Sitting of 29 March 1906

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Private Bill Petitions (Standing Orders not complied with).—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, viz.:—Shrewsbury Corporation Water.
Ordered, that the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
Dowlais Gas Bill,—As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

PETITIONS.
  DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACT (1896) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Dundee, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LAND VALUES (ASSESSMENT AND RATING) BILL.
  Petition from Leeds, in favour; to lie upon the Table.

  PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (RELIGIOUS TEACHING).
  Petitions against alteration of Law; From Ashworth; Bamack cum Southorpe; Bamburgh; Bampton (two); Bapchild (two); Barton St. David; Belmont; Berwick - on - Tweed; Binsted (two); Bishop's Fonthill (two); Bothal; Bournemouth; Broadwell and Kencot; Burneston; Catherington (two); Chadlington; Cherhill; Chewton Mendip; Chollerton; Church Broughton; Cirencester; Cleckheaton with Scholes (two); Clyst; Coldhurst; Collingbourne Ducis; Colton; Compton Paunceforte with Blackford; Crawley Down; Digswell (two); Dogmersfield; Dowdeswell; Droylesden; Droyleseden St. Mary's (two); Easingwold; Eastham; Ellingham; Empshott; Frankby; Funderhall; Gainsborough;
  1506
  Great Yeldham; Hedley; Heywood; Holborn; Holdenhurst; Ilderton; Iron Acton; Laindon cum Basildon; Lang-ford; Langho (two); Levenshulme (two); Lintle Horsted (two); Llandyfriog; Lytham (two); Manchester; Marchington Woodlands (two); Mavesyn Ridware (two); Middlesbrough; Nettlebed; New Windsor; North Sunderland; Norton; Oldham (two); Otterburn; Paddington (two); Penwortham; Pitney; Rearsby (two); Rochdale; Rockhampton; Rownhams; St. Clement's, York; St. Columba, Southwick - on - Wear; Sandon; Shelfanger; Shottery; Somerton (two); South Cerney (two); Stannington; Stanton St. John; Stocksfield; Stratford-on-Avon; Sutterby; Sutton Montis; Sutton Veny; Tasburgh; Thelwall (two); Thornaby-on-Tees (two); Thorpe; Tingrith; Tittleshall; Tottenham; Tottington; Trimingham (two); Tunstead (two); Wacton (two); Walmsley; Wanborough; Wardle; West Gorton; Whissonsett; Whitadder; Whittonstall; Wickwar; and, Wimbish (two); to lie upon the Table.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ARMY (MILITARY SAVINGS BANKS).
  Copy presented, of Statement of the Amounts due by the Public to Depositors on 31st March, 1904, and of the Receipts, Interest, and Disbursements during the year ended 31st March, 1905, &c. [by Act]; to lie yon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 99.]
  INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON TUBERCULOSIS.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Delegates of His Majesty's Government to the International Congress on Tuberculosis, held at Paris in October, 1905 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  HISTORICAL MANUSCRIPTS (ROYAL COMMISSION.)
  Copy presented, of Report on American Manuscripts in the Royal Institution of Great Britain, Vol. II. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  TRADE MARKS ACT, 1905.
  Copy presented, of Statutory Rules and Orders, dated 24th March, 1906,

  1507
  made by the Board of Trade under the Trade Marks Act, 1905 [by Act] to lie upon the Table.

  TRANSVAAL MINES.
  Address for "Return of the output of Gold from the South African Mines in the Transvaal for the five years preceding the importation of Chinese labour."—(Mr. Verney.)
  EAST INDIA (INCOME AND EXPENDITURE).
  Address for "Return of the net Income and Expenditure of British India under certain specified heads for the eleven years from 1894–5 to 1901–5 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 178, of session 1905.) "—(Sir Henry Fowler.)
  Address for "Copy of Workmen's Compensation Bill showing the effect on existing Acts."—(Mr. Secretary Gladstone.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Criticism of Admiralty Policy by Individual Members of the Board.
  CAPTAIN HERVEY: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the misconduct which would entitle the Admiralty to deprive an officer of any part of his pay or pension, under the Order in Council of the20th November, 1905, would include an action such as criticising either the policy of the Admiralty or any individual Member of the Board.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) I am advised that mere criticism of the policy of the Admiralty, or any individual member of the Board, could not be interpreted as misconduct, within the meaning of Section 7 of the Order in Council.

  Surcharge for Extra Diet on New Year's Day in Barnhall Poorhouse, etc.
  MR. WOOD: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that a surcharge has been made upon certain members of the Glasgow Parish Council for having
  1508
  voted extra diet on New Year's Day to the pauper inmates of the Barnhall Poorhouse and Stobhill Hospital; and whether he will undertake to look into the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) Under the Law of Scotland the expenditure was illegal. The parish council authorised the expenditure in the knowledge of this, which was expressly brought under their notice by the clerk of the parish council; and, on the payment being reported for surcharge at the audit, the Local Government Board did not feel justified in exercising their power of refraining from surcharge.

  Summary Punishments in the Navy.
  MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to the increase in the number of summary punishments in the Navy afloat since 1894, in proportion to the numbers borne, whereas in regard to the Marines ashore there has been a diminution, from 3,681 summary punishments among 6,452 marines on shore in 1894, to 1,842 among 7,937 of the force in 1904; and whether the Admiralty can offer any explanation of the fact that there was more than one summary punishment per man afloat, and less than one summary punishment per four men ashore in 1904.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The increase in the number of summary punishments is considered to be due to the large expansion of the personnel of the Fleet, and the consequent younger average age of the ships' companies; the disproportion between offences committed "afloat" and "ashore" is to be attributed to the fact that life at sea is subject to greater restrictions, and is more arduous than in barracks on shore.

  British Museum's Collection of Irish Bells.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if in view of the re-arrangement of the collections of the British Museum, he will suggest to the authorities the advisability of returning to Ireland their collection of ancient Irish bells, which are of no interest

  1509
  to the museum, which are of no value to that institution, and of no interest to the British public, but which are of great interest to Ireland, and should be preserved in the National Museum in Dublin; and if, in the event of the British Museum trustees agreeing to the transfer, the Government will introduce the necessary legislation to carry it out.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.): I am informed that the ancient Irish bells in the British Museum are regarded by the trustees as possessing, in relation to the native art of Britain and other countries, a very decided interest for students generally. The British Museum aims at being a museum of general archæology, and, for the purposes of archaeological study in the widest sense, the trustees endeavour to make their collections as representative as possible. I should have been glad if it had been found possible to transfer the collection to Dublin, but the policy which the authorities of the Museum feel called upon to follow offers no prospect of meeting the hon. Baronet's wishes in the matter.

  Post Office Adult Messengers.
  MR. J. P. NANNETTI: To ask the Postmaster-General if he will state the number of adult messengers employed in the provincial towns of the United Kingdom, the number that are over twenty-five years old, and the number who have over fifteen years' postal service; whether, as the principle fixing the minimum of 23s. 6d. a week for postmen was mainly based on the conditions that they were over twenty-five years old, and probably married, and the cost of living in large provincial towns, and that these conditions equally apply to adult night messengers, he will explain why the latter, some of whom are over forty years old and have over twenty years' aggregate service, are paid a maximum of only 19s. a week; and will he have these and all other previous Questions asked during this Session regarding adult messengers brought under the notice of the Select Committee.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The number of adult night messengers in provincial towns is approximately
  1510
  100, but I cannot, without inquiry, furnish the hon. Member with the further details for which he asks. The work of the messengers in question is, however, very simple, and their case has no analogy with that of the postmen. It is for the Committee to decide whether they will consider that this class should be included in their inquiries.

  Position of Donadea (Kildare) Post Office.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: To ask the Postmaster-General whether any change has taken place in the locale of the post office at Donadea, Kildare, Ireland; and whether, seeing that the present post office there is 150 yards from the public road, with two gates across the avenue leading thereto, he will say whether other places more suitable were offered to the post office authorities.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I am making inquiry in this matter, and I will comunicate the result to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Epizootic Lymphangitis.
  MR. O'SHEE: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether it is generally admitted by veterinary authorities in England that the disease of epizootic lymphangitis was introduced into the United Kingdom by Army horses which returned from active service in South Africa; whether the disease in England was principally confined to Army horses; in how many cases have outbreaks occurred in civilian stables; and whether officers, having horses stabled in barracks in which the disease had appeared, were permitted within a short time after the actual cases of slaughter for the disease to take their horses out of barracks to follow hounds.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The Answer to the first part of the hon. Member's Question is in the affirmative. The disease was principally confined to Army horses. Twenty cases have been reported in civilian stables, but in only six cases was the diagnosis confirmed. With regard to the concluding

  1511
  part of the Question, I am informed by the War Office that they have no knowledge of officers of infected units having hunted their horses.
  MR. O'SHEE: TO ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he will state upon what grounds Colonel Blenkinsop, the chief Army veterinary officer in Ireland, has stated that the disease of epizootic lymphangitis had appeared in the city or county of Waterford a considerable time before any case of the disease occurred in Waterford military barracks.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) No such statement can be traced as having been made by the officer in question.
  MR. O'SHEE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, as the Reports of the Army Veterinary Department are confidential, he will give the extracts from the Reports, showing that the disease of epizootic lymphangitis is not shown to have been communicated by Army horses at Waterford to civilian horses, but may have been communicated by civilian horses to Army horses.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane. The hon. Member is doubtless aware that it is not possible in this House to quote extracts from Reports without publishing the Reports in full. I am afraid, therefore, that I cannot comply with his request.

  Supposed War Gratuity of late John Duggan of Sutherland Highlanders.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the application of Patrick Duggan, of Galway, for the gratuity due to his son John Duggan, of the Sutherland Highlanders, who had served in the South African War, and, as a result of the wounds there received, died shortly after his return; and whether, in view of Patrick Duggan's age and poverty, he will issue instructions to have any amounts still due paid without delay.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) My attention has been drawn to this case. There is no sum remaining due to Mr. Duggan on account of his son's
  1512
  estate, and he was so informed on the 17th instant.

  Withdrawal of Garrison at St Helena.
  MR. HICKS BEACH: To ask the Secretary of State for War if it is proposed to withdraw the troops from St. Helena during the year 1906–7; and when the evacuation is to begin.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) It is proposed to withdraw the troops from St. Helena during theyear 1906–7, but the date of the evacuation has not yet been settled.

  Pensions of Crimean and Indian Mutiny Veterans.
  MR. W. H. DAVIES: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he proposes to agree to the prayer of the petition on behalf of the Crimean and Indian Mutiny veterans, which was presented to his predecessor in office, and which asked that the pensions of these old soldiers, now generally over seventy years of age, should be, when below 1s. per day, augmented to that sum.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) This matter is still under consideration.

  Brigading Experiments in the Army.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that in 1901, under the title of the Lancashire Royal Field Artillery, the experiment was tried of forming a brigade of three batteries of field artillery, of which one-third consisted of Regulars, who formed the permanent nucleus of the brigade, and two-thirds of Militia, who came up for two months' training annually; whether this brigade is still in existence; and, if so, what have been the results of the experiment as regards both gunnery and general military effectiveness; and what is its annual cost as compared with the cost of a brigade of Royal Field Artillery.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The brigade to which the hon. and gallant Member alludes is still in existence. The Reports have been satisfactory, especially in view of the amount

  1513
  of training received. The annual cost of the brigade is £21,000, and of a brigade of Royal Field Artillery on the lower establishment is £40,000.

  Rewards to Police for arresting a Deserter.
  MR. WILKIE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether from ten to fifteen shillings is paid by way of reward to any person arresting a deserter; and, if so, will he say why only half of the amount is paid to police constables.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) These rewards may be paid to any person for apprehending a deserter in plain clothes. In fixing the amount of the reward the officer commanding is guided by the recommendation of the committing magistrate. The regulations do not differentiate between police constables and others.

