shall be of any force or effect unless the same has been made as aforesaid. Further, he will find that no employer
  846
  shall deduct any sum in respect of kind from wages due.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEI: As I understand it, great credit is taken for the food supplied by the employers being good food, but they are not to go beyond the boundaries of the Rand, on which the employers supply the food.
  MR. LYTTELTON: That observation seems to be a little like an afterthought. [Cries of "No," and An HON. MEMBER: It is the essence of truck.] It is surely rather imperfectly described by the word truck. [Cries of "No."] Well, I do not think I need discuss that. Any lawyer in the House would know that that last observation has nothing to do with the Truck Act. But if any hon. Member wishes to point out a method by which these regulations can be improved with regard to the Truck Act I shall be glad to hear from him. At present I say that the provisions which I have read out do incorporate the essential elements of the Truek Act into the Ordinance for the benefit of the Chinese labourer.
  I had a challenge with regard to the subject of overseers. Again, if anybody can point out any means by which this provision can be strengthened in that respect I will most carefully consider it. But the present provision in the Ordinance is this. Chinese coolies are restricted to unskilled labour, defined as work usually done by the aboriginal inhabitants of South Africa. There is a penalty of £500 on anybody who employs Chinamen for any other work, and there is in default, I think, two years imprisonment. The whole case made by the hon. Member for Mansfield and on the other side is that you must keep places of trust for white men; and that is the demand of the white men who are employed in the mines in South Africa, as hon. Gentlemen opposite well know. But I am surprised to find that directly there is an idea that any Chinaman may get his head even an inch into better labour there is an outcry from those who denounce restrictions. I ask anybody on the other side, however, whether he could make a stricter provision than this which entails a penalty of £500 or two years imprisonment on any one who employs a Chinaman in any work except that done by

  847
  Kaffirs, or, in other words, in any work usually done by white men. I go further. I dofy any one to suggest a better police for the enforcement of such regulations than these very men, the white foremen. If any one can do so I shall be glad to know.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid the right hon. Gentleman had stated the other day that 580 whites now employed on unskilled labour would not be governed by the Ordinance. How were their rights going to be secured?
  M R. LYTTELTON: The point whether this work has been done usually by white men or by black men is a question of fact which must be decided by the colony, and I am not going to say, 6,000 miles away, that there may riot be one or two cases which are near the line. As a rule, it would be extremely easy to say "Aye" or "No" whether this work was generally done by blacks or whites, though it may or may not be that it is being so done merely temporarily, for a few days. But it is impossible for me here to foresee every possible case that may arise. All that anybody can do is to take the most scrupulous care that the law be such as the law in this case is—namely, that these men should not do the work ordinarily done by whites, but should be confined to the work ordinarily done by blacks, and make such provisions that the law cannot be evaded. I say it cannot be evaded when you have the best and most vigilant police to enforce it. I was delighted that my right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham brought a new voice to this dreary topic, to illuminate it in the way he did.
  I wish to say a word in conclusion on the question of Indian coolies, to which pointed reference has been made by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean and by my hon. friend the Member for Bethnal Green. Nobody has had more constantly in his mind the extreme difficulty of the question than I have. You have on the one side immense countries, with thickly congested populations anxious to expand, to work, and to better their condition, such as India. You have in other parts of the Empire,
  848
  such as Australia, vast unoccupied districts, or occupied only on the fringe by white men, where it has become the definite determination of those white men, both in Australia and New Zealand, and of late years in America and British Columbia, to exclude Asiatics from competition with their labour. I venture to say without fear of contradiction that if it were possible for 100,000 Asiatics to come here to indenture themselves under a form of contract they would be resisted by a cordon nine deep. But that is not the point; the point is whether you are going to insist that there should be an unfettered influx of British Indians into the Transvaal without any restrictions whatever. The Committee know that the working man here would not stand it. We have, however, to consider not only what is right and just to-day in this country, but also what is consistent with the national honour. With regard to the future, I myself am of opinion that you cannot coerce the inhabitants of a colony against their will to receive even British subjects, British Indians, if they are coming there with a desire to compete, with them in their work. And if the inhabitants of that colony absolutely decline to permit such competition, and if you attempted to coerce any colony in such a position, I believe you would lose it. But you may endeavour by every possible means you can to persuade them that such a policy is. short-sighted, inhuman, deficient from the Imperial point of view, and so forth; but you must stop short at persuasion; anything like compulsion is, in my opinion, absolutely impossible. That applies to the future situation of British Indians coming to the Transvaal; and if they choose to pass a law in the future which shall make it difficult for British Indians to come in, though I should regret it deeply from many points of view, I do not believe we could resist it. The case is far different in regard to those British Indians who came in during the time of the late Dutch Republic, on whose behalf Minister after Minister, from Lord Derby to my right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham, has made repeated protests and repeated claims. Now that the decision has been given by the High Court of the Transvaal, which has granted to British Indians

  849
  those privileges for which we have protested, to those privileges so granted I for one adhere. I think it is impossible for this country to take up any other position consistent with the national dignity and honour in regard to men who have come into the country, and on whose behalf we have made strong representations, and whose claim has been upheld by a judicial decision; it would be inconsistent with the national honour and dignity to refuse them those privileges—in other words, to say that they should not have under the King's flag that which the Boer Republic rightly gave them. In my opinion that is a matter which has only got to be placed clearly and distinctly before the Transvaal Government as it has been in despatches not yet published, and I am certain that the citizeas of that country, who value the honour of the British name as much as anyone in this House, will appreciate that the national honour and dignity is at stake in dealing with the British Indians who are resident there, and that they will freely accord that right to them.
  SIR ROBERT REIDsaid the Colonial Secretary had made in the course of his speech a very important statement in regard to the policy of the Government. He proposed to refer to that statement, and he wished at the outset to say that he was heartily glad to hear that the Government intended to bestow representative institutions upon the Transvaal. He hoped those institutions would be a reality, and he desired to warn the right hon. Gentleman against the great danger of allowing anything in the nature of gerrymandering with those representative institutions. He could not help expressing again his great pleasure that that step was going to be taken. He hoped it would prove to be a real step and a real advance, and if that turned out to be the case he was certain it would do nothing but good.
  He was not going to say more than a Clock the few words about Chinese labour. They had already had about four days discussion upon this subject, and there were only about three hours left for discussing the whole financial condition of the
  850
  Transvaal, which was in a condition that might justly be described as alarming, There were also other important questions about law and order in the Transvaal which had still to be discussed. He would only take up about three minutes more with what he had to say about Chinese labour. He agreed that in introducing Chinese labour they must have restrictions. That was obvious, otherwise they would have the country flooded with Oriental vices and insanitary conditions, and what was far worse, they would have an influx of cheap labour, so cheap that the native labourer could not possibly contend against it. He agreed with the Colonial Secretary that any proposal of that kind would e resisted in this country, because it would uproot their industrial conditions. The Colonial Secretary had disregarded the opinion of Cape Colony which had been expressed by unanimous Resolutions passed by both Houses before and after the general election had taken place. There was no question whatever about the unanimity of that opinion, and it was an extraordinary thing that they should now be told that such a thin line divided the opinion of the Transvaal and Cape Colony upon this question of Chinese labour. It was nothing of the kind. Last year the then Colonial Secretary told them that the opinion of the Transvaal was hostile to the introduction of Chinese labour, and it was said that within a few months it had changed. What had changed the opinion of the Transvaal? It was simply due to the mine-owners and capitalists threatening to interfere with the continuance of the mining industry which was so vital to Johannesburg and the Rand. [An HON. MEMBER: It was stern necessity.] Yes, stern necessity on the part of the employers of labour. That was the opinion expressed by several persons who were thoroughly familiar with the whole country and who had given documentary proofs in support of their views.
  And it being half-past Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee Report Progress; to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  SUPPLY [18TH ALLOTTED DAY].
  Considered in Committee.
  In the Committee.
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1904–5.

  CLASS II.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £27,750, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including a Grant-in-Aid of certain Expenses connected with Emigration."
  SIR ROBERT REID, continuing his speech, said he wished to refer to some matters which had not been discussed at all this session, and which were hardly discussed last year, but which at the same time were of vital importance. He could not help thinking that it was a commentary on the Downing Street method of Colonial government that, whilst there had been some four discussions this session on this subject, the important matters to which he was about to refer had not been dealt with. He was glad the Colonial Secretary had acknowledged the great devastation in the Orange River Colony and the Transvaal as the result of the war, because it was good that the people of this country for good or for ill should appreciate what had been the result of the war in South Africa. It was quite clear not only from what the Colonial Secretary had said, but also from what Lord Milner and other officials in South Africa had stated repeatedly in the Blue-books, that the country was a wilderness devoid of crops, of stock, of population, and to a large extent of habitable dwellings, whilst the native live stock had been nearly exterminated. That was the state of things which resulted from the war. During the progress of the war it was quite obvious the public were wholly deceived,
  852
  because hon. Members who took an interest in the subject at the time would recall the fact that information was asked for as to the number of houses destroyed, and a Return was given showing 6C0 houses or thereabouts, to each of which an explanation was attached giving the reasons why it was destroyed. The real fact was, however, that the greater part of the habitations in both colonies were destroyed. The fault was not with the military. It was even possible to think that if the policy of devastation had not been pursued the war might never have been brought to an end. The fault was not with the military, but with the authors of the war, at whose door must be laid the whole responsibility for this devastation. The duty to repair the ravages of the war, to rebuild, and to repatriate a multitude of people destitute of everything, had been, he was glad to say, acknowledged by the Government, and he regarded that with particular satisfaction. He thought this country was fully entitled to the credit of having exercised great humanity and great generosity in re-establishing those colonies after the war. That credit, humanity, and generosity was, in his opinion, one of our most valuable assets, and one which could not be taken from us. He had, however, found it extremely difficult to ascertain what the money was that had been spent upon it. From the various Estimates and Supplementary Estimates it would be seen that a great deal of money had been voted for this purpose during the past two years, and although the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary had endeavoured to assist him, the Return he had been good enough to make showed that the Colonial Office itself was not aware of what money had been spent, but so far as he could make out a sum of £20,145,000 had been paid by this country in two years since the conclusion of the war in respect of repatriation, compensation, and other matters. There was also a sum of £5,800,000 taken from the loan and applied in the same way, making a total of £26,000,000. The position appeared to be that these two colonies had been living on this country since the war, and that the expenditure was not to be found stated collectively. It was this money which had kept the two colonies from a

  853
  state of absolute financial destitution. Much, however, remained to be done.
  One particular matter to which he wished to refer was the way in which military receipts had been dealt with. During the war receipts were signed by officers for goods supplied, and the Colonial Secretary very properly said that those receipts should be as good as English bank notes. From the information he received there was a great complaint that those receipts had not been good and that treatment of them had not been in accordance with the promise given by the Colonial Secretary. He could not help thinking that the utmost diligence ought to be observed in meeting those most sacred obligations. The Colonial Secretary also stated that the widows and orphans left by the late war should be compassionately dealt with and in his opinion the promise should be liberally and generously carried out. Generosity would be remembered in times to come and nobody could say how soon we should reap the benefit. The relations between the Boers and the natives also required to be considered, of course no one wanted the Boers or any civil population to be armed with rifles, but there ought to be sufficient rifles and ammunition distributed to enable the Boers to protect and defend themselves from the natives.
  Another question to which he wished to draw attention was the land settlement. The policy of the Government was to settle upon the land many of those who went out to fight. He found that 1,135 settlers in all had been placed upon the land in the Transvaal and the Orange Colony, at a cost of £878,000. In addition to that there was a sum of £580,000 expended on land purchased which was as yet unallotted. What he wished to know was how many of those settlers were still there, because he had been informed that in many cases the settlers had not remained. In one case 120 settlers were established at Willow's Park and none of them were there now, whilst in another case out of fifty settlers only six were left. He would like to know how the right hon. Gentleman could reconcile the figures he had given, which totalled up to £1,400,000, and those which appeared in another part of the Blue-book, where it said that
  854
  £2,000,000 had been spent out of the guaranteed loan. What in fact was the true cost. He himself had had considerable experience in dealing with complicated add muddled figures, and from his experience he defied the hon. Gentleman to say that he understood the figures. It could not be done. He asked whether it was the case that the distribution of the Compensation Fund had cost £1,750,000 sterling, and, if so, what was the explanation of this extravagance. Under the Peace Preservation Ordinance, which established pure autocracy in the Transvaal, 600 persons had been removed from the country within the last eighteen months. What was the reason for keeping permanent this Ordinance, which was brought in as a temporary measure and how long was it going to be maintained? Dealing with the financial situation, he said he desired to point out that there had been a complete breakdown of the agreement made between the late Colonial Secretary and divers persons in the Transvaal a year ago. The profit tax was applied in such a way as to yield but a very small proportion of what was expected. The £35,000,000 loan had been duly guaranteed by this country, but we had not yet received the first instalment of the £30,000,000 promised on behalf of the Transvaal towards the war debt. He was not surprised, though he imputed no blame to the Colonial Secretary, and should in all probability have acted in the same way had he been in the right hon. Gentleman's place. It was obvious that a population of 400,000 could not take on their shoulders a burden of £65,000,000 sterling. The Government were perfectly right in not trying to enforce this shop-window agreement it against a population quite unable to meet the obligation. He did not believe there was any chance of our getting a single sovereign of the £30,000,000. He only hoped we should not find ourselves bound to meet the £30,000,000 which we had guaranteed.
  He turned to the annual revenue and expenditure account of the Transvaal and Orange River Colony, and this subject was made more difficult by the fact that there were three separate accounts to be dealt with. There was the Transvaal Revenue Account, the Orange Colony Account, and the

  855
  Intercolonial Budget, and the figures were shuffled fron one account to another in a manner which was most confusing. There had been three stages during the past twelve months of this business. The first was in the summer of the previous year, 1903, when they had speeches from the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, the then Colonial Secretary, drawing pictures of tae most glowing kind of the Transvaal finances, that was just before the issue of the £35,000,000 loan. Then the loan was issued and then came the winter of 1903–4, the winter of our discontent." Lord Milner took a gloomy view, and misery and despair settled over the Transvaal until the Ordinance was passed, when all grief disappeared, and now before a single Chinaman had set his foot in South Africa everything was right again and everybody had the fullest confidence in the finances of the colonies. The annual expenditure account showed some strange miscalculations. The estimate of the profits of the gold tax was £450,000; the reality was £116,000. The estimate of the receipt from railways was £2,150,000; the reality was £1,400,000. There was another curious figure. The gentlemen who made the estimate on which the guaranteed loan was issued forgot altogether the cost of issue. The cost of issue which was not provided for was £378,000. There had been a serious miscalculation in regard to railway works. On railway works on existing lines the cost was greater than was anticipated, and the receipts were less in the past year, the total loss being £668,000. These figures taken together amounted to a very large proportion of the revenue of the Transvaal. There were other miscalculations which he had not time to go into. He did not think the accuracy of what he had said would be disputed. The accounts at the end, however, came out wonderfully square. How was that accounted for? It was difficult to find out from the books, but he thought he could trace something. In the first place there was a saving of £200,000 on £5,000,000 not advanced, and another saving on the constabulary charge which was reduced. The first item of the guaranteed loan they were asked to vote last year was £1,500,000. That was to meet the deficit of the year 1901–2. They were asked to vote that in the
  856
  latter half of 1903. The year for which the money was wanted had been over more than twelve months, and the deficit was not £1,500,000, but only £542,000. The result was that there was a balance of £958,000 which was diverted from the purpose for which it was originally voted by this House and appropriated to this or that in one way or another. If he was wrong he would be very glad to be corrected.
  MR. LYTTELTON: My hon. and learned friend is not quite accurate in saying it was appropriated to purposes not authorised by this House. If he will look at the Act of Parliament he will see that there is power there expressly to devote such portions of money which are appropriated to certain purposes to ether purposes.
  SIR ROBERT REIDsaid he was very much obliged to the Colonial Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman gave his sanction to what he called the diversion. There was a despatch from the Colonial Secretary giving his consent. He was not saying that it was done illegally. He was dealing with the financial aspect of the question. Could anybody conceive that people dealing with finance could have made in July, 1903, such a mistake about the deficit of the year ending June, 1902? The thing was absolutely incredible, and it was not explained in the Blue-book. In connection with the guaranteed loan, the sum of £5,000,000 was provided for new railways. Would the Colonial Secretary be good enough to tell the Committee whether any of that money had been spent on new railways at all? He knew that about £2,000,000 had been spent on material and rolling stock, but he rather thought that there was very little, if any, new railway constructed at all. Of that £5,000,000, £700,000 was diverted from new construction, and applied to what was called capital expenditure. It was not capital expenditure. It was revenue expenditure absolutely. The colony of Natal had paid the sum of £788,000 for the ceding of territory and railway by the Transvaal. He wished to know whether that sum had been used for the purposes of the Transvaal, or was it still in the coffers of that colony? He found from these

  857
  Papers that, quite, apart from the guaranteed loan recently raised, the Transvaal had been borrowing on short loans. He wished to knew the extent to which that had gone on, and the rate of interest paid for the loans. He calculated that of the guaranteed loan of £30,000,000 not more than half had been spent productively. That being the state of things, South Africa threatened to be a gulf into which the treasure of this country would be squandered unless this House interfered. It was time to return to Lord Rosmead's doctrine that you could not govern South Africa without the good will of the Dutch, who were an increasing majority. They must grant representative government, if not complete, at all events substantial. If the war had been a blessing Lord Milner had been indeed blest. He was the chief author of it. In his opinion, that very fact, quite apart from all other reasons, made him a man who was not fit to lay the basis of a true peace. The course he suggested was not free from danger, but it was the lesser of two dangers. If a course of that kind were not adopted he believed that our position in South Africa was nearing its end.
  MR. JOHN STROYANsaid he thought they might be perfectly well satisfied with the speech of the Colonial Secretary. It was a most able speech characterised by full knowledge of a situation in regard to which there was much ignorance and misrepresentation. Some very extraordinary arguments had been brought forward in the course of the debate. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton had referred to certain shares which were originally £1, and which were to-day £17 each. Personally he did not know the shares to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. It would be very hard, however, if in a speculative business like mining those who took all the risks were to be refused the plums which turned up now and again. When the hon. and learned Member for the Dumfries Burghs was speaking he interjected a remark as to the reasons which caused the people of the Transvaal to alter their minds with regard to Chinese labour. The hon. and learned Member resented the inter-
  858
  ruption. He had great respect for the hon. and learned Member, and he should be sorry if he thought he meant more than an ordinary interruption. The people who originally objected to Chinese labour were undoubtedly the working men; they objected to it because they still hoped that there would be an ample supply of Kaffir labour which they had been accustomed to. But they became fully aware after the sitting of the Commission, and from other sources, that that was impossible. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire stated in 1901 that there would be a scarcity of native labour and that in consequence there would not be adequate employment for white men. He thought it had been clearly shown that the regulations under which the Chinese were to be imported were such as would give protection to white working men against undue competition.
  There was just one fallacy he should like to correct, and that was that the white working man was not capable of protecting himself against the capitalists. He had had a long and intimate experience of the working men of the Transvaal, and to say that they were not capable of taking care of themselves was to betray utter ignorance of the qualities of men, many of whom had been bred north of the Tweed. The available Indian coolie was physically unfit, in his opinion, for hard work in the mines and standing the rigours of the winter. They had heard a great deal of the standard wages. They were told that the average wage at the present time was 50s. on the surface, and 60s. underground. That was the high-water mark standard at a time when there was a great demand for native labour and a great scarcity of the article. That was subservient altogether to the great issue in regard to the development of the agriculture of the country. Before the days of gold-mining the native labourer was paid 10s. to 15s., and all found. But when the demand for native labour grew up on the Rand wages rose to 50s. or 60s., which, as he had said, was the high-water mark. This meant that a farmer could not pay the wage, and grow crops profitably. The result was that flour and everything else was imported into the Transvaal, though it ought to be grown