  Meat Contracts for Barry and Buddon Camps.
  MR. WILKIE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the contracts for butchers' meat supplied to the Barry and Buddon Camps, are open to the tradesmen of Dundee and Forfarshire; and, if so, will he see that an opportunity is given to the butchers of Dundee and district to compete for the same.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) No eligible firms are excluded from tendering for War Department contracts. The tradesmen in question should apply to the General Officer Commanding-in-chief, Scottish Command, for the necessary forms.

  Colonial Audit Department.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that the Imperial Government at present bears the charge for works and rates of the Colonial Audit Branch under the Controller and Auditor General, and that the Controller and Auditor General, the head of that branch, is paid out of Parliamentary funds, and in view of the present method of recruiting this branch, he will consider the advisability of amalgamating this branch with the
  1514
  Exchequer and Audit Department itself, of paying for the whole Department thus constituted out of Parliamentary funds, and of bringing to account as an Appropriation in Aid of the Exchequer and Audit Vote and the Office of Works Vote the total amount which should he received from Colonial or other funds for the upkeep of this Colonial Audit Branch.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) As already stated in my reply to the hon. Member on the 6th† and 14th† instant, a scheme for the reorganisation of the Colonial Audit Branch is under consideration, and I am not at present in a position to give any further information on the subject.

  Exports of Railway Locomotives.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the value of the railway locomotives exported from this country during the last three years, 1903, 1904, and 1905, to the European Continent and the United States; how it compares with 1883, 1884, and 1885; and if those imported by the Foreign Governments concerned, or the State railways, now receive or did receive any special tariff favour.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The following statement shows the total value of the exports of locomotives from this country in the periods referred to in the question, together with the value of such exports to the European Continent and the United States:—

  In 1883–5.

  In 1903–5.

  Value of exports of locomotives:—

  1. To all destinations-

  4,545,009

  6,672,583

  2. To Europe and the United States

  859,805

  199,360

  Of which—

  To Europe

  838,567

  197,925

  To United States

  21,238

  1,435

  The only countries included under group 2 in which special tariff favours have been accorded to locomotives in
  † (4) Debates, cliii., 271.
  † (4) Debates, cliii., 1219–20.

  1515
  the years mentioned are Spain and Portugal. In Spain locomotives imported by railway companies have paid during the period 1903–5, a reduced rate of duty of sixteen pesetas, as comparred with the tariff rate of twenty-four pesetas. In Portugal exemption from duty has been accorded in both periods to articles imported on account of the State railways, or by companies which have secured this privilege by special law.

  Imports of Hops.
  MR. COURTHOPE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the quantity and value of hops imported into this country from the United States of America in

  Years.

  From the Atlantic Coast direct.

  From the Pacific Coast direct

  Total.

  Quantity.

  Cwts

  Cwts.

  Cwts.

  1900

  147,338

  40

  147,378

  1901

  73,495

  165

  73,660

  1902

  79,196

  450

  79,346

  1903

  69,538

  —

  69,538

  1904

  147,589

  —

  147,589

  1905

  35,427

  515

  35,942

  Value

  £

  £

  £

  1900

  585,411

  94

  585,505

  1901

  288,802

  670

  289,472

  1902

  360,193

  600

  360,793

  1903

  391,751

  —

  391,751

  1904

  1,081,819

  —

  1,081,819

  1905

  190,060

  1,100

  191,160

  It is known that the larger proportion of hops grown in the United States is grown in the Western States, but no
  each of the years 1900–5, stating the-proportion shipped [direct from the-Pacific Coast, grown on the Pacific Coast, but shipped from the Atlantic Coast, and grown elsewhere than on the Pacific Coast, and the proportion grown or picked by Chinese labour; and, in the event of the necessary information not being available, whether he will take steps to obtain it from the British consular officers for embodiment in future Trade Returns.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The following statement gives the information asked for as regards the imports of hops into the United Kingdom directly from the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts of the United States respectively:—
  official information is available either as to the place of growth of the hops exported to the United Kingdom or the

  1517
  character of the labour by which they were grown or picked. In the absence of any official United States statistics bearing upon these points, it mould be impossible for His Majesty's consular officers to procure the information desired.

  Irish Provident Assurance Company.
  MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether the Irish Provident Assurance Company furnished his Department with a balance sheet and report for the past year; if so, was it of a satisfactory character; is the Company bound to issue an annual statement of accounts to the shareholders and customers; could he state the manner in which the capital of the Company is invested; and was the £20,000 statutory deposit made last year by a life assurance company with which the Irish Provident Assurance Company propose to transact business found by the latter; and, if not, could he state the manner in which it was found.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The Irish Provident Assurance Company, Limited is not empowered to transact life business, and consequently has not furnished the Board of Trade with a balance sheet and report for the past year. The Company is not bound by its articles of association to issue an annual statement of accounts to the shareholders and customers. I cannot say how the capital of the Company is invested; and with regard to the £20,000 deposit by a life assurance company with which the Irish Provident Assurance Company, Limited, propose to transact business, I have no information by whom or how the amount was found.

  Cashel Extension Railway Guarantee.
  MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will explain why the understanding come to with the Tipperary County Council, that they would be afforded an opportunity of being represented at the arbitration in connection with the Cashel Extension Railway guarantee, was not carried out, inasmuch as the notice given, only a few days, was insufficient to enable the council to
  1518
  make the necessary arrangements to be represented.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The Act of Parliament under which these arbitrations are held does not require notice to be given to the guaranteeing local authorities, but the arbitrator, with whom the Board of Trade have communicated on the subject, states that he wrote to the secretary of the county council on the 13th February telling him that he would sit at Kingsbridge station on the 20th of the same month to hear objections, if any, to the signing of the necessary certificate. The arbitrator subsequently held a further hearing of objections yesterday, the 28th instant, at which the county council, to whom he had given notice of this hearing on 20th March, were represented. The arbitrator adds that, although he considers the notice given by him was in both instances sufficient, he will, in future, increase it to fourteen days.

  Keyham Dockyard—Case of John Gaskell.
  MR. J. WILLIAMS BENN: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been directed to the case of John Gaskell, assistant boiler maker No. 8116, in the Keyham dockyard, who met with an accident, in the discharge of his duty, on H.M.S. "Prometheus" in June, 1904, and has been allowed by the Admiralty 4s. 3d. per week for twelve months, which allowance terminated on the 17th instant; and will he say whether this workman, after nine years' service is, in view of all the circumstances of the case, entitled to further compensation.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The grant of further compensation depends on the result of the medical examination which, in accordance with the instructions issued when the allowance was granted, has been made. The Report was received on the 27th instant, and will be forwarded forthwith to the Treasury, with whom rests the decision in the matter.

  Pembroke Dockyard Discharges.
  MR. O. C. PHILIPPS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what provision

  1519
  he proposes making for the employment of the 2,000 dockyard men who will be at the Pembroke dockyard after the proposed discharge of 200 in April and May, seeing that the first-class cruise "Warrior" will be completed at Pembroke dock about August, and the first-class cruiser "Defence" will be launched in October next.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The question of employment of the dockyard men at Pembroke, after the completion of the "Warrior" in 1897, has not been lost sight of. It is not proposed to complete the "Warrior" in August next, as suggested in the hon. Member's Question.

  Holloway Post Office Factory.
  MR. SHACKLETON: To ask the Postmaster-General what is the number of men who are under notice of dismissal at the Government factory, Holloway (skilled mechanics); and what is the reason for these dismissals.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) It is my anxious desire so to arrange that the work at the Post Office factories at Holloway and Mount Pleasant shall be, as far as possible, constant, and the fluctuations in employment reduced to a minimum.

  Oldbury Langley Schools.
  MR. YOXALL: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education if he can see his way to arrange for payment of the annual grants due to Oldbury Langley Holy Trinity School (No. 4505) and to Oldbury Langley Good Shepherd School (No. 4262), both situate in the urban district of Oldbury, for the month of March, 1903, seeing that these schools were opened on the 16th of that month in place of other schools to which grants were paid to 28th February only, although they were not closed until 12th March, and seeing also that the Board of Education has recognised its liability by paying the fee grants for March, 1903, and by sending its forms for the signature of three managers of each school, authorising the first of the three signing in each case
  1520
  to receive payment of the annual grant for the month concerned.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The facts as stated in the Question do not fully represent the position. It is true that the fee grant was paid from 16th March, but it must be remembered that the fee grant and annual grant are not paid under the same conditions, the fee grant being a special grant in place of loss of fees. I have been fully into the case, but I am afraid I cannot see my way to make any further grant to these schools, especially in view of their somewhat unsatisfactory condition when first opened.

  Arrest for Debt in India.
  SIR J. JARDINE: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will consider the expediency of abolishing throughout India the system of arrest and imprisonment for recovery of arrears of land revenue.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) Arrest and detention as a civil prisoner is confined to cases in which there is reason to believe that the defaulter has the means of discharging his debt. I am informed that the arrest is for the most part formal, and that the proportion of cases in which the issue of a warrant leads to the confinement of the defaulter is small. Females are exempt from the process. I do not propose to take action.

  Persia—Newcomen Trade Mission.
  MR. T. HART-DAVIES: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the fact that the expenses of the Newcomen Trade Mission to the south-east of Persia have been defrayed mainly by Mr. Newcomen himself; and whether, considering the importance of this mission to the trade of India he will consider the advisability of granting Government assistance.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) According to the information in my possession, the Government of India paid the travelling expenses of the delegates to Bunder Abbas and back. They also provided transport in Persia free of charge and suitable tents, camp furniture, horses,

  1521
  etc., on a liberal scale, as well as medical attendance and an escort. More than this could hardly be expected; and I am not prepared, as at present advised, to recommend the grant of any further assistance.

  Boiling Stock on Indian Government Railways.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been directed to the want of rolling stock on the Government railways in India, especially on the lines leading into Calcutta, and the consequent hindrance to trade; and whether he will take immediate steps to have the supply increased.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) I am aware that representations have been made that the supply of rolling stock on some of the Indian railways is inadequate. The matter has been under the consideration of the Railway Board, and in the programme of expenditure for the three years 1906–9 provision has been made for a large outlay in increasing the rolling stock on open lines. The expenditure during those three years which has been proposed by the Railway Board, and sanctioned by the Secretary of State, under this head is £6,866,666, of which x2,546,666 is to be spent in 1906–7, £2,253,333 in 1907–8, and £2,066,666 in 1908–9.

  Board of Works (Ireland) Clerks.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can give the names, places of birth, and education (as furnished to the Civil Service Commissioners on appointment), special qualifications, total length of service, and length of service in the Board of Public Works, Ireland, of all clerks promoted in the secretarial branches of this Department since the 1st April, 1903.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) Part of the information requested by the hon. Member is regarded by the Civil Service Commissioners as confidential. The compilation of the other particulars asked for would involve a considerable amount of labour and the results obtained would not, in my opinion, be commensurate with the
  1522
  cost. I may add that these remarks equally apply to the Questions which the hon. Member has down upon the Order Paper for Thursday next, respecting the technical officers in the Board of Works and those officers under the Board whose salaries are £500 or over, as well as his Question about the examiners employed by the Civil Service Commissioners.

  Kingstown Public Works.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a number of labourers are disemployed annually in Kingstown during the winter months, and that adequate remunerative employment exists and is required to be done by the Board of Works; and whether any of the superior officers are dispensed with during the period of disemployment of the labourers.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) I am informed that most of the work at the harbour is of a kind that cannot be performed during the winter months. It is not the fact that adequate employment for these men can be found during the winter, though this year it was possible to retain a large proportion of them. The only "superior" officer at Kingstown, the superintendent of works, is retained throughout the year, as his duties, which include the supervision of Howth and Dunmore harbours, are of a continuous nature.
  †To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can give the names, places of birth, and education (as furnished to the Civil Service Commissioners on appointment), and special qualifications of all technical officers nominated, appointed, and at present employed by the Board of Public Works, Ireland.
  † To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can give the names and places of birth (as furnished to the Civil Service Commissioners on appointment), of all examiners, assistant examiners, and occasional examiners, and assistant examiners, if any, at present employed by the Civil Service Commission.
  To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can give the names, places of birth, and education (as furnished to the Civil Service Commissioners on appointment), and length of service of all officers in the Board of Public Works, Ireland, in receipt of salaries of not less than £500 a year.

  Arklow Harbour.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state when he proposes to introduce the legislation necessary for the improvement of Arklow harbour.
  (Answered by Mr. Bruce.) Before legislation can be introduced, it is necessary that plans of the proposed works shall be prepared by an engineer on behalf of the Harbour Commissioners, and submitted to the Government for approval. I understand that the Harbour Commissioners were so informed by the late Government so far back as 23rd October last, but that the Commissioners have only this month selected an engineer for the purpose.

  Trinity College Estates.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the number of estates of which Trinity College is head landlord in regard to which agreements for sale and purchase have been lodged with the Estates Commissioners under the Land Act of 1903; the number of holdings on these estates; the counties in which they are situated; and the terms of sale in each case.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the Estates Commissioners that in order to prepare the Return asked for it would be necessary to take from the Report of the Trinity College Estates Commission a list of the estates of which the college is the head landlord, and to compare this list with the estates which have come before them for sale. The labour involved would be considerable, and as the Estates Commissioners' staff is already fully employed I am loth to impose additional burdens upon it. If, however, the hon. Member should think it a matter of importance to have the information for which he asks I would endeavour to have it prepared; but it would scarcely be ready until after the Easter vacation.

  Irish Dispensary Doctors.
  MR. SAMUEL YOUNG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of dispensary doctors in Ireland
  1524
  over the age of sixty-five; and whether he is aware of the number in the service, from the infirmities of age, incapable of efficiently discharging their duty to the poor; and will he take any steps to remedy this state of things.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Local Government Board have no information as to the number of dispensary doctors in Ireland who are over the age of sixty-five. In 1903 the Board ascertained that, out of a total of 810 medical officers, 77 had over 30 years service, and it is possible that a considerable proportion of these were advanced in years. The Board have no information as regards the second part of the Question, but doubtless there are medical officers in the service who would retire if they were entitled to a superannuation allowance.

  Tullyvin (Cavan) Dispensary District.
  MR. SAMUEL YOUNG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any recommendation has been made to the Local Government Board to abolish Tullyvin dispensary district, in the county of Cavan, and to partition it between Cootehill and Drum; and, if so, whether the Local Government Board will consider the inadvisability of such a course in the interest of the suffering poor, who would experience inconvenience in cases of emergency, the majority of whom live at a distance of 12 miles from Cootehill and 15 miles from Drum; and whether a petition has been received by the Local Government Board from the clergy and the guardians in opposition to such a project, setting forth the impossibility of having the district attended to in consequence of want of road accommodation, its area, and population.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Answer to the first Inquiry is in the negative. The fact is that a proposal was made by the guardians to superannuate the medical officer of the Tullyvin dispensary district, and the Local Government Board, in pursuance of their usual policy in such cases, requested the guardians to consider whether the medical officership could be abolished without inconvenience to the sick poor, and outlined a scheme

  1525
  for the rearrangement of the dispensary districts of the union. The inspector of the Local Government Board was of opinion that Tullyvin dispensary might be abolished with advantage. The existing medical officer, however, has not resigned, and the guardians have therefore postponed consideration of the Board's communication. A petition to the effect mentioned in the concluding part of the Question appears on the guardians' minutes of proceedings on the 9th instant.

  Labourers' Allotments in Cork—John Keeffe's Case.
  MR. SHEEHAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord- lieutenant of Ireland if he will state when the application was made by John Keeffe, of Bridgetown electoral division of Carrigrohanebeg, Cork rural district, for the additional half-acre; he is aware that it was originally marked on the same field as the original allotment, and that it was subsequently changed into inferior lands some distance away, and will he say at whose instigation was this done; and has the change been approved by the Local Government Board.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The representation in this case was received by the local Government Board in January, 1899. The additional half-acre plot is marked on the deposited map as immediately adjoining and to the north of the existing cottage and plot. The clerk of the council has now informed the Board that no change has since been made, but that the tenant of the? cottage applied for a change, to which the occupier of the land would not -consent.

  Dublin College of Science and Art.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can. explain the -delay in commencing the building of the College of Science and Art in Dublin; and whether he can state when the work will be commenced, in view of the want of employment in Dublin City.
  1526
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The work was commenced a year ago, and is still in progress.

  Royal Army Clothing Department.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the minimum rate of wage at the Royal Army Clothing Department, which, after very careful consideration by the War Office, was to be increased by 2s., i.e., from 21s. to 23s., the increase, however, probably not to take effect until the commencement of the financial year, will be raised at the commencement of next week.
  (Answered by Mr. Buchanan.)Reply is in the affirmative.

  Soldiers' Pensions—Thomas Shortal's Case.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been directed to the case of Thomas Shortal, of Kilkenny, who, after a service of twenty-seven years in the Army, was discharged on a pension of 7d. per day for six months, and who is now sixty years of age, in poverty, and unable to earn; and whether, in view of his long service, good conduct, and that he has two sons still serving in the Army, he will grant him a pension.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) This man's case has been considered by the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital, and he was informed in February last that he was not entitled to any further pension from Army funds. It is not, therefore, within my power to make any grant, as suggested in the Question.

  South African Committee and the Government Natal.
  MR. J. F. MASON: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury if the Government of Natal will be entitled to offer evidence to the South African Committee; and if, in that event, the reference to the Committee would entitle the Colony of Natal to express its views as to the desirability of including the

  1527
  Orange River Colony within its boundaries.
  (Answered by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman.) No, sir; the reference to the Committee will not permit of such evidence being given.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Wages of Sheffield Armour-Plate Makers.
    MR. MACPHERSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that certain armour-plate makers in the Sheffield district, engaged upon Government work, are at the present time paying less than the recognised trade union rates, particularly in the melting department; and what action he proposes to take.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON,): No complaints have been received on this point.
    MR. MACPHERSON: If I supply the right hon. Gentleman with information privately will he inquire into it?
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Undoubtedly, Sir.

    H.M.S. "Britannia"—Beagling.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the sport of beagling, provided for the cadets of H.M.S. "Britannia," and partly paid for out of public funds, is regarded as cruel and degrading; and whether, in view of this, he will withhold any funds now applied to the up-keep of this form of sport, and otherwise use his influence to have a drag hunt substituted and thus make cadet exercise at home conform to that provided for cadets when being trained in Mediterranean ports.
    MR.EDMUND ROBERTSON: I hope the hon. Member will allow me to postpone the Answer to this Question until the visit of the Board to Dartmouth, when it will be considered in consultation with the college authorities.

    Rosyth.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty when are the items composing the sum of £40,000, credited to the work at Rosyth, due to be expended during 1906–7.
    THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. LAMBERT,): I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to a similar Question put by the hon. and gallant Member on the 8th instant.†

    Keyham Extension Works.
    MR. HAY MORGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the contractor for the Keyham extension works was under contract to use British granite; and that he was subsequently permitted to use granite imported from Norway; and, if so, whether the original contract price was altered by the permission to use Norwegian granite.
    MR. LAMBERT: The contract for the Keyham Dockyard extension did not stipulate that British granite was to be used; and the contractor was therefore entitled to use foreign granite provided its quality was satisfactory.

    St. Helena Garrison.
    MR. HICKS BEACH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if it is proposed to withdraw the troops from St. Helena during the year 1906–7; and when the evacuation is to begin.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): It is proposed to withdraw the troops from St. Helena during the year 1906–7, but the date of the evacuation has not yet been settled.

    Crimean and Indian Mutiny Pensions.
    MR. W. H. DAVIES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he proposes to agree to the prayer of the petition on behalf of the Crimean and Indian Mutiny veterans, which was presented to his predecessor in office, and which asked that the pensions of these old soldiers, now generally over seventy
    † See (4)Debates, cliii., 614.

    1529
    years of age, should be, when below 1s. per day, augmented to that sum.
    MR. HALDANE: This matter is still under consideration.

    Rewards for Arresting Deserters.
    MR. WILKIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether from ten to fifteen shillings is paid by way of reward to any person arresting a deserter; and, if so, will he say why only half of the amount is paid to police constables.
    MR. HALDANE: These rewards may be paid to any person for apprehending a deserter in plain clothes. In fixing the amount of the reward the officer commanding is guided by the recommendation of the committing magistrate. The regulations do not differentiate between police constables and others.

    Barry and Buddon Camps Meat Contracts
    MR. WILKIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the contracts for butchers' meat, supplied to the Barry and Buddon Camps, are open to the tradesmen of Dundee and Forfarshire; and, if so, will he see that an opportunity is given to the butchers of Dundee and district to compete for the same.
    MR. HALDANE: No eligible firms are excluded from tendering for War Department contracts. The tradesmen in question should apply to the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Scottish Command, for the necessary forms.

    Army Recruitment.
    MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how many recruits have joined the regular infantry for the four months, 1st November to 1st March; and whether he can state how many are required per annum in order to keep up the establishment.
    MR. HALDANE: The total infantry recruits for the period specified, excluding Colonials, amounted to 7,393. The reply to the latter part of the Question depends upon establishments and terms of service which are at present under consideration. I am not, therefore, at present able to state a figure.
    MR. BELLAIRS: Is the number less than the numbers obtained in previous years?
    MR. HALDANE: I should say so on the whole.

    Lancashire Royal Field Artillery.
    COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that in 1901, under the title of the Lancashire Royal Field Artillery, the experiment was tried of forming a brigade of three batteries of field artillery, of which one-third consisted of Regulars, who-formed the permanent nucleus of the brigade, and two-thirds of Militia, who came up for two months training annually; whether this brigade is still in existence; and, if so, what have been the results of the experiment as regards both gunnery and general military effectiveness; and what is its annual cost as compared with the cost of a brigade of Royal Field Artillery.
    MR. HALDANE: The brigade to-which the hon. and gallant Member alludes is still in existence. The reports have been satisfactory, especially in view of the amount of training received. The-annual cost of the brigade is £21,000, and of a' brigade of Royal Field Artillery on the lower establishment is £40,000.
    COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY: Is it proposed to continue this experiment?
    MR. HALDANE: At this moment we have no intention of making any change, the whole question is, however, under consideration.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: Is it not the case that for years the statements on the Estimates have not corresponded with the facts? Do they do so again this year? Was there not money taken for a much larger body than was kept up?
    MR. HALDANE: As my right hon. friend knows, there is very often a discrepancy, but we are endeavouring to put the thing into shape.

    Canadian Coasting Trade and the United States.
    LORD HELMSLEY: On behalf of the hon. Member for Gravesend, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the statement made by the Canadian Prime Minister, in the Dominion House of Commons, on 26th March, that Canada has offered the United States reciprocity in the coasting trade with Canada, but that the offer so far had not been received with favour; whether he will give the House details of the offer and the reply; and state what provisions were made in the offer for safeguarding the interests of British shipping under any such reciprocal arrangement.
    THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,): The Secretary of State has seen a telegraphic report in the Press of the statement to which the hon. Member refers; he understands that the Prime Minister of the Dominion spoke of an offer made to the United States several years ago. The notice of his Question given by the hon. Member has not been sufficient to enable the Department to make the necessary research, but if he will repeat his Question after the Easter recess I hope to be able to give him the information he desires.

    St. Helena Garrison.
    MR. HICKS BEACH: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will lay upon the Table any representations of the inhabitants of the Island of St. Helena as to the proposed withdrawal of troops from the island.
    MR. CHURCHILL: As I informed the hon. Member in reply to his Question of the 27th instant, f no such representations have as yet been received, except the telegram from the Governor, the purport of which was fully stated in my Answer.
    MR. HICKS BEACHasked if the representations, should they be received, would be laid on the Table?
    MR. CHURCHILLsaid that the Government must first have an opportunity of examining them.
    † See (4)Debates cliv., 1061.