  859
  in the country itself. He knew Kimberley before the days of the amalgamation, and he could state that the mines were worked by black men but there was a very much larger percentage of white men supervising them than was the case in the gold mines. The "boys" had to be carefully watched when they were picking. With regard to the course taken by the British population of the Transvaal in the war he would point out that as a matter of fact these much sneered-at men, the members of the Reform Committee, who were blamed for bringing on the war, went down to Natal, joined the British forces, and did as excellent service as any body of men during the war.
  MR. BOLANDsaid he made no apology for turning from the discussion of Chinese labour in the Transvaal in order to open a subject which during the past four years he had frequently brought to the notice of the House on this Vote and on other occasions. Malta, under English administration, had now become the choicest example of despotic rule. He desired to state frankly that it was the gallant fight Made for the retention of Italian as the language of culture and literature in the island that first compelled his attention. But events had marched rapidly in these four years. The struggle in Malta now was not merely for a language; it was for legitimate freedom as against despotism. Constitutional government there had, at its best, been nugatory; now it simply did not exist. The present Colonial Secretary had been less than a year in office. He had not yet shown an inclination to depart from the mistaken policy of his predecessor. He availed himself of this opportunity, therefore, to expose at their true value the contentions on which that policy was based, and to submit to the right hon. Gentleman the considerations which should lead him to better and more statesmanlike paths.
  Let him first deal briefly with the figures, on which it was contended that the Maltese people preferred English to Italian as the secondary language. And here let him remove a possible misconception. He recognised fully that the home language of the islanders was Maltese, with its 75 per cent. of Arabic words and its 20 per cent. of Italian.
  860
  The point at issue was whether English was to supersede the position held by Italian as the language of culture and literature, and whether this attempted Anglicisation of the people was to be justified by its probable national or commercial results. Hon. Members were aware that the ex-Colonial Secretary based his principal contention on the ground that the parents of the school-going children had asked for English as against Italian. He brushed aside as of no consequence the fact that, election after election, representatives were returned to the Council without contest, and that the retention of Italian was a principal plank in their platform. As to the value to be placed on those schools' returns he should have something to say. In the first place, the census of 1901 disclosed the fact that only about 16,400 children of school age were attending school—in other words, only 36·4 per cent. In the second place, these returns dealt only with Government schools. It was important to note that there were 2,248 attending non-Government schools, children of the class to whom, as he should show, Italian was necessary. In the third place, this system of percentages ignored the natural divisions of the population. He had been at some trouble to investigate the conditions of the thirty districts into which Malta was divided for these school returns, and he hid no hesitation in saying that out of the thirty no less than twenty-two were rural districts in which the Maltese language was, for all practical purposes, the only one used. A glance at the figures of these districts would show that the children rarely attended after the second, or, at most, the third standard. It was calculated that fully 90,000 out of the total population of 180,000 native Maltese lived in these districts. The amount of English that could be learnt by a child whilst attending the first and second standard was almost a negligible quantity, for they had first to be instructed in their own language, the Maltese. To the parents in these twenty-two districts, therefore, the choice of English or Italian was immaterial. But was it immaterial to the teachers? These were Civil servants. The word had gone forth that English was to take the place of Italian in the island. He did not press the matter

  861
  further than that. As a matter of fact, Italian was the more useful as a secondary language to this class, for in their dealings with owners of property they required Italian, in which language receipts were given, and when they emigrated it was more useful than English. Moreover, in legal disputes it was Italian that was necessary.
  Now, as regarded the rest of the population, 32,000 might be said to constitute the upper classes, to whom Italian was essential and English an accomplishment. The great majority of their children were in non-Government schools and had not been taken into account in this policy based on Government school percentages. Then there were about 40,000 of the artisan class whose language was Maltese, but to whom he was prepared to admit English was more useful than Italian by reason of their occasional employment in connection with military and naval works. Finally, there were about 15,000 connected with trade, to whom both languages were useful, Italian in a greater degree than English. To sum up, the contention based on Mr. Magro's percentages was misleading, because non-Government schools were not included; the high average in favour of English as against Italian was obtained by including districts in which half the population lived whose children rarely got beyond the second or third standard in school, and to whom it was therefore immaterial which language they chose, whilst the teachers were deeply interested in their asking for English. A quarter of the remaining population found Italian necessary, the remaining quarter English the more useful. On these facts he should like to observe that neither the Maltese people nor their representatives had opposed the teaching of English. They were in favour of its being taught where it was of value, but they were strongly and rightly opposed to the pushing of the Colonial Office in seeking to supersede the Italian language. That policy was apparent for many years. It culminated in the proclamation of 1899, in which it was laid down that English should be the language of the Courts after fifteen years. It was here that the ex-Colonial Secretary saw that he had gone too far, and withdrew the proclamation after an Amendment to the
  862
  Address was moved in the House in January, 1902. That withdrawal was made, as the House would remember, not as an act of justice to the Maltese, but on the ground that Italy had been offended. Did such a withdrawal satisfy the Maltese? Did it indicate a return to a saner policy? He maintained that the public opinion of Malta had been justified in the view it took of the action of the Colonial Office. These figures were still trotted out and the attempts at Anglicisation continued.
  Before he dealt with the despotic nature of the present Government of Malta he wished to deal with the commercial aspect of this language question. It was beyond contest that the British trade with Malta was very small in comparison with the volume of trade between the island and Italy and other Mediterranean countries. The average import trade of the five years 1897 to 1902 showed that from the United Kingdom and the British colonies together there came only 1E500,000 of imported goods. The foreign imports during the same period showed an average of £8,500,000. Now, for trade with all the Mediterranean countries Italian was a necessary language. A know ledge of English was necessary for dealings with the garrison, the Navy, English visitors, and the small volume of English trade. Let him take another aspect of the case. For a teeming population such as that of Malta, emigration was necessary and healthy, as in the case of all surplus populations. Of the 34,000 Maltese to be found in countries bordering on the Mediterranean, the total in British colonies was 700, of whom 61i1 were in Gibraltar. But in Tunis Regency there were 15,000, in Algeria 5,000. In these Italian, or should he say the Lingua Franca, was undoubtedly more useful than English. But of course the Maltese language itself, with its proporton of 75 per cent of Arabic, was the real passport to success, and the positions occupied by the Maltese in these districts was proof of their capacity. Turkey and Greece absorbed between three and four thousand. There remained Egypt with 6,500 Maltese out of a total of 14,000 British subjects. He had yet to learn that English was the language of that country or that the international Courts were to be superseded. Here again it was the Maltese language

  863
  itself that was of most value to emigrants, and Italian, or the Lingua Franca, that was next in point of usefulness. Now, it was precisely from the rural parts of Malta, embracing half of the entire population, that the bulk of the emigration took place, a fact to be borne in mind when these school percentages were trotted out for Anglicisation purposes.
  He now came to the last count in his indictment. The English Government had endeavoured to thwart the wishes of the Maltese people, as shown in election after dection, by imposing a despotic form of Government. What that meant in South Africa had been shown earlier in the discussion that day. In the course of last year they deprived the Maltese of the Constitution, poor thing as it was in reality, by reason of the Orders in Council, which they had had since 1887. They gave the official members a permanent majority. Seven times since last July there had been general elections in Malta. Not a single seat had been contested. In the whole of Malta they could not find a single man to stand as a representative of their policy. What, then, became of their contention that the English Government, and not the elected members, represented the wishes of the Maltese? The ex-Colonial Minister was accustomed to state that the Maltese took no interest in the elections; that the electorate consisted only of 10,000, and but few exercised their franchise rights. If there was no tariff reformer found to fight a free-trade seat, was that a proof that tariff reform represented the wishes of the people of England? Ordinary people would deduce the contrary conclusion, but possibly the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham hoped to establish his peculiar theory before long. Was the present Colonial Secretary of the same mind with regard to Malta as his predecessor on this point? If not, let him find a Government candidate and test the opinion of Malta. They complained of a small electorate, but had they ever broached the idea of enlarging the franchise? They named official members to act on the Council, knowing full well that they dared not express the least disagreement with the Governor or the Chief Secretary. Was it any wonder that the elected members resigned in a body after each election and refused
  864
  to be parties to a farcical form of government? If they took their seats they would be outvoted on every point by the official members, who had no minds or souls of their own, but must vote as one man. But if the Colonial Office had blundered in its administration of Malta, what was to be said of a Governor who was guilty of a wanton misstatement of an historical fact? Writing to the Colonial Secretary on January 21st, 1904 (page 33 of the latest Malta correspondence), Sir Charles Clarke said—
  "There is nothing in the letter which has not been written and said many times before, including the unfounded statement that the Maltese spontaneously placed themselves under the protection of Great Britain."
  And further on, in the same letter, he sneered at the "so-called representatives." Now this was either a deliberate or an ignorant attempt to dispose of an historical fact. He should not appeal to history. He merely referred lion. Members to the speech of the ex-Colonial Secretary on 28th January, 1902, when he withdrew his ill-advised Proclamation. At page 1186, vol. 101 of Hansard, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham said—
  "They (the Maltese) are proud of the fact that they were incorporated in the British Empire at their own request and not by conquest."
  And with greater emphasis he restated the facts at page 1189—
  "What are the terms, then, which the Maltese made with Great Britain when they voluntarily entered the British Empire? They were not terms of surrender, it is perfectly true; we did not conquer the Maltese, we were fighting side by side with them, but we were never fighting against them. It was not a conquest, it was a cession by the representative authorities of the Maltese."
  And yet the Governor now spoke of—
  "The unfounded statement that the Maltese spontaneously placed themselves under the protection of Great Britain."
  That expression had deeply wounded a high-spirited arid sensitive people. Had the Colonial Secretary repaired that insult yet? If not, he invited him to do so that night. If this had happened in Australia or Canada he should not give much for that Governor's further tenure of office. But the Colonial Secretary had to do more that night. In reply to a

  865
  Question of his on 31st May, he stated that—
  "The run upon the savings bank in Malta which was met without any difficulty whatever by the Government was not due to the cause suggested by the hon. Member, but to articles in the local Press deliberately calculated to have that effect."
  He would restate the facts briefly. The balance-sheet for the preceding eleven months was issued on the 29th February. It was there stated that the investments in Imperial and Colonial Funds amounted to £709,999. The only reserve funds on the other side of the account amounted in all to close on £24,000. Malta, the national paper, pointed out that sufficient allowance was not made for depreciation. This was confirmed in a reply to a subsequent Question put by him to the Colonial Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that the market value of these securities on that day was less by over £59,000. Moreover, these investments were placed at their cost price and not even at their nominal value, which he admitted was less by £27,000. To meet this depreciation of £59,000 there were only reserve funds amounting to £24,000. By taking these investments at their cost price the balance-sheet was made to show a surplus of £47,000 to be carried down to the Treasury account. If ever there were a balance-sheet that called for criticism, it was this. Remember this was a despotic Government. There were no representatives of the people to challenge the figures at a Council meeting, and he contended that the Press only did its duty in calling attention to a faulty balance-sheet. Subsequent replies, with which bon. Members were familiar, had not improved the position of the Colonial Secretary, acting of course on information received from Maltese official sources. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the balance-sheet was accompanied by other statements, and that on examination it would be found that the Government of Malta had to its credit the additional sum of nearly £68,000. He was still convinced that the arithmetical calculations of the right hon. Gentleman's advisers were wrong, for, in arriving at this total, allowance was not made for items of expenditure and advances amounting to over £25,000. But, in any case, sufficient confirmation of the justice of the Press criticisms was found in the fact that the Council had within the last
  866
  few weeks placed an additional sum of £20,000 to the reserve fund. He only cited this matter as a proof of the despotism now rampant in Malta. Civil rights were being entirely superseded in the interest of naval and military control. Public meetings were only allowed to be held at a considerable distance from the principal centres of population. It was just as if the English Government decreed that meetings of the citizens of London should be held on Ealing Common and not in Hyde Park. If he were an English Member of that House, he would say, what was the value of Malta to England as a naval station if they deliberately estranged the people? Yet that was what their policy would eventuate in. Why not face the facts baldly? Let them give up their attempted policy of Anglicisation in the matter of the language question; give the people reasonable control of their local affairs; separate, as they could very well do, Imperial from local interests, and they would observe, in spirit as in the letter, that voluntary cession by which a small but high-spirited people came into the Empire.
  MAJOR SEELYsaid he trusted the Committee would pardon him if he called attention for a few minutes to the question raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Dumfries. He believed it to be true that since the war ended between £20,000,000 and £30,000,000 had been expended by this country in South Africa. The point which he asked the Committee to consider was whether we were really getting the kind of country we wanted in South Africa in return for this immense expenditure that was now going on, and which for a great part must be continued. He would say, with great respect, that we were not building up such a State there as we should wish to see established, at any rate in some important particulars. It seemed to him that we should do four things. The first was that we must be generous—it was a small matter financially, though a great matter for the future of the country—in the matter of repayment of the amounts due for damage done to property. He thought we should do wisely if we altogether abandoned the rule refereed to by the hon. and learned Member for

  867
  Dumfries in regard to military receipts, namely, that the fact of having been on commando should be any bar to recovery of money. The second was that we must realise, which we were not doing, that we did not hold the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony in the remotest degree by the actual military force that we kept there. It was altogether to misunderstand the facts to think that we held those colonies by the garrison at present there. How far it might be necessary on account of native troubles, and how far those native troubles might be accentuated by the proposal to introduce an alien race who would undercut the wages of the natives, he did not know; but that this garrison should be maintained for the purpose of keeping the Boers in order was ridiculous. He knew the Boers well, and he was certain that they were now the last people in the world to misunderstand the determination of this country; a garrison of 25,000 men more or less had no real bearing on possible military operations—another war would again demand from a quarter to a third of a million of men, and 20,000 men more or less were of comparatively little moment in this matter. It was as well to state these facts frankly.
  The third thing was that we must do nothing in the country which was not consonant with the highest ideas of British justice. That we were not doing, because there could be no doubt that we were actually running counter not only to the principles of British justice, but to the principles of British law. So much so that, in the endeavour to transport these Chinese labourers into the Transvaal, it had been necessary, unless he had been misinformed, for the Government of Natal to pass special legislation to enable them to get the semi-slaves—frankly he called them so—for that was what they were in the eye of the law—into the neighbouring colony. The power to deprive them of their liberty was not inherent in the colony of Natal, because it was not inherent either by the common law of England, or by the Roman-Dutch law which prevailed in Natal and the other colonies in South Africa. The contract which the Chinaman voluntary signed could not be enforced in any English-speaking colony. That he asserted with out fear of contradiction. And if that were so, surely it was not an undue straining of language to say that they were
  868
  introducing semi-slavery, or modified liberty—he did not care which it was called—into this new country. And when they did that, they did a thing which was, which must be wrong, and which no necessity could possible excuse. If there was a shortage of labour and if white men could not work the mines entirely, which was, of course, more or less true, the truth being that while some mines could be worked by white labour only, others could not, even so no amount of necessity could justify our departing from the high principles which had been laid down by the English law by countless decisions, and which had never been called in question until this legislation had been sanctioned. They had introduced a power by which a man might part with his liberty, which the English common law and the Roman-Dutch law did not permit. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham himself confessed that the Indian Government would not permit their inhabitants to subject themselves to the terms of this Ordinance and deprive themselves of the rights which were consonant with British citizenship. Even the financial necessity seemed to have disappeared since the Ordinance had been passed.
  One other thing they must do in addition to those he had already stated. They must keep faith; they must do that which they had promised to perform. Solemnly, on behalf of this country, as the responsible Minister, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had laid it down as a principle that the introduction of Asiatic labour should not be sanctioned until the great majority—these were his actual words—of the inhabitants of both States had been clearly ascertained to be in favour of such importations. Now, had the views of the great majority of the inhabitants of both States been ascertained on the point? They did not know what the Englishmen in the Transvaal thought about it. That must remain uncertain. A petition had undoubtedly been promoted by private individuals. Whether it was entirely bona fide was immaterial; but it had not been scrutinised, and was therefore not serious evidence. He himself believed, from information which came to him, that the majority of the English inhabitants

  869
  of the two States were opposed to this importation of Chinese labour. But what about the opinion of the other half of the white people in the two States, the Dutchmen, to whom the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham appealed with so much force and effect when he was in South Africa? They were told that in these tar States there were fourteen Dutchmen to ten Englishmen, and there could be no doubt as to what the opinion of the Dutchmen was. On 23rd May a Boer Congress assembled which was attended by 168 duly elected delegates. At mat Congress a resolution was passed declaring that the importation of Chinese labour was an evil thing for the country, and not by one single vote was that resolution called in question. Where was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham's pledge? Where was England's honour? Dragged in the mud! He should like to know what the answer of the right hon. Gentleman was to that. The resolution passed by that Congress was a convincing proof that the great majority of the people in the two States were against the introduction of Chinese labour. He urged the Committee at this eleventh hour to reconsider the decision they had come to. It was a sad thing to have broken one's pledged word, but it would be a better thing to acknowledge the mistake and do the best they could to repair the damage. Everybody in that House would welcome the statement of the Colonial Secretary that he proposed to give a measure of representative government to the Transvaal. To give representative government before it was demanded as a right was a wise and politic thing to do. But they should no longer remain under this slur. They should take a vote of the people of the Transvaal and fulfil the pledge given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. He would respectfully ask the right hon. Gentleman to urge upon the Government to take that vote. It could be done, and would remove all his hostility to the action of the Transvaal Government, except the semi-slavery portion of the Chinese Ordinance. Until that vote was taken, it was idle for anyone to suppose that tins matter would be allowed to drop. It was a stain upon
  870
  our honour, and as such must be fought until it was removed.
  MR. LYTTELTONsaid the hon. Member had quoted one statement made by his right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham but not another. In a subsequent statement his right hon. friend pledged himself to treat the inhabitants of these two colonies for all purposes as self-governing colonies. They had been so treated. The hon. Member for Camberwell the other day was unable to grasp the distinction between giving a colony self-government and treating a colony as if it had it.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid the Colonial Secretary had received a telegram from Australia and his answer implied that the Transvaal was to be treated as a self-governing colony.
  MR. LYTTELTON: The hon. Member is repeating the fallacy that was explained the other day. We may have a system of government that is not representative and we may elect to treat a colony so constituted as if it were a self-governing colony. The Transvaal is being treated a a self-governing colony at the present time.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: An elaborate piece of humbug. [MINISTERIAL cries of Order!"]
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I rise to a point of order. I heard the junior Member for Oldham say "It is humbug." I ask you, Mr. Chairman, whether that is a Parliamentary expression?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Oldham is constantly interrupting, and I was about to ask him to desist. I cannot say that the word "humbug" is un-Parliamentary, but I would ask the hon. Member for Oldham to allow somebody else to speak besides himself.
  MR. WINSTON WINSTON CHURCHILL: Of course I bow to your ruling, I should like to say I did not intend the word "humbug" to have personal application to the Colonial Secretary, but only to be a political criticism upon the present status which is attributed to the Transvaal Government.
  THE CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member would reserve his remarks for his speech it would be much more desirable than keeping up a running comment.
  MR. LYTTELTON: The endeavour has been made to follow the principle laid down by the late Colonial Secretary and to treat the Transvaal as a self-governing colony, adopting the prevailing opinion in matters other than those of Imperial concern. We have formed the best Government, and nobody denies that it is the best Government we can get for the time being, and we have endeavoured to the best of our ability to obtain the opinion of the country from that Government. If that Government expresses by an enormous majority a certain view, we must abide by that decision unless we desire to act against the wishes of the colony. That was the principle laid down by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, and that is the principle which the Government have followed. That is the principle which we believe in, and it is the principle which the Government are willing to put into operation by granting representative government next year, in which case it would be amply competent for the country, if we are wrong upon this matter, to reverse the decision we have come to. The hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down
  872
  urged that we should be generous to the Boers, and I am not disposed to disagree with him in that aspiration; but what I venture to say is—and I will fortify it by a statement which I do not think can be denied— that we have been really generous towards the Boers in this matter. We have heard from gentlemen who sit here and at home, and who enjoy a comparatively easy life, bitter criticism and bitter reflections upon Lord Milner and those who are assisting him the Government of the Transvaal. Those who criticise Lord Milner and his assistants in administration should remember the difficulties. The war has reduced the country in parts to a wilderness. Think what the Government, few in number, had to do. They had to get 200,000 men out of the country and bring about the same number in. The over-sea prisoners had to be restored, they were placed in camps, they had to be restored to their families and their farms, often a long distance away. In many cases only ox-wagons could be used for transport, and the journey occupied three weeks. Material for houses, rations, stores, stock, seeds, implements for agriculture had to be supplied in the face of prodigious difficulties. Very few mules and oxen were left, and such as remained were in poor condition and fell victims to diseases communion in the country.
  MAJOR SEELYsaid he had only alluded to the differentiation between those on commando. He did not dispute that the Government had displayed the greatest generosity.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I am only trying to explain what has been done. The

  873
  difficulties were increased by a drought, and the work of repatriation of the Boers was one of enormous physical difficulty. The greatest possible energy was displayed, and no doubt it was accompanied with lavish expenditure, for the lives of men were at stake. Ready and lavish was the expenditure, and it is idle to blame men who were confronted by a gigantic task—it is idle to criticise over-minutely the expenditure they thought necessary. It has been necessary for Lord Milner to create local government. Twice the number of children are now being educated in these colonies than has ever been educated before. He had to consider such complicated questions as the Gold Law and the Diamond Law. The native laws had to be modified, I might almost say to be repassed. The legal system had to be reconstituted. The reparation and reconstruction of railways had to be undertaken. Without further elaboration this is enough to show that a huge effort has been made and that the replacing of so large a portion of the population in their homes within nine months of a tremendous war is a most wonderful performance. This country has shown unparalleled generosity in its treatment of a conquered people. Besides the free gift of £3,000,000, £5,800,000 has been expended out of the guaranteed loan for repatriation purposes. When it is pointed out that the whole of the loan has not been devoted to the purposes of development I answer that such parts of it as have been diverted to the purposes of charity have been rightly diverted. £2,000,000 has been given as compensation to British subjects, to foreigners, and to natives; £2,000,000 as a free gift to the protected burghers; £2,500,000 has been spent in honouring requisition receipts. I may safely chal-
  874
  lenge any Member of the Opposition to say whether he can produce from any country an instance of an expenditure of £250,000,000 on war being followed by an expenditure of £14,500,000 in the interest of those with whom there has been war.
  My hon. and learned friend has made certain commentaries on the financial situation. My hon. and learned friend's position, as I understand it, is that this conquered country is not fit to stand alone, and that we are practically obliged to finance it, and have financed it to the extent of £21,000,000. The hon. and learned Gentleman's object is to show that the expenses paid in the past are likely to be recurrent, and the equilibrium obtained between revenue and expenditure is illusory. In the Civil Service Estimates of 1903 there is an item of £17,305,000 in respect of various sums paid to the Transvaal. Of that sum, £6,000,000 has been repaid by the Transvaal, £4,500,000 has been paid for the South African Constabulary, which really forms part of the war expenses, and £1,800,000 has been paid for the railways while they were being worked for military purposes. These items make a total of about £12,500,000, all for war purposes, £6,000,000 of which has been repaid. The remainder is made up of £3,000,000 due to the burghers under the treaty, and £2,000,000 for other purposes under the treaty. I contend it is absolutely impossible for my hon. and learned friend to show that any item is likely to be recurrent. Comments have been made upon the miscalculations alleged to have been made in the Estimates, but, as a matter of fact, the revenue of the Transvaal has been estimated almost absolutely correctly. I entirely differ with the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean in

  875
  regard to the constabulary. I can assure him that from the first it has been said by Lord Milner that 6,000 men were necessary for the constabulary, and that those numbers would be reduced as time went on. That has been done. Economy has been exercised, with the result that the Transvaal has obtained a very substantial sum of about £800,000 and the Orange River Colony has a surplus of nearly £200,000. The whole of the land settlement organisation has been placed on a very much reduced basis.
  With regard to the Intercolonial Council, I may say that it is true that the estimate of the return of the railways was very much greater than the amount realised. That is due to a miscalculation regarding the effect of a very large reduction of rates, the benefit of which the country has had. It was estimated that there would be only a loss of £500,000, and the actual loss was £1,000,000. There was also a serious miscalculation as to the expenditure upon certain lines. The result is that, instead of equilibrium as between the expenditure placed upon the Inter-colonial Council and the revenue which is appropriated to it, there is a considerable deficit. Reference has been made to the tossing about of figures. The only tossing about of figures has been that any deficit in the Intercolonial Council figures has to be made good by the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies. They have proved adequate to the task. It is true that at one time last year things looked much darker than they have looked since. As to the position of these two colonies, they have undertaken to make a contribution of £30,000,000, the first £10,000,000 of which was underwritten by financial houses, with the stipulation
  876
  that the issue should not be made under unfavourable financial conditions. We have never yet been in a position in which the terms of that bargain could be fulfilled. If you enter into an undertaking you must of course stick to the terms upon which it is made. It is like any other contract, and you cannot enforce it until the conditions under which it was made have been fulfilled.
  MR. LOUGH: We have fulfilled our part of the bargain but the other part has not been fulfilled.
  MR. LYTTELTON: The hon. Member has been misinformed. I agree that that was all part of one transaction, but it was part of the bargain that the financial condition of the country and the market should be favourable. We have not, since the undertaking was entered into, been in that position, and therefore we could not call upon the underwriters to fulfil their bargain. Though the Orange River Colony and the Transvaal are able to pay their way, there is still no surplus available to meet the interest on the £30,000,000. Alluding to some of the criticisms that have been made, it is an error to suppose that money has been charged to capital account which ought to have been charged to revenue account, for the sum which has been spent in relaying the railway lines, in erecting new railway buildings, and purchasing new railway stock, is properly chargeable to capital account and not to revenue account. The sum of £900,000 which has been drawn from the balance has been properly applied just in the same way as other items of expenditure, and I venture to say that that is not an item of expenditure which we may expect to recur. The hon. Member is

  877
  not correct in saying that there has been any borrowing on short loans. It was anticipated that that might be necessary but it was found unnecessary to have a short loan.
  With regard to Malta, that is a chose jugée, as my predecessor has convinced the House. ["No."] It was shown by my right hon. friend that, so far from there being any real repugnance on the part of the population of the island to learn English, from 90 to 95 per cent. elected to learn English instead of Italian. With regard to the figures which the hon. Member has quoted I am afraid that it would be perfectly useless for me to go into them now. If these Estimates had come on next week instead of this week, as was intended, a despatch on this subject which is now on the way might have reached me. It has been brought to my notice that one of the Crown Agents is a director of the London Assurance Company and has occupied that position for a considerable time. I believe absolutely that, as far as the tenure of that office by the gentleman in question is concerned, nothing but good has resulted to the public service. Sir Ernest Blake accepted the directorship in accordance with precedent, and his association with the company has been absolutely honourable and worthy and has really inured to the benefit of the public service. But now that the matter has been called in question I am unable to sanction the tenure of that appointment on the part of a gentleman who, though not a civil servant, has in many respects more important duties than civil servants have to discharge.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the Colonial Secretary had treated the contribution promised by the
  878
  mining gentlemen in the Transvaal as if it were a voluntary offer on their part. On the contrary, it was part of an honourable bargain they entered into with this country in consideration of something which we promised.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I said it was a binding contract.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid it was on the basis of that contract that this country guaranteed the £35,000,000. The right hon. Gentleman must have forgotten what his predecessor said on 6th May, 1903, when he issued that very glowing prospectus to the British public upon the strength of which the £35,000,000 were found. The right hon. Gentleman said—
  "These arrangements for contribution are connected with and conditional upon the loan which I am now recommending."
  This country had performed its part of the condition, and he would like to knew whether the gentlemen in the Transvaal were going to perform their part. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think there was something ill-natured in criticising these financial miscalculations in South Africa. But his predecessor, when money was wanted, went to the British public with a glowing account—
  "One of our difficulties has been how to deal with the extraordinary growth of revenue which we have to chronicle, and which comes upon us as a constant surprise month by month. I must warn the House, "he added," that the estimates of the Transvaal are perpetually changing. Every month we get a new estimate, and it is always a better one than the last."
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Hear, hear.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: And so it was until the £35,000,000 were subscribed. These estimates from the Transvaal were

  879
  still changing, but they were changing for the worse. It was of that that the Opposition complained. Those gentlemen came to the British public and said, "We are prospering and thriving and we have so much money that we really do not like to tell you how much we have got for fear you might think we were humbugging you." But immediately they got this loan they turned round and said, "Things have changed and they have got very much worse. We cannot pay the interest and we cannot perform our part of the bargain." He thought under those conditions that they had a perfect right to complain. This kind of thing was, unfortunately, what they had experienced from the Transvaal from the very beginning. They were frequently told that these things were done upon the statements of men of the greatest integrity and unimpeachable honour in South Africa, and then some six months afterwards they found that the whole thing had been absolutely falsified. It was all very well to make such statements in regard to Chinese labour. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Transvaal was not self-governing, but his complaint was that the Colonial Secretary treated it as if it were self-governing. The ex-Colonial Secretary gave the House a pledge with regard to Chinese labour, and that was the difficulty they had got into. Those pledges were given to the House upon facts obtained from gentlemen in South Africa, and when it turned out that those facts were not correct then the Government were guilty of a breach of faith owing to having trusted the statements of gentlemen in South Africa. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, while Colonial Secretary, dealing with the question of imported labour, said to the House—
  880
  "Remember chat the vast majority of the people of South Africa are opposed both to forced and Asiatic labour."
  Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to say—
  "So long as that condition obtains the Government are not going to force either compulsory or Asiatic labour upon them."
  That was a distinct pledge on the part of the right hon. Gentleman that so long as the vast majority of the people of South Africa were against Asiatic labour it should not be forced upon them. Did any one contend that the vast majority of the people of South Africa were not against Asiatic labour? [MINISTERIAL cries of "Yes."] The Cape Parliament had passed a unanimous Resolution against it. No one could deny that the Orange River Colony was against it. The only contention was that there was a majority in its favour in the Transvaal, but there was no proof of that. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, who had given this pledge on behalf of the Government, was now in the position of seeing his successor in office breaking it. The right hon. Gentleman, who, with Lord Milner, was responsible for the condition of South Africa, who had given the country a pledge that the war was in the interest of the white races in South Africa, was personally bound to see that that pledge was redeemed. The hon. Member for Perthshire said that the white man in the Transvaal was intelligent and could look after himself. Perfectly true, and that was the reason why Chinese labour was to he substituted for white labour for fear trade unions should be established.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham said that all these conditions with regard to Chinese labour were questions entirely for the

  881
  Chinese themselves. Not at all. These contracts were entered into in the name of the Sovereign of this country, and he thought it was the interest of every man in the country to see that no con-act was entered into in the name of the representative of this Empire which was discreditable and dishonourable in itself. These conditions were of that character. But the right hon. Gentleman said that they were explained to the Chinese. Were they? He had a letter with him which demanded explanation from the Colonial Secretary. It was written to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton by a missionary very well known. [A laugh.] Hon. Members laughed at missionaries, but they were very willing to quote missionaries during the war. This letter was from a missionary named the Rev. Arnold Forster who stood very well with the Wesleyan Methodists London Mission. In it he called attention to the translation given in the North China Herald of the contract which was being presented to the Chinese emigrants to the Transvaal to sign. He said that in quite a number of particulars ale Chinese document differed materially from the conditions announced by His Majesty's Government in Parliament as the conditions by which the labourers were to be bound, and he submitted that every one induced to emigrate to the Transvaal on the strength of that information given in that document would be acting almost entirely in the dark in regard to the limitations of his freedom and his liability to penalties for infringing them. Nothing was said of the right of the labourer to be accompanied by his wife and children. This was a serious charge brought by a responsible gentleman on the spot as to whom the directors of the mission
  882
  said there was no man in the China Mission who more thoroughly deserved their sympathy and confidence. If it was true, this was a grave charge of fraud against somebody. It was the business of the Government to have seen that a proper translation of the contract was given to these men.
  At any rate, he was glad that this matter had once more been brought forward, were it only that it had given the right hon. Member for West Birmingham an opportunity to nail the yellow flag to the mast of protection. A certain amount of credit was taken in the country by tariff reformers for the fact that the late Colonial Secretary was against Chinese labour. They were told that they must not attach the stigma of Chinese labour to him. He had nothing to do with it. He got away when all the unpleasant consequences came on. He left them to his successors—the payment of interest, Chinese labour, deficits, and all these troubles. The Colonial Secretary said they had spent millions of money for rebuilding. Rebuilding what? The right hon. Member for West Birmingham said in the House there were only 600 farms destroyed. Why should all these millions be spent on rebuilding 600 farms? This was a horrible mess from beginning to end, and the two Gentlemen primarily responsible for it were the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham and Lord Milner. From time to time the right hon. Gentleman had made these glowing statements about this land of gold and diamonds, with plenty of money coming in, and with increasing estimates. That was the sort of statement he was making now about trade matters.

  883
  He trusted that the people would begin to put together these estimates which had been made from time to time by the right hon. Gentleman on the authority of some one. All these estimates had been falsified, and it was because they had landed the country in this great mess that he moved a reduction of the Vote by £100.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum not exceeding £27,650, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Lloyd-Georye.)
  MR. CHAPLINsaid that the Transvaal had ceased to be as productive as it had been because of the shortness of labour. This rendered the importation of Chinese labour necessary. The pledges with regard to white labour had not been fulfilled because of the obstruction of hon. Members opposite. When Chinese labour had been established in the country a demand would be created for additional white labour. Charges had been made against his right hon. friend with regard to the non-fulfilment of the conditions about the wives and children of the Chinese labourers. He hid heard a good many statements in his time from the opposite side of the He use which required verification. There was the case of—
  And, it being Midnight the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  COUNTY OF SUFFOLK (RE-COMMITTED) BILL [NOT AMENDED.]
  Considered in Committee; Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

  UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1:—
  Committee report, Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  WILD BIRDS PROTECTION ACTS AMENDMENT (Sr. KILDA) BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported without Amendment; Bill read the third time, and passed.

  THE SEIZURE OF THE "MALACCA."
  On the Quest ion that the House do now adjourn,
  SIR JOHN BRUNNERasked the First Lord of the Treasury if he could give the House any further information about the "Malacca."
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir. I have seen a rumour in the evening papers, but we have not confirmation of it.
  Adjourned at ten minutes after Twelve o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Surrey Commercial Dock Bill. Reported, with Amendments.
Tottenham Improvement Bill. Read3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
London United Tramways Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
Swindon Corporation Bill. Reported, with Amendments.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill. Read 3a (according to order) with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill. Read 3a, (according to order, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  TRADE REPORTS—I. ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 3225. Sweden (Gothenburg).
  No. 3226. France (Algeria).
  No. 3227. China (Wuchow).

  II. MISCELLANEOUS SERIES.
  No. 615. Germany (Special Technical Schools for the Ceramic Industries).
  No. 616. Fishing trade of the Weser seaports.

  ARMY.
  (Extensions of Service.) Statement showing the extensions of service, since 1st April, 1904, of men enlisted for three years with the colours (rank and file only) to seven and eight years respectively.
  (Special Pensions.) Return, for the year ended the 31st March, 1904, of pensions specially granted under Articles 730, 1173A, and 1207 of the Army Pay Warrant.

  PHYSICAL DETERIORATION.
  Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Vol. I. Report and appendix.
  CENSUS (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  General Report, with appendices, 1901.
  QUEEN'S COLLEGE, CORK.
  Annual Report of the President for the Session 1903–1904.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1887(EVICTION NOTICES).
  Return of the number of eviction notices filed during the quarter ended 30th June, 1904.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  POST OFFICE (FOREIGN AND COLONIAL PARCEL POST) STATUTORY RULES AND ORDERS, 1904. No. 1077.
  Foreign and Colonial Parcel Post Amendment (No. 10) Warrant, 1904, dated 22nd June, 1904. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
NEW BILL.
  POOR LAW AUTHORITIES (TRANSFER OF PROPERTY) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to make provision for the transfer of property and other matters consequent upon the dissolution of districts and poor law unions or the addition of one poor law union to another, was presented by the Earl Waldegrave (for the Lord Kenyon); Read 1a; to be printed; and to be Read 2a on Tuesday next. (No. 154.)
  REGISTRATION OF CLUBS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Amendments reported (according to order); and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
  PUBLIC HEALTH BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  RAILWAYS (PRIVATE SIDINGS) BILL.
  Amendment reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

  SAVINGS BANKS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3:—
  Drafting Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 4:—
  Drafting Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
  Clause 7:—
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of SALISBURY) explained that this clause enabled a limited number of trustees to sign documents on behalf of the whole body. As the clause was at present drawn, two trustees were held to be sufficient, but it had been thought by many persons that greater security would be given if "four" were inserted instead of "two." He therefore moved this.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 4, line 3, to leave out the word 'two' and insert the word 'four.'"—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 8 agreed to.
  Clause 9:—
  Drafting Amendments agreed to.
  Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 10 and 11 agreed to.
  Clause 12:—
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY said that the object of this Amendment was to include India within the purview of the Bill.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 5, line 24, to leave out the words foreign or colonial,' and in line 25, after the word 'authority' to insert the words 'in any British Possession or foreign country.'"—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Drafting Amendments agreed to.
  Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 13 agreed to.
  Clause 14:—
  Drafting Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 14. as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to; and Bill reported with Amendments to the House.
  The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 155.)