    British Indian Nomenclature
    MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in future, in official records and documents, such nomenclature can be adopted as will avoid the common classification of our civilised British Indian fellow-subjects with African races upon an altogether different plane of civilisation.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State is not aware that there has been failure in the past to preserve the distinction between educated and civilised British Indians and the uncivilised members of African races, and His Majesty's Government are fully alive to the importance of maintaining the discrimination.

    Johannesburg Mines.
    MR. O'DOWD; I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a resolution has been received from the trades council of Johannesburg in which the Government are warned of a threat of the mineowners to close down the mines and suspend construction work, with a view of coercing the people to support the mining magnates in introducing an unlimited number of Chinese; and, if so, what action, if any, the Government mean to take in regard to the matter.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I have to refer the hon. Member to my Answer of yesterday. †

    Flogging in the Native Indian Army.
    MR. T. HART-DAVIES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the orders for the total abolition of flogging in His Majesty's services will also be extended to His Majesty's Native Indian Army.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. JOHN MORLEY,): I am advised that the punishment of flogging under the Indian Articles of War is not frequently resorted to in the Native Army. This is all the more reason why flogging should go, and I will communicate with the Government of India.
    See (4) Debates,cliv., 1260.
    LORD HELMSLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask for a Return of the number of cases of flogging in the Indian Army, together with the offences for which the punishment was inflicted?
    MR. JOHN MORLEY: I will consider that.

    Sale of Drugs to Children in India.
    MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Government of Madras have decided to prohibit the sale of liquor, opium, or other intoxicating drugs to persons under fourteen years of age; whether he is aware that a similar prohibition prevails in Bombay; and whether it is intended to adopt the same regulation in all the other provinces of India.
    MR. JOHN MORLEY: I am sorry to say that I have no information as to any decision of the Madras Government, nor whether it is intended to adopt a similar regulation in other provinces. The Excise Committee recently appointed by the Government of India has been instructed to report on the question of prohibiting the sale of liquor to children. I think it advisable to await their report.

    Seistan Water Channels Award.
    MR. T. HART-DAVIES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the Persian Government has refused to accept Colonel MacMahon's award regarding the Seistan water channels; and, if so, whether, under treaty, it is obligatory on Persia to accept such an award; and what steps it is proposed to take in the matter.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,): The Persian Government have refused to accept Colonel MacMahon's award. Under the arrangement come to in November, 1902, it was agreed that if the Persian Government did not accept the award, the question should be referred to the final decision of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The Persian Government have now been requested to submit a reasoned statement of their objections to the award.

    Flogging of Natives at Hankow.
    MR. H. H. MARKS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the report of the superintendent of police of Hankow to the British Municipal Council of Hankow, for the year ending 31st December, 1905, from which it appears that during the year 514 persons charged with various offences were flogged with bamboos, and seventy-six persons were tortured with the cangue; whether such punishments are allowed by the British Consuls on concessions in China; and what steps, if any, His Majesty's Government intend to take for the purpose of stopping them.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: We have not got the report referred to. Jurisdiction over Chinese subjects for offences which do not concern a British subject is not exercised by British Consuls. Such cases come before a Chinese magistrate appointed by the Taotai. The Vice-Consul sits with him as assessor, but if the offences are serious the accused persons are remitted to the Chinese city magistrate outside the concession. I assume that the sentences referred to were given by Chinese authorities.
    MR. H. H. MARKS: I will furnish the right hon. Gentleman with a copy of the report.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I shall be glad to receive a copy of the report, but it will not help me unless I know under what authorities the sentences were given.

    Development of Persia.
    MR. BOWLESr I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have opened, or propose to open, negotiations with the Russian Government for an amicable understanding which will secure the territorial integrity and develop the industrial resources of Persia.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I cannot say more than that in this, as in other cases in which British interests are concerned as well as those of another Power, we keep the open door for an amicable understanding.

    Returns of Steel Imports.
    MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will, for the convenience of British rail manufacturers, give directions that, in lieu of the present practice of giving all imported steel rails in one class, the classification of imported steel rails in the official Returns shall be as follows, new perfect rails and conductor rails for steam or electric traction, defective rails, and tram rails.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): It is too late to alter the form and scope of the Returns to be issued during 1906, but the suggestions contained in the Question shall be placed before the Departmental Committee for the Revision of the Trade Accounts at its next annual meeting, which will be held in the autumn.

    Alien Pilots.
    LORD HELMSLEY: On behalf of the hon. Member for Gravesend, I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can now state whether he is prepared to include a clause dealing with alien pilots in the Merchant Shipping Bill.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I had hoped to be in a position to give an answer on the question of the grant of pilotage certificates to aliens to-day, but I have not yet received the law officers' opinion. I must, therefore, ask the hon. Member to postpone his Question for a few days.

    New Spanish Tariff.
    LORD HELMSLEY: On behalf of the hon. Member for Gravesend, I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will lay upon the Table the draft of the new Spanish tariff, to come into force on the 1st July, indicating how the proposed new duties compare with those now in force.
    I beg also, on the same hon. Member's behalf, to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether representations have been received from Chambers of Commerce or individual manufacturers as to the probable effect upon British exports of the new Spanish tariff to come into force on the 1st July; what recom-
    1536
    mendations the Commercial Intelligence Committee have made; and what steps His Majesty's Government have taken, and with what result.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The new Spanish tariff has not yet been published, but we are in communication with Chambers of Commerce confidentially on the subject through the Board of Trade Advisory Committee on Commercial Intelligence. The matter is being carefully watched.

    Underground Cable to Scotland.
    MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether the underground telegraph line from London to Scotland has yet been completed, and when it will be open for the public use.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): The line is complete, and large sections of it are already in use. The whole is available for use at any moment in case of a breakdown of the overhead wires.

    South African Committee of Inquiry—Cost.
    COLONEL LOCKWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what is the anticipated cost of the South African Commission of Inquiry; if provision has been specially made for it in the Vote for Commissions and Committees; and when the Vote in question will come up for discussion.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. MCKENNA,): I am not aware that an estimate has yet been framed of the cost of this Committee, which will, of course, depend on the duration of the inquiry. No specific provision has been made for this service in the Vote for Temporary Commissions, but the Vote includes a considerable unallocated sum which is applicable to Commissions not specifically provided for. It is impossible to say when the Vote will come up for discussion.
    COLONEL LOCKWOOD: Can the hon. Gentleman inform me what remuneration has been paid to members of the Committee?
    MR. MCKENNA: I am not aware that anything has been paid.
    COLONEL LOCKWOOD: Or will be?
    MR. MCKENNAasked for notice of that Question.

    Conventual and Monastic Property.
    MR. T. L. CORBETT: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, considering the financial question involved, he proposes to take any steps to ascertain how far the property of conventual and monastic institutions is held by individuals, and not by properly constituted trusts.
    MR. MCKENNA: I have no means of obtaining information on the subject.
    MR. T. L. CORBETT: Will the hon. Gentleman take means, or endeavour to take means, to find out?
    MR. McKENNA: I cannot endeavour to take means, when we have no means.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Has not this question arisen in the Channel Islands, and have not the authorities in the Channel Islands obtained exactly the information which the hon. Gentleman says he cannot obtain?
    MR. McKENNA: I must beg the right hon. Gentleman to give notice of that Question.

    Stemmed Tobacco.
    MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the decrease in the quantity of stemmed tobacco imported into this country from 98,000,000 lbs. in 1902 to 11,000,000 lbs. in 1905, and the increase in unstemmed tobacco from 27,000,000 lbs. to 72,000,000 lbs. during the same period; and if he will inquire as to whether the present duty on stemmed tobacco is of a protective character, with a view to its early modification.
    MR. MCKENNA: The figures quoted by the hon. Member as to the imports of stemmed and unstemmed tobacco respectively in 1902 and 1905 are the correct quantities (in round figures) as given in
    1538
    the Trade Returns. In reply to the second Question, I may say that the matter is receiving careful consideration.

    Duty on Foreign Spirits.
    MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the decline in the quantity of foreign spirits used for methylation since the year 1902–3, and the small proportion of such spirits used in arts and manufactures under the provisions of the Finance Act of 1902; whether these results are due to the protective character of the present differential duty; what percentage ad valorem duty the 2d. per proof gallon difference between the amount of import duty and export allowance represents; and whether, having regard to the great importance of a cheap supply of industrial alcohol, he will consider the advisability of reducing the import duty on foreign spirits to 3d. per proof gallon, the equivalent of the export allowance on similar spirits.
    MR. MCKENNA: The quantity of foreign spirit used for methylation in the year 1902–3 was altogether abnormal. The large consumption took place in spite of the increase of the surtax to 5d., which was imposed in April, 1902, and was due to an excess in the supplies of German spirit, which reduced the price to about 6d. per gallon. The decline since 1902–3 in the quantity used for methylation, and other purposes, has resulted, not from the operation of the surtax, but from an increase in the price of German spirit, which a year ago was treble what it was in 1902–3, and is still more than double. These wide fluctuations of price make it impossible to state generally what percentage ad valorem the difference of 2d. in the surtax represents. The question of the conditions under which alcohol should be procurable for industrial purposes was examined and reported upon by a Departmental Committee a year ago, and their recommendations were embodied in the Revenue Bill which was brought in last session. The present Government hope to be able to introduce legislation on the subject at an early date.

    Oxford Municipal Charities.
    LORD VALENTIA: I beg to ask the hon. Member for the Elland

    1539
    Division, as representing the Charity Commissioners, whether the Commissioners have considered the scheme, forwarded, at their suggestion, on 1st December, 1905, by the trustees of the Oxford Municipal Charities; and, if so, whether they will be good enough to signify their approval, if approved, before the end of this month, for submission to the April meeting of the trustees.
    MR. TREVELYAN: The recommendations of the trustees are under consideration, and a draft scheme is in course of preparation, for the purpose of determining the part of the endowment applicable to solely educational purposes, in which the recommendations will be followed so far as possible; but the Commissioners cannot signify any general approval until after communication with the Board of Education, and publication of the draft scheme.

    Lochs School Board, Island of Lewis.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, having regard to the fact that the election of a school board for the parish of Lochs, Island of Lewis, recently failed through the notice of the election not being posted on the school door sufficiently early to admit of the nomination papers reaching the returning officers by the date specified, will he ascertain why the returning officer has not reported the failure of the election; and will instructions be given for a fresh election.
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): The returning officer has now reported to the Scotch Education Department that no election has taken place, inasmuch as the number of candidates nominated for election and not withdrawn was less than the number to be elected. The Department is now taking steps with a view to nominate a full board, but if that is found to be impracticable a fresh election will be ordered.
    MR. WEIRasked if the right hon. Gentleman would make further inquiry as to the gross irregularities mentioned in the first part of his Question?
    MR. SINCLAIR: Yes, Sir.

    Island of Lewis Police Superintendent.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the superintendent of police for the Island of Lewis fills the combined offices of sanitary inspector, borough-surveyor, and sampling officer under the Food and Drugs Act; and, having regard to the insanitary condition of the Lows, as disclosed in Dr. Dittmar's Report, will care be taken that the appointment of sanitary inspector is not given to anyone whose time is largely occupied in the duties of other offices.
    MR. SINCLAIR: The facts are as-stated. The precautions suggested by the hon. Member in regard to any new appointment are present to the Local Government Board and will certainly be borne in mind.

    Royal Burghs and Royal Accessions.
    SIR J. JARDINE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether inquiry has been made upon the memorial and statement for the Royal Burghs of Scotland, dated 31st December, 1902, anent the claims of the Royal Burghs to proclaim the accession of Sovereigns within Burghs Royal; what stage the inquiry has presently arrived at; and when a decision may be expected.
    MR. SINCLAIR: I propose to ask the Lyon King at Arms for his opinion upon a special point, and when his reply is received I hope that a decision may be possible.