  REORGANISATION OF THE ARMY.
  LORD BURGHCLERE: My Lords, I rise to call attention to the Memorandum of the Secretary of State for War with regard to the reorganisation of the Army, and, if necessary, to move for further Papers on the subject. No one in this House is more conscious than I am that in the remarks which I shall venture to address to you with regard to this Memorandum I shall require the fullest indulgence which your Lordships can give me; but, at the same time, I am equally certain that the subject of this Memorandum, the new Army scheme as put forward by the Secretary of State, is a matter which requires no apology whatever for bringing forward in your Lordships' House. It is a subject of vital interest to the nation at large, and as there seems no indication that His Majesty's Government proposes themselves to make a statement on the subject in this House, or to draw our

  681
  attention to it, it is only natural that at this waning period of the session we should take the first opportunity that presents itself in order to bring the subject under your Lordships' attention, and to obtain some further elucidation from His Majesty's Government.
  In this Memorandum we are invited by the Secretary of State to approach this question outside the arena of Party discussion, and the Secretary of State shows in his Memorandum that if we do not do so there is not much chance of his scheme being a success. I suppose that the Secretary of State means by "outside the arena of Party discussion," that we should put it, as it is called, above Party. That is an ideal to which for my part I am very sympathetic in regard to matters of such high national import as the Navy and Army—I put them in their historical precedence—but, at this, same time, political strife and political Party feeling is the very breath of our Parliamentary nostrils, and it is difficult for us when a subject is brought forward by the Government of the day to entirely eliminate from our discussion of it that feeling which is so common to both of the great Parties of the State. But if His Majesty's Government really wish to take us into their confidence and to ask us to assist them, as it were, in the discussion of this scheme of national import, I think it follows as a matter of course that His Majesty's Government should extend to us also their fullest confidence in the matter, that they should lay before us a definite scheme on which they have come to a final opinion, and not ask us to go into council and discuss with them matters on which they themselves, as far as I can see, have not finally arrived at a determination.
  Before I venture to criticise in any detail the Memorandum of the Secretary of State for War, I would ask to be allowed, in the first place, to point to several matters in it which are on this side of the House believed to be in the right direction, and for which we have a considerable sympathy. In the first place, I should like to congratulate the Secretary of State on having once and for all exploded the notion that a vast Army
  682
  on the Continental model is necessary for I the defence of this country. I venture to congratulate His Majesty's Government that they have at last arrived at the conclusion that it is not necessary to have a great number of Army Corps, millions of men, and all the paraphernalia of a vast Continental Army in order to defend frontiers which do not exist, or to repulse vast bodies of invaders who cannot possibly land on our shores. I am delighted to find that His Majesty's Government have at last come the conclusion that a huge Army on this Continental method is a proposition which our insular position does not demand from us as a necessity, and which our financial position forbids us as a luxury.
  In the second place, I wish to congratulate His Majesty's Government and the Secretary of State on their desire in the direction of economy. on their recognition that economy is necessary in our national expenditure, and that, if we are to economise, the War Office is one of the great spending Departments in which economies can rightly and properly be made. I am sure your Lordships will agree that vast as are the resources of this great country, and great as is our financial position, yet with this enormous burden of expenditure which, year after year, is increasing upon our shoulders, the time must arrive when there will be a limit to that expenditure. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that economy should be effected in some direction or another, and I am glad to put upon record that His Majesty's Government have to-day considered the Army and the War Office as departments in which economy may be justly exercised. That is a proposition which we accept on this side of the House, and I am sure that successive Governments will not forget it when they come into office.
  I am one of those who fully recognise that the Army and the Navy are our national insurances against national disaster, and that great as may be the burden of taxation that may fall upon our shoulders in order to keep these insurances in proper state, yet at the same time the burden of disaster which might fall upon us in the event of defeat would

  683
  be even greater than the burden of taxation we now have to bear if that taxation is put upon the proper shoulders. I recognise that in the War Office, as in every great Department, inefficiency has in the past spelt waste and extravagance, and that efficiency, which is what, I suppose, the Secretary of State aims at by this scheme, may in the future spell economy without any danger to the State. I have not finished my list of congratulations yet. I wish also to congratulate the Secretary of State on having definitely, and, as I believe, for all time, laid the bogey of compulsory service in our Army in this country. That is a spectre of which we have seen a good deal in the country of late, and.I think occasionally it has flitted somewhat fitfully through your Lordships' Chamber; but I think we may now take it for granted, after this statement of the Government, that once and for all the system of compulsory service, and, possibly, the system of the Ballot Act, has been done away with as regards this country for all time.
  I am sure we all have great sympathy with the doctrine that every able-bodied citizen of a certain age should be called upon to defend his country against those who invade it; but, at the same time, I think that the history of this country shows that, while our people are prepared to carry out that doctrine, they wish that the service should be a voluntary one and not a compulsory one. I remember only the other day hearing my noble friend Lord Wemyss, in a debate which took place in this House, tell us, wishing to show that the Ballot Act was much easier for the people than conscription, that conscription is like shooting people down wholesale whilst the Ballot Act is only decimating them. If that is the best case that can be made out for compulsory service by those who support it, then I do not think it will commend itself to the country.
  But there is one overwhelming reason why compulsory service is not fitting to this country, and that is the limited size of our Army. On the Continent conscription means that every citizen has to pass through the army, but in this country, if I understand the well-meaning efforts of my friends who are in favour of conscrip-
  684
  tion, they say that our recruiting system has broken down—they may be right—that we therefore want to supplement the present recruiting system by a body of people who will reinforce our regiments, and that as they do not come voluntarily we must get them compulsorily. But that is not conscription. You cannot pick out a certain number of men and say they shall join. That is the press gang, not conscription. Conscription means that every man in the country must serve, and then it follows that the expense that would be entailed would raise the cost of the Army to about three times its present cost. We have gratefully to acknowledge that His Majesty's Government have once and for all put an end to that bogey, and we need not fear for the future that recourse will be had to it.
  I now come to the Memorandum of the Secretary of State, which, in my humble opinion, is founded upon one doctrine—a doctrine with which we, on this side, I believe, have the completest sympathy. I refer to what it called the theory of the "blue water school." I need not explain to your Lordships what the theory of the blue water school really is. What it comes to is this, that the supremacy of our Fleet renders it only necessary for us to maintain an Army here to protect us against accidental raids. It is not necessary to maintain a huge Army, because invasion in force is impossible under modern conditions. I think there is a good deal to be said for that. Personally I should be very sorry to be on board an enemy's flotilla, anchored off the coast of England. With our present system of destroyers in the channel, our present torpedo system, and our submarine boats, I do not think that there can be any doubt what would happen to such a flotilla.
  The adoption of the theory of the blue water school is the absolute bed-rock foundation of the whole system of the Secretary of State for War. For my part I welcome it, but I am bound to say that it is a momentous decision. It is the first time, I believe, that any Government bas given its official sanction to the doctrine of the blue water school. It is a momentous decision, and it must have in the future

  685
  very far-reaching effects. Incidentally, the adoption of that theory will bring about a co-ordination between the two great Departments—the War Office on the one hand, and the Admiralty on the other. The man in the street has for a long time past thought, rightly or wrongly, and, I believe, rightly, that with regard to the defence of these islands, the schemes of the War Office and the Admiralty have practically been in water-tight compartments, one of them, the Admiralty, saying we can rest for the defence of these shores on the Navy, and the other, the War Office, saying that we cannot rest on the Navy but must have a huge Army. I think that incidentally the adoption of the theory of the blue water school has brought about a very great benefit both in the matter of the efficiency of the public service and the economy of our national expenditure.
  The theory of the blue water school is the bed-rock principle, in my humble opinion, upon which this scheme is founded. What does the Secretary of State propose? He is able, by adopting this theory, to propose a reduction of what he calls an enormous Army. He is able to propose that we should have two smaller efficient armies, and he is able to propose for the first time a great economy of expenditure owing to the reduction in the number of men. He is going, as I understand it, to create two systems—one for general service abroad and one which he calls a territorial Army at home. There are many, I know, who wish to address your Lordships on this subject to-night who will speak with greater authority than myself, and I will, therefore, confine the few remarks that I still have to make to the territorial Army which the Secretary of State proposes to create, and to the infantry of that Army, to which he himself principally refers.
  I gather from the speech of the Secretary of State, and the Memorandum, that in the creation of this Army he proposes to have thirty-eight Regular battalions of the Line only—battalions 500 strong, instead of 8OO. They are to have their full complement of officers so that in case of a general war these battalions can be raised to their full war strength without having to import other
  686
  officers. And to that—and this is the principal point I wish to raise—the Secretary of State proposes to add a certain number of battalions from the Militia. If I understand his scheme correctly, the men in those battalions from the Militia are to become Regular soldiers under all the conditions of the Line at the present moment. In other words, they are to belong to the territorial Army and will be bound to go abroad in the event of serious war, and serve in exactly the same manner as the Regular Army. I venture to think I shall be able to show to your Lordships that as the theory of the blue water school is the bed-rock foundation of the scheme of the Secretary of State, so the absorption and consequent partial abolition of the Militia is the only means by which he can carry out that reduction of the Army and that economy which he undoubtedly has at heart.
  The territorial Army is to be smaller, of course, and is to be more efficient. The whole scheme of the Secretary of State is to have a smaller Army, an efficient Army, and to bring about economy, and it follows as a matter of course that if he really wishes to be economical, and, at the same time, to have an efficient Army, he must cut his territorial Army down to what I will venture to call an effective minimum. That is to say, everybody who belongs to that Army must be an effective soldier, and must he prepared to serve abroad when called upon. That I consider to be the pivot of the right hon. Gentlemen's scheme—the absorption and abolition of certain battalions of Militia. By that the scheme rises or falls. I do not think it is possible to carry out this scheme. Of course, you may bring in another scheme containing, perhaps, many of the advantages which the right hon. Gentleman has in his Memorandum, but this particular scheme on which we are invited by His Majesty's Government to give our countrymen advice, hangs entirely on the absorption and the abolition of the Militia as we understand the Militia.
  I do not wonder that His Majesty's Government hesitated to give their assent to so sweeping a change as this. The history of the Militia is one which I am sure the people of this country

  687
  look upon with honour and respect. The traditions of that ancient citizen Army are revered by every one who knows the history of this country. The Government naturally hesitated, as I say, to abolish the Militia; but if they thought it vital to the scheme that the Militia should be absorbed or abolished, then I think His Majesty's Government should have put the safety of the country even before the sentiment of the people, brought in a whole-hearted scheme embodying the wishes and the intentions of the Secretary of State, and assented to the absorption of certain Militia battalions and to the abolition of those that were unnecessary. But, if they thought that was wrong, as it may be, they should not have put this scheme before the country; they should have waited some time. If they were not prepared to go the length of the Secretary of State and give every chance to his scheme to be carried in its entirety and with every possibility of success, then for the sake of the country they ought to have put forward another scheme and one founded on a different principle altogether.
  I suppose this Memorandum is an official document. It is rather unusual that a speech made in another place by a Minister should be issued as an official document; but that is a matter of no concern. I find in this summary, with regard to the territorial Army, to which, as I have said, I shall mainly confine my remarks, that the Secretary of State informs us on his own authority, and with the assent, I suppose, of his colleagues, that the making of a true territorial Army is dependent upon the amalgamation of the Militia with the Line. That is to say, the abolition of the Militia, as we know it, is the only way in which to bring about a true territorial Army, and that can only be done" if public opinion will allow." But how is His Majesty's Government going to find out whether public opinion will allow or not? Are they going to send a referendum to the constituencies during the recess? Are they going to start a league for getting the citizens of this country to allow them to abolish the Militia; or are they going to take their opinions from some of the popular journals of the day? I venture to think that the only way in which a responsible Government can
  688
  arrive at what public opinion will allow or, not is to lay before both Houses of Parliament a definite, final, and reasoned scheme by which the Government are prepared to stand or fall, and not by circulating a Paper of this indefinite nature.
  The fact of the matter is, the abolition of the Militia, whether it be right or wrong, is the foundation of the Secretary of State's scheme, and the insertion of "if public opinion will allow," was a concession, I suppose, to those who did not agree with him when the matter was discussed. If it is to be left in that nebulous and unsatisfactory state you are going to raise a huge superstructure of vital and great importance to the country upon a foundation which the Government themselves consider absolutely unsettled. Let us consider what will happen. If public opinion will allow, we are to have a true territorial Army, but how are we to get the reduction of forces and the economy of expenditure? I suppose the Secretary of State will go on creating his territorial Army, which must be an efficient Army, and, above all, it must be an Army which is bound to serve abroad whenever wanted. I do not think that either the Duke of Norfolk's Commission or the Secretary of State left us in any doubt that the position of the Militia at the present time is not an effective one, and the Secretary of State draws our attention to the fact that the Militia is not bound to serve abroad. We know that, much to their honour and glory, they have volunteered in great numbers in the past, but if you are going to create an effective minimum of a territorial Army, every person in it must be efficient and prepared to go abroad and serve abroad if necessary. The Militia are not bound to serve abroad, and I deduce from that that the Secretary of State will leave the Militia and say we are to have a territorial Army from which we are to get economy of expenditure, plus the Militia, which will be maintained at a certain strength in order to supply the Army with recruits every year. I contend that that is a very expensive way for the nation to get its recruits.
  There is one other condition which I fancy is in the mind of His Majesty's Government, and probably of the Secretary of State. If public opinion will

  689
  not allow this at the present moment, says the Secretary of State, he thinks public opinion might allow it nine months or a year hence. How will that affect the reduction of expenditure? You will have your territorial Army formed; the Secretary of State will have spent public money on improving the Militia force; and if a year hence public opinion will allow this proposal, then all this money which has been spent upon the Militia in order to bring it to an effective state, plus the territorial Army, will be thrown away. Whatever our opinion may be as to the retention or abolition of the Militia, there can be no question that the scheme of the Government rests entirely on the abolition of the Militia and the amalgamation of certain Militia battalions with the Regular Line forces.
  I really placed this Notice on the Paper, not for the purpose of giving any final criticism on the scheme as a whole, but fur the purpose of obtaining from His Majesty's Government some further elucidation of what I venture to think is a difficult document to understand, and also of evoking in your Lordships' House the opinions and counsels of many noble Lords who are so well qualified to speak on questions affecting the Army. No doubt we shall have a speech from the noble Earl the Under-Secretary. He will, I am sure, agree with me that on this side of the House at any rate, his efforts and his ability during the short time he has been at the War Office have not been unappreciated; but there is another in this House who can speak with even greater authority on the subject. I allude to the noble Marquess the Leader of the House. The noble Marquess speaks with an authority in the Government second only to the Prime Minister. He speaks with authority in this House, being its Leader, but he speaks with special authority on this particular subject because he himself has administered the great Department of the War Office during a time of special stress and special difficulty. How great that stress and difficulty were the Government themselves have confessed by the appointment of the Esher Committee and Lord Elgin's Commission, and by this second scheme which they have put forward in four years. Therefore, I venture to hope we shall not be
  690
  deprived in this debate of the counsel and advice of the noble Marquess the Leader of the House.
  As I have said, we have been called upon by the Secretary of State to throw aside all Party feeling on this subject. If the Government will give us their real opinion, if they will give us a scheme which represents their final opinion on this subject, then I do say, with regard to such questions as the Army and Navy and national defence, they are subjects on which we should try to rise above Party feeling; and if we receive from the Government a scheme of the description I have mentioned, though we are bound on this side to criticise minutely such a scheme, still our criticism in those circumstances would take the form rather of assistance and amendment than an endeavour to attack and destroy. It was in that spirit that I put down this Notice, and it is in that spirit that I have ventured to commend it to your Lordships.
  LORD DENMAN: My Lords, as it is; not often that I avail myself of the privilege of addressing your Lordships' House, I trust I may claim your attention for a few moments in this debate. First of all, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the somewhat peculiar attitude in which it stands in regard to the matter of Army reform. Your Lordships will recollect that it is some eighteen months ago since we discussed Mr. Brodrick's scheme of Army reform in this House. Your Lordships expressed your approval of that scheme by a majority of, roughly, I think, four to one. In the light of recent events it is a little difficult to understand how this scheme was passed by such a large majority. Whether it was due to something peculiarly seductive in the term Army Corps, or whether it was due to the persuasiveness of my noble friends Lord Waldegrave and Lord Churchill, I do not know; but, at any rate, I know that that scheme was passed by this very large majority. And now what do we find from the statement of the Secretary of State himself? We find that as a result of this scheme the Army is imperfectly prepared for war, is wasteful in its methods, is unsatisfactory in its results, and is one of the most costly

  691
  machines ever devised. That is the statement of the Secretary of State for War in another place. I do not wish to dwell further on this aspect of the question except to express a hope that in your next attempt to deal with this question of Army reform your Lordships will meet with better success.
  The next event in the military world after that discussion in your Lordships' House was the issue of the Report of the Esher Committee. That Report has already been called attention to in this House by the Duke of Bedford, and has been fully discussed, so I will not say more than that it is a matter of doubt to many people besides myself how a Committee consisting, as this one did, of an energetic sailor, a retired soldier, and a distinguished courtier and retired man of business, was able to effect a complete reformation of the whole of the War Office organisation in so short a time as three months. If you wished to reform any other Department, say, the Inland Revenue or the Admiralty, I do not believe you would expect a detailed reform in that short time. Although, no doubt, many of the reforms instituted by that Committee are such as will commend themselves to your Lordships' House; still, I cannot help thinking that some of the minor reforms will be found difficult to work.
  Since the publication of the Report of the Esher Committee the War Office has been in a state of chaos, for after that came the War Office deluge. Officers of European reputation were dismissed from their appointments wholesale. Some of these were forthwith put upon the shelf; others were subjected to a treatment not wholly dissimilar from that accorded to another distinguished soldier of a bygone age. I allude to that gallant and harshly treated officer Udall the Hittite. Some of these officers have been sent to the scene of war in the Far East, and I hope that in their capacity as military attachés they will escape the inconveniences occasionally incidental to being placed in the forefront of battle. These officers, as I say, were summarily dismissed. Your Lordships in dismissing a servant or retainer, in dismissing, say, a groom of the chambers or a footman, give at least one month's notice. It is a matter for regrot that similar courtesy could not have been
  692
  extended to officers who had spent the greater part of their lives in His Majesty's service.
  These, as Lord Rosebery once said, are questions of taste and temperament. I will not deal further with them except to touch on one case, that of General Nicholson. It is, I believe, a matter of common knowledge that General Nicholson is the ablest intelligence officer in our Army to-day. As an intelligence officer it has been his duty to draw up schemes and memorandums for War Office reforms and for Army reorganisation. It is also, I believe, no secret that General Nicholson provided many of the memorandums for the Esher Committee upon which they acted, and I put it to your Lordships whether it is not rather hard that the authorities should take a man's memorandums, his schemes, and use the outlines laid down, and then, instead of giving this officer a chance of tendering his advice on the details of his schemes, send him thousands of miles away where his advice cannot -be obtained. I am not speaking on behalf of General Nicholson personally. No doubt he prefers being in Japan or anywhere else to being in the War Office at the present time. But it does seem to me, in the interests of this country, false economy to send the greatest expert we have on Army reorganisation out of the country at the very time when his services are most required.
  Some months after the Report of the Esher Committee was issued, there came the Report of the Duke of Norfolk's Commission. I do not propose to discuss the vexed question of conscription or compulsory service. In my humble judgment the question of compulsory service is altogether outside the domain of practical politics to-day, but I cannot quite agree with my noble friend Lord Burghclere in his acquiescence in the statement of Mr. Arnold-Forster that the introduction of conscription would add some £25,000,000 to the Army Estimates. I do not think that was a correct or a fair statement to make. I had hoped that the Duke of Norfolk would have been in his place to-day to have given us his views on this question, because it is a totally incorrect statement to have made. Mr. Arnold-Forster, in alluding to this subject, also seemed

  693
  to go out of his way to cast a doubt upon the industry of your Lordships' House; but that is not the matter to which I wish to allude. I do not think it was a fair argument to use to say that the introduction of compulsory service would add this large sum to the Army Estimates. It would probably cost very little more than our present system. I do not state this in defence of the Duke of Norfolk or his colleagues, who I am well aware are perfectly able to defend themselves; but I would like to cite it as an instance of the treatment which is generally accorded now-a-days to anybody connected with the Auxiliary Forces. Whether you serve in the Yeomanry, the Volunteers, or the Militia—and it applies especially to the Militia—you cannot escape being snubbed by the powers that be.
  I should like to go into detail in the case of the Militia. That force sent 43,000 men to the war in South Africa. Since their return from that country they have been ignored or neglected, except when some highly placed officer has gone out of his way to snub them. How can you, therefore, wonder that the Militia is 30,000 below strength to-day? In South Africa I was on trek with a Militia battalion. I have seen the work of several Militia battalions in the war, and though I do not pretend, nor would any Militia officer lay claim, that the Militia battalions can be rated so high as the Line battalions, yet the particular Militia battalion with whom I went on trek would well stand comparison with some of our Regular battalions in the service. Therefore, I trust that His Majesty's Government will go most carefully into this question before they do anything to merge this force into the Line, or to abolish it altogether. Under this new scheme the immediate future of the Militia connot be described as very bright, for what naturally will happen is this: that a great many of those men who would formerly have enlisted in the Militia will now enlist in the short-service home Army. Therefore, I am afraid that unless some active steps are taken the Militia is bound to be still further reduced in numbers, and then I think it is possible that the threats of the Secretary of State for War against this force may be carried out.
  694
  I will only add one word with regard to the rest of the scheme. The Army, General Lyttelton told us the other day, is in the melting pot. It has remained for so long in the melting pot that it has shown unmistakable signs of melting away altogether. Now, at last, it is tenderly, carefully, possibly I may say tentatively, withdrawn from the melting pot, a poor bedraggled creature, I fear, in comparison with the gaudy, pretentious article that went into the melting pot some months ago. I have read with interest the criticisms which have appeared of Mr. Arnold-Forster's scheme. I cannot share the pessimism of my noble friend Lord Wemyss, who said, or is reported to have said, that the whole scheme was only another castle in the air. I do not think that that is quite a fair view to take.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: I said that it had no foundation.
  LORD DENMAN: I have also read the comments in the Berlin and Paris Press. I find it stated that Germany has ceased to take British Army schemes seriously, and the Paris journals also fail to take any editorial notice of the new scheme. Yet in my humble judgment there is very much in this scheme that is good. For instance, there is the abolition of drafts from home battalions to foreign-service battalions, there is the enlargement and improvement of our depots, and there are many other points in this scheme which I believe will work wholly for the good of the service. But there is one grave defect, a defect so grave that I cannot overlook it. According to the new system you will want some 20,000 men annually for your drafts for the foreign-service Army. You pay the men in your foreign-service Army, I believe, 1s. 6d. a day. I am not quite sure whether I am right.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY or STATE FOR WAR (The Earl of DONOUGHMORE): Yes, after six months service.
  LORD DENMAN: You have already seen the three-years system break down at that rate of par, and it is a well-known fact that the longer the period the

  695
  more men dislike it. Therefore, it will be impossible for you to get the number of recruits you want for your foreign-service Army unless you greatly increase the rate of pay. This question of recruiting is a very serious one. In fact, it is the most serious with which we have to deal. In or about the year B.C. 1670, as far as my biblical knowledge goes, a nation not wanting in astuteness discovered to their cost that it was impossible to make bricks without straw. Here, in the year of our Lord, 1904, the Government of the greatest Empire the world has ever seen appears to ignore the fact that it is impossible to have an Army without men. Unless you raise the pay of these men to somewhere about 2s. or 2s. 6d. a day, I venture to think you will certainly not get them; and if you do raise their pay to this figure, what, then, is to become of your Army Estimates? There are other smaller defects in this scheme with which I will not weary your Lordships by discussing to-day. In conclusion, I will venture to make a personal appeal to the Under-Secretary. I fear that from my somewhat outspoken criticisms he is not likely to be well disposed towards myself, but I make this appeal to him, not as a Member of this House, but as a member of the Army Council. It seems to me that as a member of that Council he has more power and more influence than any of his predecessors in his office. He has shown us in this House this session, as my noble friend Lord Burghclere has said, that he possesses considerable ability and considerable persuasive powers. I ask him to look into this question of recruiting for himself. I ask him to go into it and give it his fullest attention, and to urge upon his colleagues the necessity of taking it up at once. If he and his colleagues can solve this question, then I say that no praise will be too high for them. But if they fail, then it is quite certain that this scheme will be merely another of those kaleidoscopic changes which have been such failures in recent years and which will prove equally futile in the future.
  EARL ROBERTS: My Lords, the question under debate to-day is of such supreme importance to the Army and to the nation at large that I most earnestly hope it will not be decided upon without
  696
  the most careful consideration and investigation. I have always been in favour of progress and reform in the Army, and I will continue to advocate any change which, in my opinion, will tend to make the profession to which I have the honour to belong as efficient as it is possible to be. But, my Lords, I would remind you that change does not always spell efficiency or improvement. I believe that the Army is now suffering from an endeavour hastily to respond to the uninformed and irresponsible clamour for change that came after the war in South Africa. Any change now made in the same hasty manner may make things worse than they are at present. Reform, I admit, is undoubtedly needed, but it must be most carefully thought out. It is not advisable to take up this large scheme of reform at the fag end of the session, when there is no time for full examination. There are many points in the Secretary of State's scheme which commend themselves to me; but there are others which do not commend themselves to me, and which I believe would be detrimental to the interests of the Army. At any rate, I think it is most desirable that we should know exactly what the effects of these changes will be in the Army before they are carried out. The Royal Commission presided over by the Earl of Elgin clearly showed our shortcomings—shortcomings which it is our bounden duty to endeavour to remedy. But whatever those shortcomings may be, I would remind your Lordships that the Army of the present day is vastly superior to the Army in the time of the Crimean War. I venture to say that it would not have been possible for the Army of 1855 to have carried to a satisfactory conclusion the war of 1899–1902. It behoves us, therefore, to be very cautious in accepting changes—changes which, to a very great extent, are contrary to the reforms which enabled us to be successful in south Africa.
  VISCOUNT HARDINGE: My Lords, I think the problem we have to solve at the present moment as regards the Army is how to procure the men we require, not only in the matter of numbers but also in the matter of intelligence and physique; that is to say, how we can induce the pick of the manhood of the nation, not the dregs of it which we have

  697
  hitherto had in our Army, to join the ranks of His Majesty's forces. As my noble friend Lord Denman truly said, it is but a short time ago that Mr. Brodrick, the then Secretary of State for War, told us that he could very easily fill up the Army by having a short service of three years, with the promise of a further increase if willing to extend for a longer period, and thereby being available for service abroad. He further stated that he would grant the soldier all sorts of indulgences. He promised that he would do away as much as he possibly could with garrison guards and regimental guards, thereby reducing very considerably that hateful thing to the soldier, sentry-go; that he would allow well-behaved men to sleep out of barracks; that in all new barracks cubicles should be provided for the men, and also that soldiers when they pass the recruits' course should have free messing, for which in former years they were charged 3d. per day. In spite of all these inducements we find that the men are not forthcoming.
  In order to keep our forces abroad up to their proper establishment, the Government are paying large sums of money in bounties to induce men to extend their service. This is an expensive procedure. It gives us, no doubt, splendid men of fine physique, but it must not be forgotten that this procedure is greatly reducing the Reserve of the Army. When the Secretary of State for War is devising some scheme for getting the men he requires for the Army, I cannot understand why he does not ask himself why there is no difficulty in getting good men for the cavalry, notwithstanding the fact that the duties of the cavalry are double those of their brothers in arms, the infantrymen. In my opinion, the answer is perfectly plain. The smart uniform of the mounted forces is what induces smart men to join. That being the case, why is it not possible to invent some smart uniform for the infantry of the Line? Up to now, to use an expression one often hears used in the Army, the uniform can only be called shoddy, and it has prevented smart men from joining the Army.
  Another important inducement and encouragement to good men to come into
  698
  the Army would be a declaration by the Government that in future appointments in the Civil administration would be open to men who had served their country well in the Army and Navy. Perhaps this is a problem with which the Secretary of State is thinking of dealing, for he alluded in his speech the other day to the employment of Reservists. He, however, told us in that speech that he hoped to get men for the Army by allowing them to enlist for two years and to serve longer in the Reserve. No doubt he will get those men and be able to form a very large Reserve; but, as Lord Denham said just now, I do not believe he will get the 20,000 long-service recruits that he will require very nearly every year in order to fill up the ranks of the long-service Army. For that reason I adhere to what I said last week, that the true solution of the recruiting difficulty is some form of compulsory service for home defence. I say this in spite of Mr. Arnold-Foster's figures as to the cost, which I venture to say are absolutely inaccurate. I think that the saving would be immense, whilst the indirect economic gain to the nation is such that no people without it can hope in these and days to come to hold a high position amongst the nations of the world.
  I now pass to the Militia, to which I have the honour to belong, and I must candidly confess that I do not understand the proposals of the Secretary of State with regard to this force. I am glad to think, however, that he has been induced to reconsider the case of the Militia, which I confidently believe he had a very stroll; idea of abolishing. I do not think that the War Minister is to be congratulated on the tone of his references to the defects and deficiencies of the Militia—defects and deficiences for which the War Office has itself long been responsible. Apparently he thinks otherwise, and I suppose it is for this reason that these rumours have been floating about with regard to the abolition of the Militia. I am glad to think that the noble Marquess the Leader of this House, who has himself been a distinguished War Minister, does not think the Militia responsible for its defects, for speaking

  699
  in your Lordships' House the other day he said—
  "I am bound to confess that it seems to me that the Auxiliary Forces have not sufficiently received the consideration for many years past which we have certainly of late desired to give them."
  I entirely agree with the noble Marquess in that statement, and I venture to hope that he, in conjunction with other noble Lords in His Majesty's Government who command Militia Regiments, will see that this old constitutional force is not unfairly dealt with. I trust that the Under-Secretary of State will explain what is proposed to be done with this force, as the uncertainty which at present hangs over it is most unfair to officers, noncommissioned officers, and men.
  LORD HENEAGE: My Lords, I hope I may be allowed for a few moments to deal with one or two of the points in the Memorandum which require explanation. I was exceedingly glad to hear my noble friend Lord Burghclere say that he considered that money spent on the Army and Navy was a national insurance, and that he does not grudge money well spent on those forces. I cannot, however, entirely agree with him when he says that Mr. Arnold-Forster's scheme is based solely upon the theory of the blue water school, because I find it distinctly stated in the Memorandum that if we have the command of the sea we can prevent any invading army landing, and that if we have not the command of the sea it will not be necessary for an army to land as the meaty could starve us into submission. That is the practical view of the question. If we lose the command of the sea; it will not take three months, with the amount of bread and flour there is in this country, to compel us into submission. Therefore, the one great thing is to prevent the Navy from losing that power, to keep it up to its full strength. I do not think we want a very large Army for home defence.
  The foundation of Mr. Arnold-Forster's scheme is to be found in the abolition of the linked battalion system, with all its evil effects on the Line and on the Militia, and the division of the Army into a general-service and a home-service Army. There can be no doubt that Mr. Arnold-Forster's condemnation of the linked battalion system was unequivocal
  700
  and complete, and I believe it was absolutely justified. This system has ruined the Army and destroyed the traditions of many regiments in the Army, and now we are told by the Secretary of State for War that it only causes confusion and inconvenience and does not work. It is not the Army alone that has been affected by this linked battalion system. By it the Militia has been turned into merely a nursery for the Line. I should like to know whether it was not the Militia that did practically the whole of the good work during the late war. They were called upon from start to finish. All their best men were taken away from them, and as soon as they had recruited and got up to strength again, men were again taken away from them. I know regiments which volunteered for service in South Africa two or three times over. They had recruited up to their strength each time, and thought themselves perfectly qualified to go, but time after time, just after they had volunteered, recruiting sergeants came down and took away the men for the Line, and they were left without their full complement to enable them to go.
  Then you have the depot system, which has been the greatest injury to the Militia. Militia recruits and Army recruits were drilled side by side by the same sergeant and under the same adjutant, who were both under the district colonel. All their inclinations led them to do everything they could to get the men to go into the Line, and not to think very much about the Militia. In addition to that, it was to their interest to do so, because every sergeant who obtained a recruit for the Militia got 2s. 6d., and after drilling him and making him an effective Militiaman he got an extra Is. 6d. if he induced hint to go into the Line. Therefore, I say it is high time that the linked battalion system was got rid of.
  After this unmitigated condemnation by the Secretary of State for War of the linked battalion system, which I maintain is perfectly true, why is there a reservation for the preservation of the "valuable features" of that system? I do not know what those valuable features are. It is said that this is done for the purpose of enabling exchange of officers and men, but that is unnecessary. If

  701
  the officers and men wish to exchange they can do so, and, unless you are proposing to put the home battalions in the same position that the Militia have been in under the linked battalion system, I do not see why you want to keep this system for that purpose. But there is another reason why you should not perpetuate this unpopular system. According to the scheme of Mr. Arnold-Forster, you are to have large depots and a home-service army. That renders the keeping up of the linked battalion system, even in the smallest degree, altogether unnecessary. It appears to me that one of the essential proposals in Mr. Arnold-Forster's scheme is that there must be a barracks in every county, otherwise you will have nowhere for the territorial regiment to be placed. There are several of the largest counties in England without barracks from one end to the other, and, therefore, there is the question of building new barracks; and in several counties where there are barracks the buildings have been long condemned. With regard to cavalry barracks, there is hardly a single one in England which will hold a whole regiment. There are about four, I believe, in the United Kingdom—one in Ireland, one at Aldershot, one at York, and the other at Edinburgh, but at Edinburgh there is not sufficient ground for the troops to be trained on. Therefore, this barrack question looms very largely in this scheme, although very little has been said about it up to the present time. As we all know, bricks and mortar are very costly, and I should like to know where the money is to come from. If you do not have barracks in every county the whole of the home Army scheme falls to the ground. Therefore, I press for some information with regard to the barrack system.
  I have the greatest confidence in my old friend the Secretary of State for War. I believe he has given for many years the closest attention to Army questions, and I am sure he will never allow individual opinions or fads to outweigh what he believes to be for the benefit of the service. But I hope he will not minimise the difficulties of bringing forward this new scheme. I do not approach this scheme myself in any unfriendly spirit, but I agree entirely with the noble and gallant Field-Marshal that
  702
  this is a question which cannot be considered in a hurry.
  There is one other question to which I wish to allude, and it is perhaps the most difficult question for all, namely, that of the Militia. The home-service Army must be formed on one of two principles—either strictly on Army lines or strictly on a Militia basis. You must level the Militia up, or, if you do not, the old constitutional force will disappear. It is quite impossible to have a home-service Regular Army and a Militia Army as an auxiliary force, both of them together in the county. They would destroy one another for all recruiting purposes. According to the Secretary of State's scheme, there will be about thirty-two, thirty-five, or thirty-eight battalions, or, as I would prefer to call them, regiments, more than will be required for the general-service Army abroad. The question, therefore, appears to me to be this, whether these regiments are to be abolished or to be made into the home-service Army. If they are retained, then the Militia must be reduced in numbers. I the Militia are to remain exactly on the same footing, then it is quite clear that these regiments will have to be abolished.
  I have looked very carefully into this scheme of the Secretary of State for War, and while I do not at all like the idea of doing away with the old constitutional force, the Militia, I admit that there is a great deal to be said for what he has proposed. It must be perfectly clear to everyone that a large number of the present Militia regiments will have to be done away with. Some of them have hardly any men at all; others have hardly any officers. They must be absolutely reorganised; and after doing away with those that can hardly be said to really exist, and amalgamating others, there will be very few regiments indeed which might not be brought up to the standard of a home-service Army. I do not believe for a moment that Militia regiments would refuse to be enlisted for service abroad in case of war. I believe they would volunteer in any circumstances, and I do not think they need be put on a different footing from that of the other regiments I have mentioned.

  703
  With regard to the men I do not think there will be any great difficulty, but there will be a great difficulty when you come to the officers. You are to have about twenty officers of the Army in each of these territorial regiments, as they are called in the Memorandum, and you are to have, besides them, ten officers of Militia. I cannot help thinking that these ten Militia officers will be looked upon in the regiments of the future as the Militia recruits are now looked upon by the Army recruits—as half soldiers; and I think so all the more for the reason that it appears to be one of the conditions to be laid down that the Militia officers who join these regiments can never look forward to either becoming second in command or commanding the regiments. I hope this question will be considered. I cannot see why Militia officers should not be allowed to be second in command, or to command regiments, provided they have made themselves efficient, have passed examinations, and are recommended by those in authority over them. I am certain that if you want to make the regiments popular and to get recruits in the different counties, you must have those regiments commanded by local men. I do not think the professional soldier is looked upon with very great favour by the men who join the Militia.
  I believe it will be quite possible to make the staff of the Militia regiments more efficient than it is. It is the staff of the Militia regiments which has let them down so much in the past. Why should not one of the majors of every Militia regiment be a staff major and assist the colonel in command during that portion of the year when the whole regiment is not out? According to Mr. Arnold-Forster's scheme the recruits in these territorial regiments are for the first two years to be at the barracks all the year round. I am quite certain that none of the officers who give their services in the Militia can afford to give their time all the year round, but if you had a staff officer who could drill the recruits and he responsible for their efficiency, this difficulty would be got over.
  I have made these suggestions in no unfriendly spirit, but with a view to contributing something to the threshing out of this matter. When the Under-
  704
  Secretary comes to reply I will ask him the Questions standing in my name on the Paper—namely, whether the linked battalion system is to be entirely abolished, and whether under the present proposals of the Government those regiments which were deprived of their regimental numbers and traditions under the linked battalion system will now have their numbers restored to them, together with their regimental status and traditions; secondly, whether the Government will consider in any proposals for the construction of new barracks the desirability and advantage of erecting them in those counties where there is now no barrack accommodation for either cavalry, artillery, or infantry; and, thirdly, whether the Secretary for War will further consider the strong feeling in favour of the Militia retaining their traditional character and name, whilst giving them a distinct and improved staff, who shall be responsible for the drilling of both officers and recruits as well as for recruiting purposes, together with other practical suggestions for restoring the former prestige of the Militia as recommended by the Royal Commission.
  LORD LOVAT: My Lords, the noble Lord who initiated this discussion stated that the question of the Militia was the pivot on which this system would stand or fall. I beg entirely to agree with what he said, and I ask your Lordships' permission to say a few words on the question whether the Militia should be ended or mended. I think I am justified in asking your Lordships' attention to this subject because on page 12 of Mr. Arnold-Forster's Memorandum he. makes this statement—
  "A change upon this magnitude can only come about after much fuller public discussion than has yet been given to it."
  The greatest argument against the Militia as at present constituted is that no scheme could be made by the Intelligence Department or any other department, because of the uncertainty of whether the Militiamen would or would not consent to serve abroad. By forming the Militia into territorial regiments you at all events know how many men you have got to deal with and to go abroad in a national emergency.