    Grangemouth Shooting Fatality.
    MR. SMEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that on the 14th December last, during the performance of a juvenile musical piece in the Town Hall of Grangemouth, a girl, Annie Grey, aged thirteen and-a half years, was fatally wounded by a bullet from a revolver fired by Donald Stewart, stage carpenter, and died the following night in the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary; whether a public inquiry was immediately made by the procurator fiscal, and, if not, will he say why this was not done; whether he will explain why the Crown authorities, after dropping the charge of culpable homicide against Stewart, decided to charge him with the offence of reckless discharge of

    1541
    firearms, and eventually dropped that I charge; whether any inquiry has been made to ascertain how and by whose authority loaded firearms were permitted to be brought on to the stage among children; and whether he will now direct the prosecution of Stewart on the charge of reckless use of firearms, or what steps does he intend to take in this matter.
    MR. SINCLAIR: Very careful inquiry has been made into the death of this girl, from which it appears that it occurred under the following circumstances: An amateur play was performed on 14th December, 1905, in the Town Hall, Grangemouth, and a young man named Donald Stewart was employed as stage?carpenter. Part of the piece was the firing of some shots, and this was entrusted to Stewart, who was supplied with a revolver and four blank cartridges. At the rehearsal three of these were discharged, and to replace them Stewart called at an ironmonger's shop and bought five cartridges. He says that he asked for blank cartridges and understood that he had been supplied with these. At least one of the cartridges, however, was a ball cartridge, and upon its being fired, the deceased, who was behind a curtain and scenery, was found to have been shot in the back of the neck. She died next day. Crown counsel carefully investigated the facts and came to the conclusion that the cause of death was accidental, and that there was no justifiable reason?for Stewart's prosecution on a criminal charge. The Secretary for Scotland is aware of the desire for a public inquiry into cases of such accidents and of sudden and suspicious deaths and of the dissatisfaction at the working of the Fatal Accidents Enquiry Act, and the Lord-Advocate has been asked to consider the whole subject with a view to possible legislation.
    COLONEL LEGGE: Cannot something be done to the person supplying the cartridges?
    MR. SINCLAIR: That was one of the matters carefully considered.
    MR. SMEATON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of urging a reform of the law in Scotland?
    MR. SINCLAIR: I have already said that that is being considered.

    Dingwall and Cromarty Light Railway.
    MR. WEIRI beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state what progress has been made with the Dingwall and Cromarty Light Railway.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The Board of Trade have communicated both with the Cromarty and Dingwall Light Railway Company and the Highland Railway Company on this subject, and they are informed that the latter company, who under the Light Railway Order are to construct the railway, have undertaken the survey and preparation of the working plans of the line prior to the commencement of the work. It is stated that the survey, which was commenced in December last, is almost finished, and would, with the plans, have been completed before now but for the severe weather.

    Roxborough Road Schools, Limerick.
    MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he has had any communications recently from the borough council of Limerick with regard to the Roxborough Road Schools in that city; and, if so, whether he will state generally the purport of these communications and lay them, with his answers, upon the Table of the House.
    THE ATTORNEY - GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY,): I received a letter from the town clerk of Limerick, dated the 27th February, 1906, applying to me as Attorney-General to commence legal proceedings to secure for the city of Limerick the property referred to. I replied to this letter that I should inquire into the matter as soon as possible. I find that legal proceedings in reference to this school have been going on for a considerable time, and that the matter is a very complicated one, though the property involved is small in value. I do not think that the matter is of sufficient general interest to justify me in laying the correspondence upon the Table of the House.
    MR. JOYCE: To whom does this property belong?
    MR. CHEERYwas unable to reply to that by way of Question and Answer.
    MR. JOYCE: Will you make full inquiry?
    MR. CHERRY: I have promised to do so.

    Estates Commissioners' Staff.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland will he lay upon the Table of the House, or furnish all Members desiring it, a list of applicants, including those for reappointment, for the position of lay sub-commissioner, land valuer, and inspector for the Estates Commissioners, respectively, with their respective postal addresses.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BRYCE,): The Answer is in the negative. It would be entirely contrary to practice to publish the information asked for.

    Administration of the Irish Land Acts—Qualifications of Officials.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if, having regard to the common requirement of specific knowledge for service in State Departments in Great Britain, and the result of this requirement, he will consider the advisability of introducing the same principle into Ireland, beginning with the departments engaged in fixing rents and prices of land, and requiring some practical experience as rent-paying farmers as an essential qualification of all candidates for the positions of lay sub - commissioner, land valuer, and inspector for the Estates Commissioners respectively.
    MR. BRYCE: The qualifications required are prescribed in the Statutory Rules of 13th March, 1899. Practical experience of the value of land is one of those qualifications, and a most important one, but I should be sorry to limit the range of choice so long as ample evidence of practical capacity is furnished.

    Mr. Montgomery's Killucan Estate.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that Mr. A. V.
    1544
    Montgomery offered, ten years ago, to sell his interest to his tenants at Riverdale, Killucan, at twenty years purchase of the rents, no bonus being then available, and that he now offers to sell, under the Land Act of 1903, the same interest to the same tenants at more than twenty-seven years purchase, which, with the bonus added, exceeds thirty years' purchase of the rents, or an increase of ten years purchase on his former demand; and whether he proposes to take any steps, by legislation or otherwise, to deal with such cases.
    MR. BRYCE: I am informed by the Estates Commissioners that no proceedings for the sale of this estate have been instituted before them, and that they have no knowledge of the matters alleged in the Question.

    Expenditure on Labourers' Cottage Schemes.
    MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the £40,000 from the Exchequer contribution to Ireland available for labourers' cottages during the last financial year has been appropriated and spent upon such cottages; and, if not, how much of it has been so expended; in what proportion amongst the different provinces; and if he will state where the balance is, and how it is intended to be applied.
    MR. BRYCE: The calculations in respect of the grant in question for the year ending 31st inst., are at present being made by the Local Government Board, and until these are completed the information asked for is not available.

    Irish National Teachers as Farmers.
    MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is any breach of the regulations controlling the appointment of national teachers in Ireland that they should also own and work farms, particularly if these be farms from which former tenants were evicted.
    MR. BRYCE: I am informed by the Commissioners of National Education that there is no rule in their code relating to the ownership or working of farms by national teachers. Teachers are not permitted to carry on or engage in any

    1545
    business or occupation that would impair their usefulness as teachers.

    Edenderry—Alleged Disturbance.
    MR. T. L. CORBETT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to an attack made upon an Orange band when passing through Edenderry, Portadown, on 3rd March, in which a number of bandsmen were very roughly handled; whether the names of those committing this attack were taken by the police; and, if so, whether a prosecution will follow.
    MR. BRYCE: I am informed by the police authorities that there was no semblance of interference with the band which passed through Edenderry on the 3rd March. Edenderry is stated to be an exclusively Orange locality. The hon. Member has evidently been misinformed.

    Irish Consultative Agricultural Committee.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieu tenant of Ireland how many meetings have been held by the consultative committee established, under Section 23 of The Agriculture and Technical Instruc-(Ireland) Act, 1899, for the purpose of co-ordinating educational administration; when did this committee meet last; and can he state what it has done.
    MR. BRYCE: The consultative committee for co-ordinating educational administration has met on five occasions, the last meeting having been held on 19th June, 1905. A statement of the work of the committee will appear in the forthcoming annual Report of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction which will shortly be presented to Parliament, and I would ask the hon. Member to await the appearance of that Report.

    Permanent Inspectors of Schools.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland by whom was the decision given which was communicated by the Lord-Lieutenant to the Intermediate Commissioner in the year 1904, to the effect that permanent inspectors of the schools were not to be appointed until the parts which inspection and examination should respectively play in the dis-
    1546
    tribution of State aid to intermediate schools had been determined; whether he is aware that the chairman and vice-chairman of the Board of Intermediate Education are the Lord Chief Baron and Mr. Justice Madden, and that, in the face of the decision above referred to, these Judges signed a Report which states that the absence of inspection of the intermediate schools is a violation of the statutory obligations imposed by the Act of 1900, and that the Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury and the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland are responsible for that violation of the law; and whether, seeing that the Intermediate Commissioners have been appealing year after year to the Government, in the interest of education, to permit the appointment of permanent inspectors, he will take some immediate steps to end this state of things in the interests of schools and education in Ireland.
    MR. BRYCE: The decision referred to in the first part of the Question was the act of the Irish Government. I am aware that the Board of Intermediate Education in their annual Report for 1905 expressed the opinion that the Irish Government and the Treasury had failed to fulfil the obligations imposed on them by the Act of 1900 in regard to the inspection of intermediate schools. It must, however, be remembered that what the Irish Government in the time of my predecessors did was to refuse their approval to the appointment of permanent as distinct from temporary inspectors, and the Government still considers it undesirable to create fresh vested interests in a department which may be the subject of some change. The matter will continue to receive my attention, but I am unable to make any definite statement on the subject at present.

    Kavanagh Estate Evicted Tenants
    MR. MEAGHER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether representations have been made to the Estates Commissioners on behalf of Martin Loughton or his relatives, evicted tenants, for reinstatement to his holding on the Kavanagh estate, Ballyragget, county Kilkenny; and, if so, what steps the Commissioners have taken in the matter.
    MR. BEYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have received an application for reinstatement on behalf of Martin Loughlin who is stated to reside in America. From inquiries which have been made, it would appear that the holding in respect of which his claim is made is at present in the occupation of three new tenants. No steps have been taken by the Commissioners in regard to the reinstatement of Martin Loughlin.

    Castlecomer Coal Mining Industry.
    MR. MEAGHER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of. Ireland whether his attention has been called to the coal-mining industry in the vicinity of Castlecomer, in the county of Kilkenny, and to the want of railway facilities, by which the industry is hampered; and whether, in view of the applications repeatedly made to the Irish Government for financial aid for the construction of a railway in connection with the existing railway lines, he can see his way to recommend a grant for this purpose, only about eight miles of a line of railway will connect the mines with all the Irish railways.
    MR. BEYCE: I understand that repeated[applications have been made to the Irish Government for financial assistance in establishing railway communication with the Castlecomer coal fields, but that the funds which have been provided for railway extension in Ireland have been devoted to meeting the claims of poorer and more isolated districts. I have already stated that the question of improving the light railway service and rendering these railways more serviceable for agricultural and other transport, is engaging my attention; but, as at present advised, I am disposed to think that the claims of the Castlecomer district to assistance are less strong than those of some other districts.

    South Tipperary Untenanted Lands.
    MR. CULLINAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state how many owners of untenanted lands in South Tipperary have been approached by the Estates Commissioners with the object of purchasing the lands; whether they have succeeded in purchas-
    1548
    ing many such farms; and, if not, whether he will state the cause.
    MR. BEYCE: I am informed by the Estates Commissioners that proceedings are pending for the purchase by them of 1,461 acres of untenanted land the property of E. Downes Martin, and of 305 acres the property of T. L. Atthill. The Commissioners have purchased fifty acres on the estate of Mrs. Gaussen; and two other owners have refused the Commissioners' offers for the purchase of 270 and forty-seven acres, respectively.

    South Tipperary Evicted Tenants.
    MR. CULLINAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state how many landlords in South Tipperary, having evicted farms on their own hands, have been approached by the Estates Commissioners with the object of purchase; in how many cases they have succeeded; in how many cases they have failed, and why; how many evicted farms are in the hands of grabbers; and how many have been similarly approached, and with what result.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that five landowners in county Tipperary have been approached by them on behalf of evicted tenants, and their replies are awaited. In one case the owner has stated his willingness to permit an inspector to visit the lands for the purpose of inquiring into the particular case, and the lands will be inspected in due course. It is believed that there are about 129 farms now occupied in county Tipperary, from which the former holders were at some time or other evicted. The Estates Commissioners are, however, not empowered to approach tenants in the actual occupation of holdings.
    MR. CULLINAN: May I ask if in any single case a landlord has accepted an offer by the Commissioners?
    MR. BEYCE: I have no information on that point.