  705
  The second point against the Militia as it is at present constituted is the question of officers. I would like to show how the company officers stand in the ordinary Militia regiments at the present moment. You should have in your battalions eight companies and twenty officers. The Militia are deficient of a quarter of their officers, which reduces the number in the ordinary regiment to fifteen. On the day that war is declared a further three will certainly go off to join the Regular Army, which reduces the number of officers to twelve. If you act in brigades and divisions, you will have to supply at least one for your divisional staff and one for your brigade staff, which brings the number of officers down to ten. Further than that, if the Militia regiment forms part of a brigade, it would have to have an advance base officer, and officer in charge of the machine guns, or a signalling officer, which reduces the number of officers of the battalion to eight. It practically comes to this, that the ordinary Militia regiment would go into service with only one officer to each company, and if that officer was wounded you would immediately have a company commanded by a sergeant. This is a state of things which alone makes the Militia not a fighting force.
  I need not go into the question as regards the men of the Militia. We have had a statement in the other House that there are 38,000 of them who are practically unfit for the Line. With regard to musketry, I would only refer you to the Report of the Duke of Norfolk's Commission in proof of the statement that the musketry of the Militia is rushed through, and bad shooting exists in many battalions. Then, again, with regard to the transport of the Militia and Volunteers, I would quote the answer given to Lord Elgin's Commission by the Assistant Quartermaster-General, in reply to Lord Derby, as showing that in the case of invasion the transport would have to be officered by Militia officers, and not by the Army Service Corps. Having regard to all these facts I cannot help coming to the conclusion that as the Militia stands at present it does not fulfil its object as a safeguard to these shores.
  On the other hand, no doubt it can be argued that the Militia have done very
  706
  great service in the past. We know what they did in the time of Wellington and the opinion that Wellington had of them. We know the excellent work they did in the South African War, mainly, of course, on the lines of communication. They were held on the lines of communication, presumably because they had not a sufficient number of officers, and because the men were not of sufficient physique to stand the hard work of trekking. They were not able to find the officers necessary for the various staffs, nor were the men physically fit to stand long marches; but, notwithstanding that, they did good work where employed. It is certain, therefore, that both points of view, whether the Militia is a possible defence for the country or not, will be hotly contested.
  I venture to think that, instead of merely discussing the matter in this House and in another place, there is one means by which we could really find out if the Militia is or is not a practical force—namely, by the mobilisation of two Army Corps of Militia. I do not see why this should not be done. It is essential that the country should come to a definite conclusion as to the capabilities of the Militia, and the only means of arriving at that, if we fail to get at it by discusssion, is by practical demonstration. If we mobilised our Militia and marched them for a certain distance in order to see whether they were able actually to take the field, we could come to a conclusion on this point. They could be mobilised for a week and be required to shift camp a distance of ten or twelve miles every day. You would then see if the regimental organisation and the transport were sufficient. I am quite aware that the objection will be raised that it would involve great expense, but there is very little valuable information of this kind which can be procured without expense.
  It may be said that it would be difficult, owing to the time of the year at which these experiments would have to be made. to manœuvre in the country owing to the crops in the ground; but as a great portion of this trial would be whether the troops were actually able to march, and whether the organisation for transport was sufficient, it would not be necessary to have the same extent of Manœuvring

  707
  area as is required for manœuvres now. It may also be argued that this has already been tried, but I would point out that it has really never been given a chance. Picked Militia regiments have been used on manœuvres, but they have been under the organisation of Regular officers and not under Militia organisation. I hold that if a definite trial were given to the scheme of mobilising two Army Corps of Militia, containing 70,000 men, many advantages would result. In the first place, we could see for certain what the actual value of these troops was. Secondly, we could see whether the staff produced from the Militia was sufficient to run the regiments in the field. Thirdly, we could get at all the facts as to the distances that Auxiliary Forces can march and the time occupied between various points. At present no living man is aware of the distances which Irregular troops can cover. It would also be a magnificent individual training to every man who took part in it.
  To make this an effective demonstration it would be necessary for the troops to move a distance of, say, twelve miles every day. It would be necessary that no staff of officers should be allowed outside the staff which the Militia could be expected to draw when the first Army Corps was out of the country; it would be necessary not to allow any officers outside the Militia to take part in the work, and the transport would have to be run on the lines laid down by the Assistant Quartermaster-General. That is to say, it would have to be run entirely by Militia officers themselves. I ask the noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State to consider this suggestion, which I think would be more effective than any oratory in either House on the subject. This practical experiment, costly though it may be, would show whether our Militia is worth what the supporters of it believe it to be worth, or whether the organisation throughout is so faulty that it would be impossible to work it as a defensive force.
  LORD HARRIS: My Lords, I do not intend to address your Lordships at any length upon this scheme, for I feel that we want some more explanation from the War Office upon it before we can thoroughly understand it. I entirely agree
  708
  with what the noble and gallant Field-Marshal said just now, that it requires most careful consideration. In those circumstances, I do not feel that I am in a position to attempt any real criticism. I should be very much helped towards that position if the noble Earl the Under-Secretary could give us information on one or two points. The noble Lord who initiated this debate said he thought the important hinge upon which the whole scheme hung was the absorption or the abolition of the Militia. That may be a very important hinge. But this seems to me still more important—Is the Secretary of State going to get men to enlist for nine years with the colours? It is quite true that there are men serving now for that length of general service, but I fancy a good many of them are in the cavalry. I do not imagine that the noble Lord expects to have any difficulty in getting recruits for the cavalry, but I cannot help thinking that a good number of the men who are serving in the infantry for eight years with the colours and four years in the Reserve, or seven years and five years respectively, were recruited when they had no chance of joining for three years, much less for two years. What the War Office has to look forward to is the attractiveness of the two-years service competing against the proposed nine.
  The noble Lord. I have no doubt, will be able to, and I hope he will, give some statistics of the experience of the War Office in recruiting for these longer terms. If my recollection is right, when the longer term was the normal term, recruiting almost entirely depended on the demand for labour in civil employment. It went up and down according to that demand. I do not suppose the noble Lord is excluding that from his calculation, and I hope he will be able to show us upon what ground the Secretary of State confidently anticipates that he will be able to get the number of recruits he is looking forward to for the longer service.
  On page 10 of the Memorandum reference is made to the striking force. I believe it is to be a force of some 16,000 men. Can the noble Lord tell us how many years it is anticipated that the units will remain in that force? I presume that the regiments that come home from foreign service are not to be

  709
  put in it. I suppose the regiments for that force will be drawn from the general service battalions at home. [The Earl of DONOUGHMORE nodded assent.] How long does the noble Earl anticipate that units will remain in that striking force? Obviously they are not going to remain there for ever. They are part, I presume, of the general-service Army at home, and will have to take their turn for service abroad. Attached to that is the further question. What does the War Office anticipate will in future be the length of the foreign service of a unit? I believe the foreign service at present is something like eighteen years. I would like to know what they anticipate in the future will be the foreign service of a regiment of the infantry of the Line. That is also a question which will affect recruiting. It is quite true that the men only enlist for eight years. Perhaps the noble Lord will be able to tell us how long he anticipates that men will have to serve abroad. If regiments are away from the country for a long time, even longer than they are now, without a linked battalion to help them in recruiting at home, there is a chance of men going to battalions they do not know anything about, making enlisting for long service unpopular. That is another thing he has to calculate upon.
  Again, are these general-service battalions when they are at home included in the idea of territorialisation? Take the case of my own county regiment, the East Kent. Are they never to be quartered in East Kent again? The Secretary of State has shown an interest in the traditions of the Army and has spoken in high terms of the historic regiments. Well, there are many noble Lords in this House who are extremely interested in their county regiments. I take the liberty of being so in mine. I ask whether the county regiment which I am interested in is going to be included in the territorialisation scheme? The noble Lord shakes his head. Does that mean that when the East Kent Regiment comes back the men are not going back to East Kent? If that regiment is to serve for a number of years abroad, and when it comes home is not going back to East Kent, I am not quite sure that you are going to get as many
  710
  East Kent men to recruit for it. I believe that at the present moment eight-tenths of the men who are in that regiment belong to East Kent. Is the local interest in these regiments to be lost? I hope the noble Lord will give us some information upon this point.
  On page 12 of the Memorandum there is a reference to large depots for the home-service Army. I should be very much obliged if the noble Earl would explain this. Why cannot the home-service Army train their own recruits? Why is it necessary to have large depots for the home-service territorialised regiments? If the recruit who only joins for two years is going for six months to the depot and only to be eighteen months in the home-service regiment, his interest in that regiment will be very slight I should think, and it does seem to me rather unnecessary that in a short service of that time he should be in two different units, one the depot and the other the regiment. That is one of the points which I have no doubt the noble Earl will be able to explain. It seems to me to be rather redundant and to involve a great deal of unnecessary expense.
  I may say, by the way, looking back some twenty years, that large depots were not so popular with the War Office then as they seem to be now. Of course, of late years there have had to be larger depots, and I cannot help thinking that it is the force of necessity that has made them popular rather than that it has been suddenly discovered that they were more economical or efficient than the smaller ones. There is an important point on page 14 as regards non-commissioned officers for the depots, for the home-service regiments, and for the staffs of the Auxiliary Forces. It is held in this Memorandum as rather an encouragement to recruiting that there are going to be a great number of places for non-commissioned officers in these various units and establishments, and it is said that the arrangements contemplated.
  "will go far towards supplying a reasonable certainty of employment for the soldier who has served his time."
  I cannot quite understand that. The larger proportion of the men who will come back will not be non-commissioned

  711
  officers. Surely the number of non-commissioned officers fit to go to these places will not be in excess of the present number. I do not see how that encourages the ordinary soldier who never becomes a non-commissioned officer to look forward to employment when he leaves the service.
  That is the last question I have to ask, and I may say I do not ask these questions in any spirit of adverse criticism. I quite see that it is absolutely necessary to do something if we are not to have conscription. Owing to our having so many more battalions abroad than at home the linked battalion system has broken down, and something else has to be done, and owing to the increase of the Army since the war, the demand for recruits has, of course, largely increased. It is with a desire to support this scheme that I ask the noble Earl to give us all the information he possibly can about it. I confess I do not think on some important points the Memorandum gives sufficient information.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, the noble Lord who is responsible for this discussion has fully recognised, I think, the appeal that was made by my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War in another place, that this question should not be treated as a Party question. It is quite true that the noble Lord entered a caveat and mentioned that it was very difficult to avoid Party politics in such a matter as this. At the same time, I hope I may be allowed to say that I think he himself avoided the difficulties he thought of in a most complete way, and in my opinion the prospect of evolving a successful scheme for the re-organisation of the Army has been greatly improved thereby. After all, my Lords, this is not a reform that is to be carried out by a stroke of the pen; it is a question which will need consideration, probably for some considerable time. It is a question which will require the attention of Governments for years to come, and I can only express the hope that, if it starts under such favourable auspices as the good-will of both sides, the ultimate end obtained may be that which we all unadoubtedly wish for.
  712
  The noble Lord mentioned that, after all, the military problem with which this country has to deal is a unique one in the history of the world. Our main purpose is to have an Army for service beyond the seas. As the noble Lord stated, for that purpose we do not need a huge Army on the Continental model. It is, above all, an Army that must be voluntarily raised. Our main difficulty is to get an Army to go abroad in time of peace. There is not so much difficulty in getting the forces that we require to go abroad in time of war. But in the difficulty of getting an Army to go abroad in time of peace the broad principle of military problems, as foreign nations know them, are of no use to us whatever, and it is that which makes this problem such a unique and difficult one. There is a reference in these notes of the speech of my right hon. friend to reforms which have been recently carried out in the War Office, and they have been touched upon this evening by my noble friend opposite (Lord Denman). These reforms have already been discussed in your Lordships' House, quite lately, and I do not therefore intend to go into their details to-day. I do not think my noble friend would want me to follow him in certain personal questions which he raised; but I would like to say, as he mentioned Sir William Nicholson, that I am confident there is no sphere in which that officer could be of more service to his country than in the position which he is now filling.
  In considering this matter I would like to make an appeal to your Lordships—an appeal which is necessary even after the extremely moderate speech of the noble Lord who initiated this discussion—I would appeal to your Lordships to consider this scheme, not piecemeal, but as a whole.
  Briefly, what is the outline of the scheme as it comes into our minds? First of all, there is the general-service Army, intended primarily for service beyond the sea, and for service beyond the sea in time of peace, enlisted for nine years with the colours and three with the Reserve, spending about one-fourth of its time at home, and fed from depots direct to any part of the world in which it may be at the moment stationed. Then, secondly, there is the home-service or territorial

  713
  army, enlisted for two years with the colours, thoroughly territorialised, fed from large depots, going abroad only in time of war, and, if I may coin a phrase, to describe it, it will be our Reserve-making machine. Thirdly, there are the Auxiliary Forces, mounted arid unmounted, the Yeomanry and the Volunteers, the latter divided into two parts according to a principle the correctness of which your Lordships will admit. There are in the Volunteers men who are anxious and able to give a great deal of time to their volunteering; there are also men who are anxious to give all the time they can. At the present moment, you have both these classes mixed up in the same units. We intend to divide them. That briefly is the scheme as it presents itself to my mind, and I hope that this discussion, and in the discussions which possibly may follow this scheme, the relative bearings of the various parts of the scheme upon each other may always be kept in the forefront of your Lordships' minds.
  My Lords, the noble Lord opposite recognised the need for economy. I do not know whether it was in his mind to include further particulars upon that head in the Motion which he makes for additional Papers, but I understand that a Return has been asked for in another place, giving further particulars upon this point, and I will see that that Return is presented to your Lordships at the same time as it is presented elsewhere. I do not intend, therefore, to go in detail into the economical side of the question, but as regards the other side, the efficiency side, I will do my best to deal with the various criticisms which have been made.
  I would ask your Lordships to think of some of what we consider the defects of the present system, and the manner in which our proposals attempt to remedy thorn. First of all, there is the question of the linked-battalion system. The linked-battalion system presupposes that you have an equal number of battalions at home as abroad and that the home battalions feed the foreign battalions with drafts. At the time that s system was originally adopted the theory was held that you needed a large Army for home defence; the theory of what is called the blue water school, as far as I am aware, had not been evolved. But my Lords, we have now—and I gather
  714
  from the speech of the noble Lord opposite that the view is accepted on both sides—recognised that the main purpose of our Army is to go abroad, and that we do not need a large Regular Army at home; therefore the necessity for a large number of battalions at home disappears. Obviously, such being recognised, the feeding of the foreign battalion from the home battalion must disappear also. At present you have a depot, you have the home battalion and you have the foreign battalion, and. as was undoubtedly proved before Lord Elgin's Commission, as the result of that, you have only one efficient unit, viz., the foreign battalion. We hope, by initiating a process of feeding battalions from a large general' service depot direct, to simplify the system, and at the same time to economise by getting much better value for money by not having the battalion at home which requires such complicated treatment in order to make it sufficiently efficient to 11 go out into the line of battle. The depot system is not a new system. It exists with the Guards with admirable results; it exists with the Royal Marines with equally admirable results; it is the system which exists at Winchester with the Rifle Brigade, also with admirable results; and we have every hope that the extension of the system to the whole Army will be equally satisfactory in every way.
  My noble friend Lord Heneage seemed a little apprehensive lest, in consequence of the phrase in the Secretary of State's Memorandum that the battalions will be linked for the purpose of exchanging, but not for the purpose of drafting, some evil connected with the linked-battalion system might remain to vitiate the reform which we hope to carry out I can conceive two or three ways in which that might work, and I think my noble friend will admit that no harm could come from the process. As the noble Lord knows, there are some twenty long-service officers in the territorial battalions. We intend that they should exchange freely with the thirty officers in the long-service battalions. I do not think that any evil connected with the linked-battalion system lies in that fact. In fact, I

  715
  should think it was rather the other way. Naturally one does not expect an officer who spends his whole life in the regiment, as opposed to the man who spends only nine years, to spend his whole time abroad. We wish to give him the opportunity of coming home, on the other hand, we wish to give the officer in the home battalions the opportunity of going abroad if he wants to. The power to extend I conceive might also be exercised in this way. I fancy that a certain number of two-years men, if they wish to, will be allowed to exchange and join a general-service battalion. We do not count on anything like the number that have to exchange from the present three years service—the 75 per cent.—but possibly one-fifth or one-sixth of those who join originally for two years may wish to extend. I do not wish to lay down any definite limit to the number who will be allowed to extend, but I fancy that some will be allowed to, and, if they wish, to join a battalion abroad corresponding to that in which they have served at home. I imagine that that would come under the process to which I have referred, and against that I think the noble Lord will not have any objection.
  LORD HENEAGE: Will there be the same number of battalions at home as abroad?
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: No, but I think that suitable arrangements can be made. I have spoken of the question of drafts. At the present moment, we need 75 per cent. of those who enlist for three years to extend their service to enable us adequately to send drafts to India and the Colonies. Nothing like that number has extended, especially in the infantry. My right hon. friend the Secretary of State has mentioned that something like 12 per cent. have extended. I need scarcely point out that that average is of no use to us. Even if the average were 75 per cent, the situation might not be entirely satisfactory, because you need 75 per cent. in every unit to extend, and there are three units in which only 4 per cent., and one in which only 2 per cent. have extended. Obviously, by the adoption of the principle of enlisting men for the purpose of
  716
  going abroad and feeding battalions direct from depots, the situation becomes much easier to work and much more certain.
  Then, my Lords, I come to the question raised by the noble Lord behind me of the striking force. Your Lordships no doubt remember perfectly well a sentence in the Report of Lord Elgin's Commission referring to the need for more troops in Natal at the beginning of the recent war, and the effect that those troops might have had. The reason of this striking force is perfectly obvious. At the present moment you cannot send a single battalion out of this country without either the complicated arrangement of mobilisation or some arrangement for taking men from one regiment and putting them into another—an arrangement which is also complicated and unsatisfactory. By having these general-service battalions at Aldershot we look forward to being able to send a small force of 15,000 or 16,000 men abroad at the very shortest notice, and such a force might have a very important bearing on the ultimate result of every campaign in which we were engaged. The noble Lord behind me asked how long the battalions would be in the striking force. I have not the figure actually in my memory, and I do not like to hazard a guess, but I think it is for about one-third of their service at home. I understand that the sort of proportion—not the exact proportion, but the sort of proportion—that we hope to work to would leave about twenty-six general-service battalions at home, and the noble Lord may say that for about one-third of their service at home they find themselves in the striking force, perhaps a little less. But I will ascertain the exact figure if the noble Lord wishes, and let him have it.
  I am also asked, my Lords, how long units will be abroad. Again, I do not care to trust my memory exactly, but it will not be for anything like the present eighteen years. The present eighteen years, however, does not mean much more than the fact that the regimental plate is abroad for eighteen years. because the men are continually going backwards and forwards in drafts out and home. It will make very little difference—certainly no difference to the transport—if you make

  717
  the tour shorter, and send the regiment itself back more often than at present, and I fancy you will have to do it in order to keep up the circulation as we certainly wish to keep it up.
  As regards the question whether the general-service battalions will be quartered in their own counties, I hope that we shall be able to manage that, but they, will not be part of the territorial army, which is to consist only of men enlisted for two years and, as such, be spread about eventually all over the country, thoroughly territorialised. But I certainly hope that it may be possible to make an arrangement by which these general-service battalions will be quartered in their own counties as far as possible while they are at home.
  Now, my Lords, I come to a question which has been raised by several Members of your Lordships' House—first of all, I think, by Lord Denman. I mean the recruiting question. After all, the important question in the whole scheme is whether or not we shall get the recruits. No man can say for certain that you will get recruits as long as you have a voluntary Army. So long as you have a voluntary Army there will always be a certain amount of uncertainty with regard to recruiting, and it must always be a source of anxiety to the statesman responsible for the Army, whether he be in your Lordships' House or in another place. If you adopted conscription it would simplify your problem, but very few of even the extreme advocates of conscription have got up and said we ought to have conscription for the Army that is to be sent abroad to serve in foreign and sometimes unhealthy climates. I would venture to offer your Lordships a few figures to explain the manner in which we regard this recruiting problem. I take the infantry, because the infantry is always the great anxiety. At present we have 156 battalions of infantry. We are proposing to reduce fourteen battalions, bringing the number down to 142. I will assume—this is not a final figure; I am assuming these numbers simply as a hypothetical case; they depend upon certain considerations of great importance now before the Committee of Imperial Defence—but I will assume
  718
  that of those 142 battalions you take 104 for general service. That leaves you thirty-eight home-service battalions and, assuming the scheme receives the assent of Parliament in its entirety, thirty-three home service battalions drawn from the Militia. As I have said, these are not final figures; they are simply for the purposes of illustration. The number is there or thereabout. Under such a division you would require for the infantry alone—which is the main problem—not 20,000 recruits for the general-service battalions, but 11,600, and 22,000 for the home-service battalions; that is, 33,600 recruits for the infantry.
  LORD MONKSWELL: What about wastage by desertion and other causes?
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: This is the number you would want to fill up the battalions.
  A NOBLE LORD: Does that include the South African garrison?
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: It is the number of recruits you would require each year for the hypothetical case which I have put forward. I see the noble Lord's point about wastage. We hope with big depots to decrease wastage very largely; it is a point that has not been lost sight of. But I am only stating a hypothetical case for the purpose of illustration. That is a total of 33,600 for the infantry, or for all arms, not for infantry alone, 42,800 recruits. In answer to a Question put in another place, I think, this afternoon, my noble friend the Secretary of State stated that the number of recruits we obtained during the past year amounted to 83,000 —that is for the Militia and for the Line. But you must deduct 19,000 who go on from the Militia into the Line, and therefore had been counted twice over. That leaves a total of 64,000 recruits, or an excess of 22,000 over our requirements under this scheme.
  A NOBLE LORD: With a three years enlistment.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE:Yes, that is so. For a two years enlistment the probabilities are that more will come, for nine years, possibly not.