    Captain Caldbeck's Queen's County Estate
    MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland

    1549
    whether the estate of Captain Caldbeck, Ballacolla, Queen's County, is before the Estates Commissioners for sale; and, if so, whether regard will be had, in the distribution of the untenanted land, to the requirements of the small holders and labourers in the locality, who have memorialised the Commissioners in the matter.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that proceedings for the sale of this estate have been instituted before them, and that their inspector has been directed to report upon the estate. The memorial which has been received will be duly considered when the question?of distributing the untenanted land is being dealt with by the Commissioners.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Is there anything in the Act of 1903 or in the regulations to prevent the Estates Commissioners entering into negotiations with the new tenants? Have they not power to provide them with holdings else where, or even to buy out their interest?
    MR. BRYCE: I am advised there is nothing in the Act which empowers them to take that course, or to negotiate directly with the tenants
    MR. KILBRIDE: Is there anything in the Act which prohibits them doing so?
    MR. BRYCE: I do not think there is. But in the construction of an Act of Parliament we have to consider what the intention of Parliament was.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that during the discussions on the Bill in the House it was repeatedly stated by the right hon.?Gentleman the Member for Dover, the then Chief Secretary, that the Estates Commissioners would have the power of buying out the interests of the new tenants?
    MR. BRYCE: The reports of the debates are not before me, and my attention has not been drawn to this point. But it is clearly a question of the construction of the Act. I cannot give a legal opinion.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: I will call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the
    1550
    passages in the debate to which I have referred.

    Adair Estate Evicted Tenant.
    MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord - Lieutenant of Ireland whether an application for reinstatement has been received from Thomas Flanagan, Clonaghadoe, who was evicted from a farm on the Adair estate, near Mountmellick, in 1884; and whether, as the estate has since been sold to the tenants, and Flanagan's farm is in the occupation of a planter, he can say what steps the Estates Commissioners propose to take in this case.
    MR. BRYCE: I am informed by the Estates Commissioners that the reply to the first inquiry is in the affirmative. The Commissioners have ascertained that portion of the estate in question was sold to the tenants under the Land Purchase Acts some ten years ago, and that the owner retained certain untenanted lands in her own possession. On being approached with a view to the settlement of Flanagan's case, the owner's agent informed the Commissioners that she was not prepared to take the action requested.

    Galway City and the Cost of Pauper Lunatics
    MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the resolutions adopted by various bodies in Ireland with respect to the charge upon the local rates incurred by reason of the upkeep of pauper lunatics in the asylums; whether he is aware that, in the case of Galway city and county, where the population can ill afford to bear heavy taxation, the cost of the maintenance of the county asylum exceeds the sum of £24,000 per annum; and whether, as the practice exists in other countries, it is possible to transfer this contribution to the general Government.
    MR. BRYCE: I have received various resolutions upon this subject. I am informed that a sum amounting approximately to £24,000 will be required in the coming financial year to meet the cost of maintaining the Galway city and county patients in the local district lunatic asylum. It is, however, to be borne in

    1551
    mind that a sum amounting to £8,800 will be contributed out of the Local Taxation Grant towards the cost in question. I have stated in reply to previous Questions that the system under which the Government contributes to the support of the lunatic poor is the same in Ireland as in England, and that there is no intention to introduce separate legislation on the subject for Ireland.

    Irish Legislation.
    MR. FINCH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the names of the Bills he proposes to introduce during the present session.
    MR. BRYCE: I beg to refer the hon. Member to my reply to his similar Question on February 27th.†

    School Attendance in Ireland,
    MR. LIDDELL: I bog to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what proportion of children in Ireland attend elementary schools on the average of two-and-a-half, three and four hours per day, respectively.
    MR. BRYCE: I am informed by the Commissioners of National Education that they have no sufficient information nor could exact statistics be obtained of the number of children in national schools who attend, on the average, two-and-a-half, three and four hours daily, respectively. Senior pupils should under the rules receive at least three-and-a-half hours secular instruction daily, for five days in the week; and junior pupils, that is, pupils under eight years of age, should receive two-and-a-half hours instruction. This rule does not apply to "half-time" pupils, of whom there were 1,675 when the latest Return was prepared.

    Irish School Building Grants.
    MR. LIDDEL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if it is proposed to make a grant towards improving the elementary school buildings in Ireland.
    MR. BRYCE: Provision will be made in the Estimates for a grant sufficient for the ensuing year.
    † See (4)Debates,clii., 1033.

    Irish Land Stock.
    MR. BARRIE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, seeing the delay in completing purchases under the Land Act of 1903, the sales under it having already exceeded £30,000,000 sterling, and seeing that, as at present arranged, only £5,000,000 sterling are annually available for the purposes of the Act, he will, in order to pay for purchases already arranged and to encourage further purchases, represent to His Majesty's Treasury the necessity for arranging that £10,000,000 of stock be issued annually so long as may be necessary.
    MR. BRYCE: £10,000,000 of stock will be raised in the coming year if necessary.

    Deceased Soldiers Estates—Case of John Duggan.
    MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the application of Patrick Duggan, of Galway, for the gratuity due to his son John Duggan, of the Sutherland Highlanders, who had served in the South African War, and, as a result of the wounds there received, died shortly after his return; and whether, in view of Patrick Duggan's age and poverty, he will issue instructions to have any amounts still due paid without delay.
    MR. HALDANE: My attention has been drawn to this case. There is no sum remaining due to Mr. Duggan on account of his son's estate, and he was so informed on the 17th instant.

    Publication of Minister's Speeches.
    MR. PIRLE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the reprint and wide circulation of Lord Milner's recent speech, and of the present channels of information between the two countries, he will consider the advisability of making known in South Africa the speech of the Lord Chancellor on the same occasion, by recommending to the various Governments of that country the adoption of the means of securing publicity, so frequently taken in France, by placarding that speech in South Africa, in the interests of peace and civilisation.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): I do not think that in such a matter it would be desirable to interfere with the various Governments; and I am not ready to recommend the plan adopted in France of placarding important speeches. I do not know where we should stop.

    South African Committee and Chinese Labour.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Committee of Inquiry which is to proceed to South Africa will investigate the question of Chinese indentured labour, with a view to advising the Government as to how far its maintenance is necessary to the development and prosperity of the Transvaal and Orange River Colony.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNER MAN: I answered a somewhat similar Question yesterday.† The matter the hon. Member refers to is quite beyond the scope of the inquiry.

    Crofter Acts.
    MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will arrange to have the promised Crofters Acts Amendment Bill introduced before Easter, so that those especially concerned may have an opportunity of considering the Bill during the recess.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: A similar Question was answered only three days ago,‡ and I think the hon. Member had better await the reply to another Question of the same kind which my hon. friend the Member for Ross-shire has put down for Monday.

    Constitution of the South African Committee.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that of the four members of the Committee appointed by His Majesty's Government to inquire into certain matters in South Africa, preparatory to granting self-government to
    † See (4)Debates,cliv., 290.
    † See (4)Debates,cliv., 875.
    1554
    the Transvaal, one, Lord Sandhurst, has held office in a Liberal Administration, as Under-Secretary of State for War, when, the present First Lord of the Treasury was head of that Department, and that another member of the Committee, Sir West Ridgway, was the Liberal candidate for the City of London, at the recent General Election; and whether, having regard to the fact that the matters into which the Committee will inquire and upon which they will report are political in their character, he will consider the. desirability of appointing a fresh Committee with a non-political personnel.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANThere is nothing political in the character of the Committee. Its members deserve, and, I doubt not, will receive the public confidence.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Is it not the fact that two of the gentlemen on the Committee are notorious and avowed partisans of the Government?
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Was not the right hon. Gentleman who asks this Question himself a member of a political Commission which was sent out by his Government to South Africa and with but little result, or no result whatever?
    [No Answer was made.]

    Rules of Procedure
    SIR BRAMPTON GURDON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the House will be allowed to express a perfectly free and independent opinion on the question of the day of the week on which the short sitting should be held.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I think this is desirable, and it will be made clear when the proposed alterations in the rules are considered.
    SIR CARNE RASCHasked whether there would be an opportunity of discussing a time limit for speeches on Monday.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid that this subject would not arise on the part of the question of procedure which the Committee had dealt with. If the

    1555
    hon. and gallant Gentleman would communicate with the Chairman of the Committee, no doubt he would give an opportunity for embracing that subject in some other portion of the Committee's inquiry. Until the Committee had reported on it, the matter could hardly come before the House.
    MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when the new Procedure Rules will be discussed.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: On Monday.
    MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when the proposals of the Government, as conveyed to the Select Committee of Procedure, will be laid upon the Table of the House; and whether private Members will be allowed to submit themselves for examination by the Committee.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: These proposals are on the Paper. I do not know what the nature or the purpose of the proposed examination of private Members may be; but the Committee has concluded its deliberation on the branch of the general subject which will be dealt with on Monday.

    South African Committee—Terms of Reference.
    MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if, he will consent to lay upon the Table any correspondence which may have passed between His Majesty's Government and the South African Committee or its Chairman, in order to remove all element of doubt as to the meaning of the terms of the instructions.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The letter to the Chairman of the Committee of Inquiry which has been laid on the Table is the only Paper that can be produced, and it contains all the information that can be required.
    AN HON. MEMBER: Have any additional instructions been given to the Chairman.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No, Sir, not that I am aware of.

    Maintenance of Irish Pauper Lunatics.
    MR. CHARLES McVEIGH: On behalf of the hon. Member for West Donegal, I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the resolutions of the Ballinasloe, Donegal, and other district asylum committees, having reference to the cost of maintenance of pauper lunatics; and whether he can see his way to introduce legislation making this charge payable out of Imperial funds.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: My right hon. friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland has already stated that the Government have no intention of introducing legislation on this matter, and I have nothing to add to that.

    South African New Constitution—The Committee and the Residents.
    MR. HUNT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if the South African Committee will be entitled to receive evidence as to the desire of the residents of the Transvaal as to the degree of full self-government, and the contemplated restrictions on the colony, as proposed under the new scheme of Government.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not quite understand the hon. Member's Question, but I can see enough to tell him that the questions he apparently has in his mind have nothing to do with the inquiry.

    Transvaal Redistribution Scheme.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury it the South African Committee will be at liberty to recommend a variation of the number of constituencies in the Transvaal, or if, by the terms of their reference, they are bound to act upon the decision that there shall be sixty constituencies precisely.
    SIR HENRY CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: If the hon. Member will turn to paragraph three of the letter of instructions, he will see that the Committee are not bound by any hard and fast lines. The words to which I may call his attention are, "to consider and report on any proposal for the representation of urban or rural districts respectively, other than

    1557
    the division into single-membered electoral divisions." That disposes of the idea that the only basis of investigation is that of the sixty single-membered constituencies.

    Colonial Marriage Law.
    MR. WALKER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the interest felt in the Colonies in the proposed measure for improving the law regarding certain Colonial marriages, he is able to state when this measure will be introduced.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Bill as to which the hon. Member inquires is in course of preparation. I am afraid it can hardly be introduced before Easter, but he may be sure that there will be no undue delay.

    Afforestation.
    MR. PICKERSGILL: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the inquiries already made by the Select Committee on Forestry in 1885, 1886, and 1887, and by the Departmental Committee on British Forestry in 1902, and also the series of elaborate Reports on Forestry in Foreign Countries, he will state for what purpose it is now proposed to refer the subject of afforestation to a new Committee or Commission; and whether he can see his way to take efficient action in regard to this subject without further inquiry.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: As my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade stated last Monday in answer to a Question, it has been definitely decided that the question of afforestation will not be included in the reference to the proposed Commission, which is to confine its attention to coast erosion. I agree with my hon. friend that we are already in possession of a very large amount of information on the subject of afforestation.
    MR. I PICKERSGILLasked for an Answer to the last part of his Question.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not as at present advised think further inquiry is necessary. I do not
    1558
    think any legislative action could be at present taken.
    MR. PICKERSGILL: Administrative action?
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Administrative action has been taken.
    MR. KEIR HARDIEasked whether the recommendation of the Committee which sat over three years ago would now be carried out.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN:I understand a good deal has already been done, and we have in contemplation some steps to carry it still further.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE — THE: JUDGE-ADVOCATE-GENERAL — THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BILL.
MR. PAULsaid he wished to put to the Prime Minister a Question with regard to public business. When the Army Annual Bill was read a third time that morning, before the Third Reading was agreed to, the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State for War, in the absence of the Prime Minister, gave him a distinct and positive pledge that he should have an early opportunity of raising in Committee of Supply, on the Vote for his own salary, an important constitutional question about the appoint ment and functions of the Judge-Advocate-General. He would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would implement his colleague's undertaking and state what was the earliest opportunity on which he could put down the Vote for the Secretary of State for War's salary.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid that as his hon. friend had implied, he could not speak from his. own hearing what promise was actually made. He had only received notice of the Question since he came into the House, and he had not had an opportunity of consulting his right hon. friend. He understood, however, that his hon. friend rather exaggerated the promise so far as it involved the use of the word "early." It had been suggested', to him by the hon. Gentleman that the

1559
opportunity he desired could be afforded on the Vote for the salary of the Secretary of State for War, but he thought it would be very inconvenient to the House to put that down early, because it might preclude the possibility that ought to be retained of keeping the discussion of the Vote alive. It ought not to be taken prematurely in the public interest, as it was desirable to keep it open until near the end of the session, in view of any further desire to discuss Army questions.
MR. AKERS-DOUGLASasked as to the business for the following week.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANreplied that Monday would be devoted to the consideration of the Report on Procedure, and, in order to prevent inconvenience at the end, he thought it would be desirable to suspend the twelve o'clock rule—not with any cruel purpose at any rate. On Tuesday they would take the Second Reading of the Workmen's Compensation Bill, and on Wednesday other Bills on the Paper would be introduced.
MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid with regard to the debate on the Rules it might tend to the simplification of the discussion if the right hon. Gentleman would follow the precedent set on a former occasion, and allow them to have some latitude in the shape of a Second Reading debate in which they could deal with the application of the Rules generally. It would be rather difficult to discuss the whole question upon the various Amendments.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid he quite appreciated the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman. As this was a question affecting the hours of sitting it was obvious that the debate should take a general course before they proceeded to discuss the individual questions involved.
MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid he would not press the right hon. Gentleman further, but he was sure it would tend to a shortening of the discussion if hon. Members on both sides of the House were placed in the position he suggested. It was clear that the question raised would include that of the limitation of speeches to which reference had been
1560
made by the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford Division of Essex.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN:No, we shall confine it to the question of hours.
MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid he only asked that there should be some latitude allowed.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid there would be a Paper circulated shewing the general effect of the Amendments on the Paper. They appeared of a rather formidable character, but when they were examined it would be found that there were only one or two Amendments of main importance, the others are rather drafting Amendments.
MR. JOHN REDMONDsuggested that the Paper would be made more valuable if it included copies of the existing Standing Orders with the proposed Amendments marked upon them. He also asked whether the decision of the House with regard to the time of meeting and so forth would be taken without that pressure which was implied by the appointment of Government Whips. They would then be able to get the genuine feeling of the majority.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I think that as the Government are responsible for the business in a measure which is not shared by the rest of the House it would not be possible to do what the hon. Gentleman suggests, except in regard to the subject of Wednesday and Friday sittings, on which there is so much difference of opinion. On that point the House will be left free.
MR. SHACKLETONasked when the Workmen's Compensation Bill would be circulated.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): I hope it will be in the hands of hon. Members this evening. At the latest it will be circulated tomorrow.
MR. SHACKLETON: That is very short time.
MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid he had no desire to place any obstacle in the -way of taking the Bill before Easter, but he would point out that this very late delivery was most inconvenient.
MR. GLADSTONE: There is no new principle so far as the Second Reading is concerned.
MR. PAULsaid he wished to reiterate his statement that the Secretary of State for War distinctly promised him an early opportunity of raising this question with regard to the Judge Advocate-General. It was on that understanding that he withdrew his opposition to the Third Reading of the Bill and he would be very glad to know that on an early day he would be placed in a position to discuss the matter.
SIR ROBERT ROPNERsaid he wished to point out to the Home Secretary that the Workmen's Compensation Bill did introduce a new principle, because it included seamen for the first time. He therefore hoped the Second Reading would be deferred until after Easter.
MR. HALDANE,replying to Mr. Paul, said he was careful to avoid using the word "early" or to give any pledge at the time. All he did state was that his hon. friend would have an opportunity of raising the point on the Vote for his salary, and he would be glad if he did so raise it.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Sir W. BRAMPTON GURDONreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had nominated the following Fifteen Members to serve on the Standing Committee on Law and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure in respect of the Police (Superannuation) Bill: — Mr. Herbert Samuel, Mr. Cochrane, Mr. Watson Rutherford, Mr. Dunne, Major Dunne, Mr. Dudley Ward, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Money, Mr. Gulland, Mr. Hay, Mr. Luke White, Mr. William Priestley, Mr. Bridge-man, Mr. Ridsdale, and Dr. Shipman.
Sir W. BRAMPTON GURDONfurther reported; That they had nominated the following Fifteen Members to serve on the Standing Committee on Trade (in-
1562
cluding Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures, in respect of the Merchant Shipping Acts Amendment (No. 2) Bill:—Mr. Solicitor-General, Sir Christopher Furness, Mr. Guest, Mr. Harmood - Banner, Mr. Jenkins, Mr. Charles Wilson, Mr. Cairns, Mr. Havelock Wilson, Sir Robert Ropner, Mr. Archibald Williamson, Mr. Beauchamp, Mr. Evelyn Cecil, Mr. Lewis Haslam, Mr. Walter Rea, and Mr. Harry Marks.
Sir W. BRAMPTON GURDONfurther reported; That they had nominated the following Fifteen Members to serve on the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures, in respect of the Dogs Bill:—Mr. Solicitor-General, Mr. Cochrane, Colonel Kenyon-Slaney, Sir Edward Carson, Mr. Winfrey, Mr. James Murray, Mr. Levy Lever, Mr. Menzies, Sir Robert Hobart, Lord Wodehouse, Mr. Weir, Mr. Lane-Fox, Mr. George Roberts, Mr. Brace, and Colonel Gardner.
Reports to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEE).
Sir W. BRAMPTON GURDONreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures, in respect of the Land Tenure Bill:—Mr. Frank Edwards, Mr. John Wilson, Mr. John Johnson, Sir William Holland, and Mr. Wolff; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Lambert, Mr. Luttrell, Mr. Edward Strauss, Mr. Robert Price, and Mr. Walter Long.
Report to lie upon the Table.

NEW BILLS.
  FACTORY AND WOKSHOP ACT (190J) AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend The Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, in respect of Laundries," presented by Mr. Cameron Corbett; supported by Mr. Crombie, Mr. Arthur Henderson, Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, and Mr. Trevelyan; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 135.]
  BUILDING LANDS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To deal with Building Lands in Scotland," presented by Mr. Munro Ferguson; supported by Mr. Archibald Williamson, and Mr. Lamont; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 136.]
  SMALL TENANTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to the tenure of land in Scotland by Small Tenants," presented by Mr. Munro Ferguson; supported by Mr. Crombie and Mr. Eugene Wason; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 137.]
  CLERKS OF THE PEACE AND COUNTY COUNCIL BILL.
  "To amend the Law with regard to Clerks of the Peace and Clerks of the County Council," presented by Mr. Luttrell; supported by Sir John Kennaway, Mr. Channing, Colonel Kenyon-Slaney, and Sir Walter Foster; to be read a second time to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 138.]
  PUBLIC HEALTH BILL.
  "To amend the Public Health Acts," presented by Sir James Woodhouse; supported by Mr. Harmood Banner, Mr. John William Wilson, Mr. Samuel Roberts, and Mr. Arthur Henderson; to be read a second time upon Thursday 26th April, and to be printed. [Bill 139.]
  DEPUTY CLERKS OF THE PEACE BILL.
  "To make better provision for the appointment of Deputy Clerks of the Peace in municipal boroughs," presented by Sir James Woodhouse; supported by Mr. Atherley-Jones, Mr. Harmood-Banner, and Sir Benjamin Stone; to be read a second time upon Thursday, 26th April, and to be printed. [Bill 140.]

  SUPLLY [4TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]

  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1906–7.
  1. £490,000, Medical Establishment, Pay, etc.
  MR. BURDETT-COUTTSsaid he need not, he hoped,
  1564
  apologise to the Committee for wishing to say a few words on this Vote; for it was. one that always recalled the most exciting and certainly the most difficult period of his own Parliamentary experience, and he thought he would show to the Committee that something still remained to be said on the subject. He trusted that, in: making his statement that had been so often quoted, that "he rejected all things that did not make for fighting efficiency," the right hon. Gentleman did not include in that category, or on the negative side of it, the Army Medical Service. Directly and indirectly the condition of the Army Medical Service had to do with fighting-efficiency. Directly, if it was a good service, because it kept the soldier well; or if he was sick or wounded got him well to fight again. Indirectly because however brave a soldier was, the knowledge that if he got sick or wounded he would have the best treatment, could not fail to give an underlying strength, a sort of remote force, to that courage. They did not know, no one could estimate, how far the scenes which our soldiers had witnessed in some parts and places of the South African War in connection with medical deficiencies—the want of nut sing, the want of doctors, the want of orderlies, even the want of shelter and food when suffering from sickness or wounds, might have tended to shake the nerves of those who felt that at any moment they might be added to that list. But here, he must be permitted to say what he had often said before, what he never said so plainly and strongly as at the time when some of his own friends seemed slow to understand his motives; that the system from which those deficiencies arose was not the monopoly or the fault of any one Party in the State. It had received the continuous and unhappy sanction of both Parties and of opposite Governments that succeeded one another; and if a great war had occurred with the Party opposite in office, no reasonable man could affirm that the lamentable results of that system which they witnessed in South Africa could have been avoided. And there was something more. A great deal had undoubtedly been done, and was done under the last Government, to remedy the defects which he had felt compelled to bring to public notice. It remained for the present Government to complete the work. The Committee would

  1565
  remember that in that heated controversy, three aims were kept in view. The first and most pressing was the amelioration of the conditions under which 20,000 sick and wounded soldiers were at that time lying in the military hospitals in South Africa. That aim was quickly secured, for immediately public attention was drawn to the matter a complete change took place in the hospitals concerned. The second aim was a permanent and organic reform of the Army Medical Service. That also was done by his right hon. friend who was no longer in this House —Mr. Brodrick. He might say that that Gentleman, however he might have been criticised for being in other respects a "reformer in a hurry," deserved great credit for the sincere and thorough maimer in which he carried out the reform of the Army Medical Department. All the evils under this head to which he (the speaker) had from the first called attention, had been taken in hand one by one, and wisely dealt with. The Service was no longer undermanned; the pay of the Army medical officer had been increased; the obstacles to their studying their profession, and many other unjust disabilities to which they were subjected, and which he had urged in his letters to The Times, had been relieved or entirely removed; the principle of promotion by merit rather than by seniority had been introduced; female nursing in war time, against which the Department had at the beginning of the war had an unreasoning and obstinate prejudice, had been sanctioned and provided; and last but not least, a civilian medical element had been admitted into the control of the Department. These were large and admirable reforms. But there remained a third aim which from the first he put in the forefront of his contentions; that was, to give such an elasticity to the organisation of the Army Medical Service that if this country should unhappily be called on to engage in a great campaign, a carefully thought-out scheme should be in existence and in working order to call to the aid of the Army the great civilian service, and to utilise it to the best advantage. Only when they had such a scheme would they be able to feel confident that it was impossible for the medical disasters of the South African War to be repeated. It was to this point that he wished to draw the right
  1566
  hon. Gentleman's attention, because as far as he knew, nothing had yet been done in this direction, or at any rate nothing had been completed. He strongly urged this point from the first because it seemed to him to afford a model for the policy this country ought to pursue in all Army matters, viz., that of restricting the standing Army within reasonable limits while giving it every power of efficient expansion to meet the demands of a great war. He thought no one had more clearly enunciated that policy than the right hon. Gentleman. Whatever might be the difficulties in carrying that policy out in some of the more highly specialised departments of the Army, the medical service afforded an admirable opportunity for it. They might not have an unlimited supply of artillerymen, engineers, scouts, and so on, outside of the standing Army, ready to be called upon at a moment's notice, but they certainly had an unlimited supply of efficient medical men and surgeons. And the spirit of patriotism which inspired these gentlemen during the South African War would always, he believed, remain. But the crux of the matter was organisation. As he had pointed out before in this House on more than one occasion, there were two ways of utilising civilian aid in time of war. The first and simplest way was to obtain civilian practitioners, orderlies and nurses, and absorb them, so to speak, for the time required, into the regular Army Medical Service. Even that required a scheme whereby they could be obtained quickly, their proper places in military hospitals apportioned, their relations to the Army medical officer and their temporary rank settled. There was no such system in the South African War. Medical men were obtained by advertisement. No time was given for properly examining their qualifications; or if time was taken it delayed their going out. The whole matter was tied up in red tape. A civilian surgeon with a practice bringing him in £4,000 a year, who came forward in a spirit of patriotism, was rejected, because he was forty-one instead of forty. When they got to South Africa there was no proper scheme for placing them. A consultant surgeon of great experience—he did not refer to the distinguished gentleman who went out in that capacity—was placed in a hospital with the rank of captain, under-with regard to the medical treatment