  719
  Now I come to the general-service battalions. I would ask your Lordships to compare the position of these general-service battalions with the present position. The position now is that you enlist men for three years, and you require 75 per cent. to re-engage, otherwise you have to resort to some sort of outside arrangement in order to carry out your drafts to India. The first point that may be argued—and I admit it, because I want to argue the whole case fairly—is that you do not enlist these general-service men until they are nineteen years of age. We do get 19,000 men of the age of nineteen years, but there are two attractions that we should be able to offer these general-service men that we are not able to offer them now. The first is that after six months service at the depot they will get their service pay; they will get their 4d. a day on joining the battalion, and they will get 6d. a day on qualifying in musketry.
  LORD MONKSWELL: 1s. 10d. altogether.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: 1s. 11d. I think. What does that mean? At present you offer a man an extra 6d. after he has served two years; this offers him an extra 6d. after he has served six months. That extra sixpence means half-a-guinea a week in the man's pocket and all found. There are not many labourers in this country who can feed and clothe themselves and have half-a-guinea to spend at the end of the week. Then the second thing is the point raised by my noble friend Lord Harris. We hope to make the prospects of re-employment for these men after they have served their nine years considerably better than they are now. The prospects are not so very had now. In the Report of the Inspector-General of Recruiting for 1902, it is stated that in practically all districts the same conclusion is arrived at—that when Reservists leave the colours with good characters they can obtain work if they choose to accept it. I do not wish to go into details as to how this is done—the re-employment registers, and so forth, with which your Lordships are familiar,—but I may say
  720
  that between January and October, 1903, 35,000 men left the Army with satisfactory characters, and 25,000 of those 35,000 are known to have obtained employment.
  But what can we do in the future? As the noble Lord has said, you have to find non-commissioned officers for the home-service battalions, for all depots, and for the Volunteers, and we believe that it is to these nine-years men after they have left the colours that we should have to look for non-commissioned officers for those purposes. We do not close the door to a certain number of the two-years men being promoted to lance-corporals or even lance-sergeants, but your Lordships' will understand that two years service will not be long enough to qualify many of these short-service men for the posts of non-commissioned officers. Therefore we believe that for a great many of the nine-years men with good characters after they leave the general-service army we should be able to find employment in these units that I have mentioned. That is an additional point which, when realised by the recruit will, we believe, have a considerable effect in persuading men to join the long-service battalions, opening to them as it does a life-long employment.
  I am afraid I am detaining your Lordships at considerable length, but I have come now only to the second branch of the subject, viz., the question of the territorial Army, which, as your Lordships know, is intended to go abroad only in time of war. We intend to feed it from large depots, The idea is, I believe, to have large depots feeding about eight battalions. With the experience we have of the Guards depots and of the Winchester depot, it is intended that the short-service men should spend three months at the depot, and twenty-one months with their regiment. We believe that this will facilitate their training, as it will concentrate attention on the recruit drill, the first licking of the recruit into shape, at the depot, leaving the higher training to be done when the men go to their battalions. The noble Lord, Lord Heneage, asked a Question about new barracks. I am able to assure him that our ideal is to have eventually, perhaps not a barrack in every county, because there are some counties which could not support a regiment, but to have the territorial Army spread about all

  721
  over the country in so far as the present barrack accommodation and any future accommodation will allow. But, of course, the noble Lord will understand that it will be some time before we lose the use of all the barracks that we have at present, and therefore it is a reform that can be carried out only gradually, but it is certainly the ideal to which we hope to work.
  I now come to the position of the Militia, which has been touched upon by several of your Lordships. I wish it to be most distinctly understood that I do not for an instant deprecate what the Militia did during the war-in South Africa. They came forward at a time of great stress, and they rendered most valuable service. But since the war we have had the Report of the Duke of Norfolk's Commission, and we cannot but regard that document as disclosing a most serious state of things. My noble friend Lord Denman represents that his Militia regiment was every bit as good as most Line regiments when it went to South Africa. I congratulate him upon the excellence of his regiment, but the Report of the Royal Commission does not lead us to think that that is a definition of excellence that could be applied to the whole of the Militia. I may perhaps be allowed to remind your Lordships of one or two paragraphs in that Report. For instance, it states—
  "At the earliest age at which a man is physically fit for the hardships of a campaign, and deducting the men returned as below that age, we find that in round figures an average strength of 104,000 Militiamen yields only 82,000 fit as regards age to take the field. In many cases, moreover, the age given by a Militia recruit on enlistment is above his real age, so that the figures exaggerate to some extent the proportion of men that we obtain of the ages specified."
  Again the Commission says—
  "As regards the infantry, there is a consensus of opinion both amongst Militia officers and those Regular officers who have had special opportunities of observation, that the average Militia battalions would not be fit to take the field except after several months continuous embodiment. The less training in the rank and file, the higher is the training required in the officer, and the training of the Militia officer is inadequate to enable him properly to lead troops, and especially incompletely trained troops."
  Again they point out that the strength of the battalions was such that their proper grouping into the larger tactical
  722
  formations required for the field would be a matter of great difficulty, and—
  "We are forced to the conclusion that in its existing condition the Militia is unfit to take the field for the defence of the country."
  That is a very serious state of affairs. The plan for the Militia to which the Army Council hope to obtain the assent of Parliament is briefly as follows. Your Lordships will understand that for many reasons some reduction in the Militia is necessary. There are, first of all, those units which are mentioned by the Royal Commission—nine units of under 300 men. It would be impossible—and I am sure your Lordships would admit it—to retain those u fits in their present condition. It would also, I think, be unreasonable when you are making reductions in the Regular Army not to call for some reduction in other branches of the military forces. We are actually reducing the Regular Army by 28,600 men, and I do not think it would be defensible to suggest that while we are making that reduction in the Regular Army we should leave the Auxiliary Forces entirely out of account. There are two or three points that must be borne in mind in connection with the Militia. First of all, the Militia does undoubtedly compete with the Line. The Militia obtains about 40,000 recruits every year, of whom about 19,000 go on into the Line, and it is the opinion of many people who know more about the subject than I do that if their physical condition allowed it many more than that 19,000 would go. This may be good or it may be bad for the Line; it is certainly very bad for the Militia. Another thing from which the Militia suffers is the want trained commissioned and non-commissioned officers. The Militia is now 7,000 officers short, and not even all the officers that it has are highly trained. The plan that the Army Council hope to see approved by public opinion and by Parliament is that of welding the Militia into the territorial Army. We believe that by so doing the services of not a single useful officer or man who is now in the Militia will be lost to the country. The position in the future will be such that the Militia will no longer compete for recruits with the Line; they will be thoroughly territorialised as the

  723
  county battalions; they will have the advantage of being trained by twenty Regular officers, men who are making a life-study of their profession, and by a considerable number of professional noncommissioned officers, the want of which they feel so much at present, and they will be available for service abroad in time of war.
  LORD BURGHCLERE: In time of war?
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: For service abroad.
  LORD BURGHCLERE: The Militia?
  THE EARL OFDONOUGHMORE: Yes, the whole of the territorialised Army will be available for service abroad in time of war. My noble friend Lord Heneage raised the question of the position of the Militia officer under this scheme. I do not think that his position will be so bad as the noble Lord thinks. I doubt very much if the Regular officer will look down upon the Militia officer who is associated in the battalion with him. I have had a very short experience; I was in the Militia only some five years, but I knew the officers of the Regular battalion to which I was attached pretty well, and I am not conscious of having been much looked down upon by them; on the contrary, I received nothing but civility at their hands. After all, what would be his position We hope he will be a county gentleman; he will be a member of the mess; he will come into his county town where we hope his regiment will be quartered; he will find when he gets there officers with whom he is associated during the month he is out for training. I really do not think that his position will be a very bad one from his point of view; I think it will be very much better than at present. He will have the opportunity of training alongside officers and men very much more highly trained than at present, and of having in his company many non-commissioned officers of a much better class than he now has. Your Lordships will see that it would not be easy to allow him to be the commanding officer of his regiment, because under the new conditions it will be necessary for the commanding officer of
  724
  the regiment to be busy all the year round, and the general run of Militia officers cannot give sufficient time for that or they would probably be already in the Line, but we hope that by giving them an honorary step in rank on retirement, by keeping the post of deputy-lieutenant open for them, and by letting them understand that in time of war when their regiments have gone abroad it is to them we look to organise the Reservists and the men coming on from the depots into their regiments which in turn will be looked to go to the war—we hope that that will present a state of affairs which will not be uncongenial to their frame of mind.
  I have asked your Lordships to consider this scheme homogeneously at all times, and I would like your Lordships to remember this point in connection with the welding of the Militia into the Line. It is a point from the Army point of view rather than from the Militia point of view, but it is an important point. The basis on which we have worked has been this. We have to maintain the existing Indian garrison and adequate garrisons in the Colonies. We have to despatch fifty-two battalions of infantry and drafts to India as early as we can in any war that breaks out. Look at the position. Assume that you do not weld the Militia into the Line, and that you retain only thirty-eight home battalions or about thirty-eight. If war breaks out you have to send fifty-two battalions abroad. You would then have in the country thirty-eight of these home battations and about twenty-six general-service battalions, a total of sixty-four. Of those you have to send immediately fifty-two to India. In that sixty-four is included your striking force, so that if you had already utilised your striking force for some purpose you would have practically no Regular troops left in the country within a very few minutes after war had been declared.
  EARL SPENCER: Is the striking force included in the fifty-two battalions?
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: No but it is included in the sixty-four. There is no reason why it should not be used in the fifty-two, but it does not necessarily follow that you would want to use it in

  725
  the fifty-two. The position I have suggested would, I venture to think, represent a very serious state of affairs. But if you have thirty-three Militia battalions welded into the service Army you will have a very much bigger margin with which to work as the war goes on.
  Then there is another point—a financial point—which I would ask your Lordships to bear in mind. The present cost of the Militia is about £17 or £18 per man. If we were to carry out the recommendations of the Duke of Norfolk's Commission—that is to say, train the men for six months on enlistment and have six weeks in training afterwards—you would increase the cost to £22 per man. The cost of the home-service soldier on mobilisation—and I hope to make it perfectly clear how the estimate is arrived at—is £29 2s. 7d. The way in which we arrive at that estimate is as follows. We take the cost of the two year battalions and depots, the cost of the men during the six years service in the Reserve, and we divide that total cost by the total number of men available—all the two years men serving with the colours and the Reservists who are available on mobilisation—and by that division we obtain the total of £29 2s. 7d. That is only £7 more than the cost of the Militiaman when you have carried out the recommendations of the Duke of Norfolk's Commission. In other words, for the same money as it casts you to produce, 69,000 Militiamen, men who have been six months in training as recruits and have had six weeks training every year, you can obtain 53,000 men who have had two years training on enlistment and one month's training twice over during their Reserve service. If a General wore asked whether he would rather have 69,000 of the Militiamen or 53,000 of the short-service men, I have very little doubt as to what his answer would be.
  The question of the Volunteers has not been raised this evening, and therefore I do not intend to say anything about it, though it naturally must be kept in mind as a homogeneous part of the scheme. The Report of the Royal Commission is serious also as regards the Volunteers, and we hope by the proposals that we are making to effect a vast improvement in the efficiency of that force.
  726
  There is another point which has not been mentioned this evening, but which is of considerable importance, namely, the encouragement that we are going to give to rifle clubs. We believe that this will be a considerable advantage in giving men who cannot afford the time for Volunteering some opportunity of getting at any rate a small knowledge of the rifle and a knowledge which must admittedly be useful upon mobilisation.
  I do not know that there is any other point to which I ought to refer before I sit down. I am afraid I have given a very inadequate account of the scheme of the Government, but what I wish to enforce is that it should be regarded as a homogeneous scheme—a scheme laying down lines of policy which all Parties can adopt, and which meets many of our present defects and eases difficulties which have been apparent in the past. I trust, my Lords, that the scheme may be so regarded by all Parties, because I am certain that, unless such a view be taken, the task of organising the Army in accordance with our Imperial needs will be one almost impossible of solution.
  LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, I very cheerfully accede to the request of the noble Earl that we should not speak upon this question in any captious Party spirit. For my part I am very glad to think that there are a great many important provisions in this scheme which are probably very wise. Like the noble Lord behind me, I am a humble disciple of the blue water school, and I cannot say that I am in the least alarmed at the prospect of the decrease of the Army by about 28,000 men, which I am told is the upshot of this scheme. My opinion;n this respect is not in the least shaken by the circumstances which only last year the Prime Minister denounced in the strongest terms—a proposed diminution of the Army by 27,000 men. I suppose as he blesses this scheme he must, as it were, have recanted his impassioned utterances of last year in regard to the "lunacy" of decreasing the Army. As to the striking force, I am not going to rush in where Lord Roberts feared to tread. I do not propose to give my opinion, nor if I gave it would it he worth anything, in regard to the details of the scheme. If the striking force is

  727
  in the nature of a luxury, as some people think, it is at all events a much less expensive luxury than the Army Corps of Mr. Brodrick. With regard to large depots, I think it is very probable that the Government is right. I do not quite understand, however, the position which is taken up by the Government with regard to the linked battalions. Do I understand that the men at one of these large depots will be enlisted for particular regiments, or that they will go to a depot and have to stand their chance of being placed in any regiment that may be in need of men? I am not clear upon that point. It is very likely that the provision of the Government with regard to the linked battalions may work well, and although I think it doubtful whether the reduction of the Volunteers and the division into classes is a wise step, I am quite ready to admit that the Government may be right on these points. I am particularly thankful to the noble Lord and the Secretary of State for War for having put their foot down absolutely upon the possibility of conscription, although I am sorry to find that there is still a noble Lord in this House who advocates compulsory service. However, we have had it on the authority of the Secretary of State for War himself and of the Under-Secretary that in their opinion conscription is absolutely dead.
  My Lords, the Under-Secretary of State has told us that this scheme needed further consideration. We were constantly asking that the scheme should he produced to the House, but we were always told that it would be very unfair to press the Government to introduce a piecemeal scheme, and that if we waited we would get a complete and perfect scheme. We readily agreed that that was the right and proper thing to do, and therefore we did not press the Government prematurely to produce their scheme; we waited very patiently, but I doubt very much whether even now we have got a complete scheme. Whether or not it is a complete scheme hinges to a great extent upon what the Government propose to do with regard to the Militia. For the life of me I cannot make out from the statement of the Under-Secretary of State whether or not it is part of the Government programme
  728
  that the Militia should be absorbed into the Line. That, after all, is the absolute pivot of the whole system. The Secretary of State for War has over and over again assured the House of Commons that the public would be very wrong indeed—I do not know whom he means by the public; I suppose he means his colleagues in the Cabinet or on the Army Council as part of the public—that they would be very wrong indeed if they did not agree with him and allow the Militia to be absorbed into the Regular home-defence Army. He has stated that the Militia as now constituted was useless for purposes either of defence or of offence, and that this force cost the country nearly £2,000,000 of money per annum, but he added that although the force was useless and although it cost the public nearly £2,000,000 of money, he was not going to absorb it because public opinion would not allow it. But here, and I am clad to see it, the Under-Secretary of State has taken a totally different line, and has suggested that it is absolutely essential—and I believe it is—to the success of the scheme, at all events from a financial point of view, that the Militia should be absorbed into the Regular Army The noble Earl called it "welding." I do not know that there is much difference between "welding" and "absorbing," but at all events the Under-Secretary was very strong on the proposition that you must absorb the Militia into the Regular Army. I entirely agree with the Under-Secretary of State that, if the scheme is to stand, that must be done. I do not understand this go-as-you-please method of proceeding, of leaving it to the man in the street to settle most difficult questions of policy. I do not understand the practice of leaving everything an open question. That appears to me to be a system not of government, but of abdication of government.
  The chief objection, my Lords, that I take to this scheme, is not a technical objection in the very least, nor is it one that requires a military mind to understand it. My chief objection is one which has been urged very forcibly in the course of this debate, namely, that the scheme will not work because you will not get the necessary recruits. I agree with Sir Neville Lyttelton, or with what I gather from his speech to be his opinion, that it

  729
  is extremely doubtful whether you can carry this scheme through without general conscription for foreign sere ice. That appears to me to be the necessary out-come of this scheme if you carry it out as at present constituted, and I need scarcely say that it will be quite impossible to get from the country a mandate to do anything of the kind. I have read a great many criticisms of the Government scheme, some of them favourable and others unfavourable, but I have not come across a swingle critic, however favourable to the scheme, who did not express doubts as to whether the Government could get anything like the number of recruits they require. In this matter I confess that I have some difficulty in following the figures given by the noble Earl. The Under Secretaty told us that the number of long-service recruits that would be required was something like 11,200 a year.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: For the infantry?
  LORD MONKSWELL: I am taking the infantry of the Line only, because I entirely agree that it is with this force that recruiting is the main difficulty. The noble Earl told us that he wants only 11,200 nine-years men to fill 104 battalions of 1,000 men each. How are you going to do it?
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: The number is 11,600.
  LORD MONKSWELL: Very well; 11,600. Even if we multiply that number by nine, it is only 104,000; therefore it appears to me to be perfectly clear that if there is any wastage at all, it is impossible to suppose that you will not want more than 11,600 recruits. There is bound to be wastage from illness and desertion and other causes.
  Then there is another matter to which I should like to call the attention of the noble Earl. He said, greatly to my astonishment, that he proposed to have only 104 foreign-service battalions in all.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: About 104.
  LORD MONKSIVELL: The curious thing about that is that, according to the
  730
  latest Army Abstract, we have, within 250, no less than 93,000 infantry of the Line serving either abroad or on the high seas on their way to and from England. That would leave you only 11,000 men home defence, for which yon are said to require 26,000 men. Therefore, on the noble Earl's own showing he is 15,000 to the bad, assuming that our present garrisons are kept up at the existing level. Not only that, but the noble Earl has entirely left out of account the 6,000 men who will have to be in training at the depot to feed the battalions. Therefore, it appears perfectly clear, on the noble Earl's own showing, that if he wants about twenty -six battalions at home, and if he mast have, as I at home, and if he must have, as I suppose he must, ninety battalions either serving abroad or on the high seas, he will want about twenty battalions more that the 104 which he has suggested, having regard to the number of men who would necessarily be at the depot.
  I confess that on reading the scheme I did not understand that anything like twenty-six battalions of nine-years-service men were to be employed at home. It appears to me, that, without having any of those 26,000 men employed in strengthening the home Army, you would have abundant employment for more than your 104 battalions. These nine-years men will, as I understand it, have three functions to perform; in the first place, some of them are to be sent to stiffen the home Army, and I thought that the extent to which they would be called upon for that purpose would be to send 100 men to each of the home battalions of 500 each. That would mean a very small force comparatively of nine years men; 4,000 would amply fulfil all requirements in that respect. Then there is the striking force. I imagine that in the striking force You will want something like 8,000 infantry of the Line, because the striking force has to be composed of all arms, and I have no doubt that you will have a considerable contingent of the Guards employed upon it. Therefore, we may take it at the outside that for the purpose of stiffening the home battalions and for the striking force you will want 12,000 men. Then apparently you are to have about 14,000 men who are to serve at home. In that way the noble Earl makes it out that

  731
  these men are to serve for only three-quarters of their time abroad. But in totalling up this time the noble Earl must recollect that for six, perhaps twelve, months they will have to be in training at the depot before they are sent abroad, and I should think that they will be extremely lucky if, after serving their time in the depot, the men have more than a year or eighteen months service, out of the whole of the remaining eight or eight and a half years of service, in England.
  The noble Earl has gone into detail, and it was necessary that he should, with regard to recruiting and the advantages which he says this scheme offers to the nine-years recruits. Now the Secretary of State for War said that the nine-years service was the exact equivalent, or at any rate an equivalent, of the present service of seven years and five years with the Reserves. It is nothing of the kind. It is quite true that the seven-years men at the end of their service, if they found themselves abroad, could be made to serve for one year longer, but no more; therefore the utmost limit of their service was eight years, and they might reasonably expect in many cases to get off at the end of seven years. That is a very different thing from nine years. It must also be remembered that these men are be at least nineteen years of age; that is to say, they will not, even under the most favourable circumstances, have a chance of re-entering civil life until they are twenty-eight years of age. Therefore, as regards length of service there is a considerable difference between the short service as we have known it under Lord Cardwell's scheme and the nine years service as now proposed. In two respects the recruit is at a great disadvantage. He will be abroad nearly the whole of his time, and under the most favourable circumstances he will not return to civil life until he is twenty-eight years of age.
  Then, my Lords, there is another matter to which I desire to call the serious attention of the Under-Secretary of State on the question of recruiting, and that is the extreme unpopularity of the service in South Africa. I do not think that General Sir William Butler put it at all too strongly when he said that South Africa was the grave of
  732
  recruiting. The men serve in South Africa under a most intense sense of grievance. They are made to do constabulary work for which, even under the new conditions, they will receive only about one-third of the pay given to the constabulary. That gives the men a constant sense of grievance, and, in order to intensify that grievance ten-fold, what have the Government done? The troops in South Africa are told that the climate there is so good that their service is to count, not as foreign service, but as home service, and consequently some of the men, who otherwise might have been sent back to England, are sent at the end of their term of service in South Africa to India. When eventually they return to England they are in a most exasperated state of mind; they form most enthusiastic missionaries against recruiting, and will not, if they can help it, permit any of their friends or relations to serve in the Army. That is a most serious state of things, about which nothing has hitherto been said. As if that were not enough to increase the difficulties of recruiting, His Majesty's Government have recently passed a Reserve Forces Bill, doing away with the privilege by which Reservists set great store, namely, the privilege when recalled to the colours of serving in the arm of the service in which they originally enlisted. That, again, will be a severe blow to reuniting. All these drawbacks are to be compensated for by a payment of 1 s. 6d. a day, and I think for proficiency in rifle shooting they are to get another 4d. Is that so?
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHNIORE: Twopence on qualifying in musketry.
  LORD MONKSWELL: At any rate, the ordinary private will get 1s. 6d., I believe—or might he get more?
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: 1s. 3d. clear cash.
  LORD MONKSWELL: Those who have looked into the matter have assured me that nothing under 2s. 6d. a day will have the slightest chance of attracting recruits in sufficient numbers, and if you have to pay anything like 2s. 6d. a day I should like to know where your saving is to come in. Then there is another grievance the recruit will put forward. We

  733
  have been told by the Secretary of State for War that the recruits who join at the age of nineteen and for nine years service are not to be entitled to serve for a pension. It is perfectly impossible that that part of the scheme can stand. It would be utterly inhuman that these men who want to be soldiers and who are of good character should after serving nine years abroad, perhaps in unhealthy climates, be turned adrift and not be permitted to make the Army their profession. That part of the scheme will have to go, and the Government will have to add to the non-effective Vote, because it is perfectly certain that if recruits are taken at nineteen instead of eighteen years of age, and have to serve for nine years instead of for seven years, a great many more will desire to remain on in the service.
  I should like to call attention, in conclusion, to a rather remarkable and grandiloquent sentence in the Memorandum of the Secretary of State for War. He uses these words—
  "The War Office will no longer be dependent for its general-service soldiers upon the caprice of boys who may or way not decide to extend."
  All I would say on the subject is that these "boys," as the Secretary of State terms them, must have arrived at least at the age of twenty before they have the option to extend, and the Secretary of State forgets that the very existence of the general-service Army will depend not upon the caprice of youths of twenty, but upon the caprice of youths who may be not more than nineteen years of age, and who may prefer a civil career to the eight and a half years expatriation at 1s. 6d. a day. While I quite agree that this scheme has in many of its particulars been carefully thought out and is in some respects a good scheme, yet it appears to me to rest on no solid foundation inasmuch as you will certainly not get the necessary recruits.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): The noble Lord opposite who commenced this discussion made such a pointed appeal to me that I find it impossible, without departing from the respect which I owe him, to remain in my place; but I confess I rise without much hope of illuminating your Lordships upon the matters of detail which arise in connection with this scheme.
  734
  With regard to its main principles, I listened with great satisfaction to what fell from the noble Lord who spoke first, for in the opening passages of his speech he paid an unstinted compliment to what I conceive to be the general principles which are embodied in these proposals. He expressed his satisfaction at finding that His Majesty's Government desired to keep the strength of the Army within moderate limits. He rejoiced that we did not consider it necessary to retain at home a force larger than would be necessary for the purpose of resisting attacks from hostile raids, and he complimented us, with perhaps rather less than his usual felicity of language, on having adopted the blue water theory as what he called the "bed-rock" of our system.
  LORD BURGHCLERE: The theory, not the blue water.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: He also expressed himself in terms of satisfaction with regard to the desire shown throughout the scheme to keep within limits the large and growing expenditure upon the Army; and I must say that I shuddered when I heard the noble Lord who spoke last, who is, as we know, an advocate of economy in all its forms, suggest that nothing short of an offer of half-a-crown a day would be sufficient to obtain suitable recruits for the military forces of the Crown.
  But, my Lords, the principal criticism which fell both from the noble Lord who spoke first and the noble Lord who spoke last was directed to show that His Majesty's Government were to blame for not laying before your Lordships a scheme representing what I think the noble Lord called the final conclusions of His Majesty's Government upon these important subjects. Well, my Lords, let me say frankly to your Lordships that the Paper which your Lordships have before you does not represent what can be described as the final conclusions of His Majesty's Government upon all the subjects to which it has reference. The noble Earl will remember how much he pressed me to lay upon the Table some document which would serve as a useful basis; for our discussion. The Paper, as appears on the face of it, represents

  735
  a number of notes which were put together by the Secretary of State for the important statement which he lately made in the other House of Parliament. If your Lordships will read it with the attention to which it is entitled you will see that there are throughout it passages which show that the proposals indicated are proposals which are to receive further consideration at a subsequent time. I do not think that either the Secretary of State or his colleagues need be the least ashamed for coming here and admitting that they had not said their last word upon these matters. We have had, comparatively speaking, only a short time in which to turn to account the lessons learned during the South African War; and I do not think that any one can accuse us of having sat with folded hands during that time. We have introduced into the War Office changes of the most drastic and important kind; and we are ready to give your Lordships a general idea of the direction in which our minds are moving as to Army organisation, although we are not prepared to present full details of the whole of the proposals we think should ultimately be adopted. When I say that, of course I do not mean that, with regard to what I would call the main principles of the scheme, we do not see our way; when I speak of main principles I mean, for example, the proposal that the main object of our Regular Army is service out of this country and that it is, therefore, necessary that the greater part of it should be specially organised with regard to such service.
  That is one point, and it has led us to announce that we propose that henceforth there shall be two Armies— a general-service Army, with battalions maintained at high strength, taking its recruits at an older age, and for longer service, and holding out to them the inducement of a higher rate of pay; and, on the other hand, a home-service Army, smaller in dimensions, with battalions of lower strength, and taking recruits somewhat younger, for a much shorter period of service, and at a somewhat lower rate of pay, and intended in a great measure for the purpose of producing that most essential element in all sound military systems—a numerous Reserve.
  736
  Then, my Lords, complaint was made that our proposals with regard to the Militia were not of a more definite kind. I must say that the difficulty which confronts us in regard to the Militia is very typical of the class of difficulty that Army reformers in this country have to contend with. There can be no doubt. as my noble friend has pointed out, that if this question had to be dealt with upon purely financial grounds, it would be very much cheaper to absorb the Militia into the home-service Army, to greatly in' crease its efficiency, and to get rid of any Militia battalions not required for that purpose. But then we have to take into consideration arguments of a very different kind—arguments of which we are bound to recognise the force, and described in the Memorandum of the Secretary of State in which he says with very great frankness that he recognises that popular sentiment against such a change is at present too strong to justify him in recommending it. The noble Lord who spoke first, in the only passage of his speech to the tone of which I could take any exception, taunted us because, as he said, we were in this important matter timidly waiting on public opinion; and the noble Lord who spoke last asked what public opinion we were waiting for; were we, he said, waiting for an opinion from the man in the street? If the noble Lord had read the Secretary of State's Memorandum, he would have seen that in one direction at any rate the Secretary of State desires to be fortified by an expression of public opinion of a kind of which I am sure the noble Lord will not speak slightingly—he proposes to take into consultation representative officers of Militia and to discuss with them proposals for any further changes that it might be desirable to introduce. Could any proposal be more reasonable or show a greater desire to deal considerately and respectfully with the Militia? I think that noble Lords opposite, far from having any reason to complain of us because our proposals are not in a more final and complete state, owe us sonic little gratitude for having gone out of our way to place them before the House while Parliament is still sitting and while debate upon them is possible.
  With regard to the disappearance of the linked battalions, I may say a few

  737
  words. It has often been my lot to defend in this House the system of linked battalions. I remain of opinion that, given the circumstances of the time, we had in these linked battalions a very valuable system for supplying the wants of the Army, but it was a system which, as your Lordships will remember, depended upon an approximation between the number of battalions required for service at home and the number required for service abroad. I shall continue to believe that the arrangement under which the home battalions acted as what I may call feeders to the foreign battalions, and in their turn, when fortified by the additions of Reservists, became fighting units, was a very good system, and certainly at the outbreak of the South African War it enabled us to put into the field a larger and more efficient force than ever left these shores before.
  But from the moment when other principles were admitted with regard to the distribution of the Army, from the moment that it was recognised that the bulk of our Regular troops are required for service out of the country, and that consequently the number of Regular battalions at home must represent a very insignificant number indeed compared with the battalions abroad—from that moment the linked-battalion system was doomed, and we were bound to discover some alternative. The only alternative possible was the substitution of depots for linked battalions. When I had the honour of being connected with the Army I remember very well that military opinion leaned strongly to the view that the young soldier was better trained with the battalion than at the depot; but I gather that military opinion, which is not always constant in these matters, is different at the present time.
  I will not detain your Lordships on matters of detail. Once again I ask your Lordships' favourable consideration of proposals produced under somewhat difficult circumstances. We have had to take into account the experience of a great war, we have had to consider the question of expense, and we have had also to take into account the changes consequent upon a very considerable alteration
  738
  in what I may describe as the bases of our system of Imperial defence. All these considerations necessitated a courageous revision of our existing arrangements. We have advanced as far as was possible within the time at our disposal. We are laying these new proposals before your Lordships on the clear understanding that the Paper you have in your hands contains, not a final recapitulation of military proposals accepted by the Government of the day, but a broad sketch of the general principles which, with a full knowledge of the views of his colleagues, and with the full approval of his military advisers, the Secretary of State has laid down for adoption.
  EARL SPENCER: I am exceedingly sorry, both on my own account and on the account of the House, to have to say anything at this late hour of the evening, but the speech of the noble Marquess Makes it necessary for me to offer a few remarks. When we came down to the House we were grateful to the noble Marquess for having provided us with a Paper recapitulating the proposals made by the Secretary of State in another place in order that we might have a good basis for our discussion but I am surprised to find from the remarks the noble Marquess has just made that we are not to consider any of these proposals as settled proposals for a scheme for Army reform. That is what I understand from the noble Marquess—in fact, that what has taken place here and elsewhere at the initiation of the Government is academic discussion on various texts which they have provided. I will come presently to one point on which I knew there was to be reservation of opinion. Allusion has already been made to the point by different speakers, but before dealing with it there are two or three other matters to which I should like to refer. I was very much struck with what was said by the distinguished Field-Marshal Lord Roberts, the late Commander-in-Chief. He made some small criticisms on this scheme, declaring that he approved of some proposals and disapproved of others, but he urged the high importance of not hurrying in this matter, and of not rushing another new Army scheme before the country. I feel the force of that advice very strongly.

  739
  Many critics have forgotten what was so remarkable and good in the sending of troops to South Africa. Great mistakes were made in that war, but I do not wish to dwell on them to-day. But there were some remarkable facts which from time to time have been powerfully referred to by the Prime Minister as facts upon which we might congratulate ourselves in relation to what had been done in South Africa under the old system. First there was the question of the Reserves. It was certainly remarkable that this system, originated by Lord Cardwell, which had never really been practically tried before, produced within six days nearly 98 per cent. of those who were serving in the Reserve. Not only that, but we were able with great rapidity to send our forces with all apparatus necessary for the campaign 7,000 miles over sea, and that is a performance which very few countries in the world could have carried through. This system also gave to many regiments in South Africa the best personnel—I do not much like the word though my noble friend the First Lord of the Admiralty often uses it—I will say the finest body of soldiers that probably had ever been seen in any regiment either in this country or abroad. Why was that? It was on account of the splendid men who went out as Reservists. I know it may be said that that is not the proper use of Reservists—that they should be formed into separate regiments and form the second line of attack or defence. Abroad the peace establishment of a regiment is often 600 and their war establishment 1000, and as far as I know this large increase is made up by what we call Reservists. Having this success in view, were the Government justified in rushing at once into a new scheme? The scheme given us is for discussion apparently and has not been settled. Why was this necessary It is mainly on account of the change which the Government themselves rushed through a few years ago. That system has broken down because three years service was introduced universally. The system was copied from the Guards, and the moment men found they could enlist for the short service in their own localities recruiting for the Guards fell off, and that arm is now largely deficient in men. Serious difficulties, I understand, have
  740
  been found in sending out reinforcements and changes of men to India. Men have not re-engaged, and the expense of transport in sending short-service men back- wards and forwards will be enormous. All that trouble has been caused by rushing through a new plan without full consideration by the Government, and now they are obliged to take some steps to remedy this serious state of things. I protest, therefore, against an endeavour to impose a cut-and-dried scheme on the country—perhaps the statement of the noble Marquess to-night will dissipate that impression—when we know that under the former state of things such excellent results were secured by which, a large Army was sent to South Africa. I do not say that there are not things which ought to be changed; but I do say that to try to change the whole system—which I thought this was an endeavour to do—seems to me very unwise and imprudent; and I sympathise very much with the gallant Field-Marshal in what he said on this matter.
  Now, my Lords, I agree with all that has been said by my noble friend who introduced the subject as to the Militia being the pivot of this scheme. That is a very important point, and we certainly seem to have heard two voices from the Government in reference to it to-night. The noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State for War clearly, as I understand, said that what they wanted was the welding of the Militia into the home service Army.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: That is the wish of the Army Council. Perhaps I do not make it clear.
  EARL SPENCER: I understood the noble Earl to say the Government.
  The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: Then I was wrong; I meant the Army, Council.
  EARL SPENCER: I certainly understood him to represent that the Government desired it, and it very much corresponded with the shrewd guesses previously made by many people outside as to the difficulty in producing this scheme, and we came to the conclusion that there had been serious

  741
  opposition on the part of the Secretary of State's colleagues to what he wanted. I certainly think that the Under-Secretary's statement corroborates those rumours; but the noble Marquess leaves the subject—as it is left in the Memorandum—an open question. It is clear that in this, as in other questions, the Government are not quite distinct in their views on important matters, and though they lay down principles on certain points, they leave others open. If they are going to weld the Militia into these regiments, a gnat constitutional force is practically destroyed. I am not saying that this great force is in a perfect state. I believe it has been neglected to a great extent, and had it been dealt with on different lines this great territorial force might be much more efficient than it is now. Every one would wish to see great efforts made to preserve a force so popular in this country, and a force which during the late war furnished something like 2,000 officers and 40,000 or 70,000 men to the Army in South Africa. The country would be much staggered if it thought this force would he shortly destroyed. The Militia has doubtless fallen off a great deal in the matter of recruits. One of the reasons has been the passion—which is very good in some respects but which when given way to to too large an extent is ruinous to recruiting—for bringing the men into brigades for camping. I went to see my own county Militia this year. It was the first time for five years the Militia had been trained at Northampton. Though I warmly support the occasional brigading of the Militia and the bringing of them into camp, to do so every year is destructive to their local influence and ruinous to recruiting in the different localities.
  Then, my Lords, I must say a few words with regard to the Volunteers; as I do not think we are likely to have another discussion of this matter before the end of the session. I have always been a very warm supporter of the Volunteers. I was one of the first to join the force. I did more than probably anybody else to raise a battalion in may own county, and I had the honour of commanding that battalion at the first Volunteer review in London
  742
  before Her late Majesty. I have also had a great experience in regard to rifle shooting, and had much to do with the formation of the National Rifle Association, which has had so enormous an effect on rifle-shooting throughout the country. In my belief nothing has happened in this country which has done more good in many ways not only to the military, but to the people at large, socially and physically, than the establishment of Volunteers. We have got a most admirable class of men in the Volunteers; there has always been a keenness among them not only to learn their drill, but also to become skilful and good riflemen. I should very greatly regret it if anything were done to discourage the force—I will not say to diminish its numbers, because I frankly admit that in certain respects some diminution might be advisable. A medical examination might be required, but I do not imagine that that would cut out a very large number. But what is the proposal here? The proposal of the Secretary of State is to divide the Volunteers into two classes, one class composed of men who can give more time to drill and to camp, and the other class composed of men who are so occupied that they cannot give so much time away from their homes. I imagine that this proposal carries with it larger grants to one class than to the other. I am afraid you run a very great danger in this. From my experience I know that probably the most intelligent and the best kind of Volunteers are those who are the most occupied; and if you put a premium on those who are the least occupied I am afraid you will not secure the very best men for the service. I am happy to think that the strong prejudice which existed years ago against Volunteers amongst military men has largely disappeared. Officers in the Army were wedded to the system of men being drilled in barrack squares, and they preferred men so drilled to men who, although more intelligent, did not possess that qualification. But opinion in that respect has now changed. I agree in the desirability of camps for Volunteers, but I think the Government have been over-straining that point. I have commanded camps of Volunteers time after time, and it is surprising the progress they make

  743
  with even a week's drill in camp. I think the Government have made a mistake both as to the length of the camp and the distance from home. We have not had a camp in Northamptonshire for some time. The men are taken off to Suffolk, and the local people never see them in camp. That is a great mistake. There ought to be brigade camp once or twice in three years, but if you wish to keep up the Volunteers you should do more to encourage local camps. I think there is considerable danger that if you have these two classes of Volunteers it will result in the ruin of a great many corps. The idea appears to be that the most intelligent, and therefore the better, men are to be found in the towns; but though I greatly appreciate many splendid town corps my experience is that rural corps contain the finest men. You must look to the rural districts for the strongest and most vigorous men. I know that in a tug of war the rural corps will always pull over the town corps. I have said these few words, not wishing to criticise in a Party spirit the proposals of the Government; but this is a subject of great national importance, and I thought it was necessary that we should offer certain criticisms, and I thank your Lordships for the attention you have given me.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes past eight o'clock, till to-morrow Twelve o'clock.