  1567
  of his patients—an Army medical major who had not one hundredth part of the civilian scientific knowledge of surgery. Yet his subsequent treatment of his patient and the question whether he should be removed or not the next day, was under the control of the Army medical officer, because he was a major, and the distinguished civil surgeon only a captain.
  He (the speaker), on a former occasion referred to the great general hospital in Bloemfontein, where civilian medical officers were merged with the Regular Army medical officers, owing to there being no system whereby their proper relations could be ascertained. The friction between these two classes of medical men was so great that the hospital was disorganised, and the Surgeon-General in South Africa admitted that the friction must go on until the machine broke down. All this only needed a scheme settled beforehand between the heads of the civilian medical profession and the Regular department. He had dealt with one way of using civilian aid. And he gathered from the Memorandum issued with the Estimates that this method, viz., of absorbing civilian aid into the Regular Army Medical Service during war time, was the only one contemplated. The words of the paragraph were somewhat vague and it might be, and he hoped it was not the case, that much more than this was contemplated. Because there were two great objections to relying upon this method: First, they would not obtain the services of the highest class of civilian medical men. They would not consent to be placed under the Army Medical officers in the matter of the treatment of their patients. Therefore, only younger men would be retained— house surgeons, students, and so on; or what was more probable, they would get a large number of men who had been unsuccessful in civilian practice. The second objection was that this method, while it might satisfy the requirements of a campaign slightly beyond the requirements of the Regular Service, would never be equal to the demands of a great war. It would only overcrowd a limited number of units with a new personnel who would not be accustomed to their places and had never been practised in the different and graduated functions, on the harmonious working of which the efficiency
  1568
  of a unit depended. He therefore turned to the second method which he strongly urged upon the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman—that of solid civilian units properly organised and trained for a certain time in field service every year and ready, when the call of a great war came, to go out. He made this suggestion from the first because it was founded on experience. They had a splendid example of it in that great system of voluntary hospitals which played such an important part in the South African War. There was even a more notable example in the case of the New South Wales Army Medical contingent—a solid self-contained unit with field hospitals, bearer companies, tents, horses, and all requisite equipment—which did magnificent service wherever it went. The most distinguished medical men and surgeons in Australia were attached to it. They had organised it and taken part in its annual training in peace time; and when the war came they left their valuable practices and gave their services for nothing out of pure patriotism. He understood that a scheme, the first suggested, drawn up by a gentleman of great medical war experience—Dr. George Stoker—for the organisation of such civilian units in connection with the great hospitals in this country, had long been in the hands of the War Office. The whole system of the civilian hospitals in the South African War was due to Dr. Stoker's initiative. He suggested and helped to organise the first voluntary hospital. He suggested and helped to organise, and went out with, the great Irish hospital—which was Irish from its senior officers down to its rules—which did signal service in the war. A similar plan was subsequently urged by the distinguished Army Medical officer, Sir William Taylor, who was made Director-General of the Army Medical Service after the war. Speaking on October 17th, 1902, on this subject, he said—
  "He hoped each medical school or combination of schools would equip, maintain, and administer units in time of peace which should proceed to the field in a state of complete efficiency for war when required. … He looked forward to the time when such medical organisation would not be fitful, and necessarily dependent on enthusiasm in time of public danger, but would be carefully organised at all times, so that the country might feel assured that, as far as human endeavours could go, everything was prepared and ready in time of peace for the most perfect care of the sick and wounded in time of war."

  1569
  There might be other schemes than the one to which he had alluded. But the principle was what he wanted to get at—the principle of civilian units, organised, practised to some extent in field service, equipped sufficiently for such practice, with the full equipment ready at any time to be supplied them— prepared to go out to a war. Of course, when the call came there might have to be some changes in the personnel; but the framework would be there ready at any moment to be filled up. It required organisation. In the late war there was no organisation and no system. There was plenty of enthusiasm and plenty of patriotic devotion. He believed they could always rely upon these qualities, especially in the great civilian medical profession in this country. But they could not rely upon those who possessed them, for efficient organisation for war service at a moment's notice. This should be undertaken in peace time by the proper authorities; and be carefully thought out, prepared, and accepted by the civilian profession.
  THE SECRETAEY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,)said he should be the last to complain of the speech of the hon. Member. At the time of the war the hon. Gentleman performed a very valuable service in drawing the attention of the public to the real importance of hospital reform and to many matters connected with the medical service of the Army, and it must have been some satisfaction to him to have observed that, in the years which had elapsed since then, progress had been made. The hon. Member had referred to a matter of great importance, not only so far as the Army Medical Service was concerned, but the Army generally: namely, the policy of extension in time of war. It was perfectly plain that, with their increasing burdens, no nation— certainly not this nation—could bear the charges of keeping everything in time of peace upon the level that they had to be in time of war. Therefore they had to act upon the principle of asking themselves what steps they could take to prepare in time of peace things in skeleton so that they might be clothed with flesh when war broke out. The outbreak of war must be their test, and it was the only test which they could apply.
  1570
  He had given a general indication of his own views on that subject, and now came to the question from the point of view of the medical service itself. The very efficient Director-General of the Army Medical Service had had the matter to which the hon. Gentleman had called attention much under consideration lately, and a start had been made very much, he thought, on the lines alluded to by the hon. Member. They recognised that, in order to make the civilian doctor, for civilian doctor he would be for the main during peace time, efficient in time of war, he must go through a special training. Even the distinguished men who went out to South Africa at the time of the war found themselves very much out of it when they came to the special work which the Army surgeon had to do. He did not himself realise the reason of that clearly until he read the other day one of the latest treatises upon military hygiene. They could not in time of peace keep up the great body of men that would be necessary to do the work in time of war if there were any other way of getting them trained in time of peace so that they would be ready to spring into activity when war broke out. There was a sum of £4,500 in this Vote for a reserve of civilian surgeons, and what they proposed was to take 450 young medical men who were willing to enter the new Army Medical Reserve and train them. They would be subject to the rules that governed the employment of Reserve officers generally, and would have the rank of lieutenant on joining, with promotion to captain after three and half years satisfactory service. A practitioner joining the Reserve would have to undergo a course of special training at the depot of the Royal Army Medical Corps at Aldershot. During this time he would receive the pay and allowances of an officer of his rank in the Royal Army Medical Corps. If this probationary period of service was satisfactory, he would be confirmed in his rank and receive, in his second and third years, a retaining fee of £20 a year. He must, of course, do something for that money, and he would be called upon to undergo another period of instruction preparatory to passing the examination which was necessary for promotion to the rank of captain. During this second course, the duration of which would be one month,

  1571
  he would be paid as before. After promotion to the rank of captain, his retaining fee would be £25 a year. They proposed to limit the period of service in the Reserve to seven years, by which time he would have learned enough to make him, with his civilian knowledge, able to take the field with the knowledge that was requisite in these matters. The Reserve would primarily be composed of civilian surgeons, but they did not intend to exclude officers of the Auxiliary Forces and medical officers of the Volunteers, provided they were seconded in their Volunteer corps. These Reserve officers could resign their commissions under the usual conditions. They also hoped to get a certain number of Reserve attendants in the same way, and to make this medical department of the Army one which would turn out to be of great service in the future. The Committee would observe that they were increasing the Vote for the Medical Service. If they were to make the Army really efficient and really cheap they must get rid of the wastage as far as possible, and the increasing cost which came to the State in enormous sums through the men not being properly looked after. They had increased the Vote for nurses in like manner. He felt that this matter was only in its infancy, but they were making a beginning. The strides that had been made in this department of the Army were enormous. He did not think anybody who had not had his attention called to the subject could realise the immense changes that had been made for the better in the care of the sick in our Army. They had got the whole matter on to something like scientific principles, and they were reaching a stage at which, he thought, they would find that there really was a scientific system of looking after our soldiers. He was glad to think that, in the British Army, to-day, the same attention was being bestowed upon these matters as was given to them in the Japanese Army during the late war, and in Germany for a long time past, and the same anxiety was being displayed to improve the general condition of our men.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that he was glad that the right hon. Gentleman had pursued the line of improvement with regard to the Army Medical Service. What was done by Mr. Brodrick in that respect had marked a complete change
  1572
  from the old practice, and had opened the-way for the immense strides that had since been made. The right hon. Gentleman himself had made a distinct step in advance by requiring something from the civilian surgeon for the retaining fee which was paid to him. He entirely agreed that this was one of the cases in which the civilian element might be brought in, to reinforce the military element; but he wanted to speak a word of caution. The civilian medical officer was improving in his particular work every day that he spent away from the Army visiting the hospitals, whilst those who were performing the actual military work of the Army were deteriorating for military purposes while in civil life. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would be able to say whether any further progress had been made in utilising the Militia as attendants in the Army-Medical Department? He was glad that the expenditure on this department was still on the upward grade, because on any basis of mobilisation the Army Medical Service had not been up to the requirements of the Army in war. A great deal had been done in that direction, but there were still insufficient officers for the reasonable probabilities of mobilisation; and therefore he trusted the Committee would be reconciled, as he believed they would be, to the additional expenditure foreshadowed by the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. HALDANEsaid that he had taken up the idea that he had inherited from his predecessor of using Militiamen as attendants in the Army Medical Service. A start had been made with 500 of them, and he hoped it would be developed later.
  COLONEL LEGGEwas sure no hon. Member would grudge this increased cost, because the health of the soldier was of the very greatest importance. He desired to suggest that an interchange might take place, so that when the civil surgeons entered the military hospitals the Army surgeons might be relieved of their duties temporarily in order that they might study in the civil hospitals. An interchange of that kind, he thought,, might be beneficial. With regard to nursing, an hon. Gentleman had said that the Army Medical Department was opposed to nurses; but his recollection was that

  1573
  it was not the Army Medical Department, but the soldiers themselves, who preferred the hospital orderly. That, however, had been got over now. There was no doubt that what happened in South Africa had made a very great change in the opinion with regard to the subject. He was very glad to see that there was a considerable addition to nursing establishments.
  MR. HAROLD COXsaid he should like to know whether the remarks of the Secretary of State for War with regard to utilising civilian surgeons in the Army Medical Service would apply also to the lower grades of the service, because his impression was that they were not getting anything like value for their money in the Army Medical Service. He had heard of young men joining because the work was so easy. One young man told him that, while he received 15s. 6d. a week and had everything found, his only duty was to sweep out the ward of a hospital, and that it was generally over by ten o'clock in the morning. It would be cheaper, if this was the case, to employ a charwoman. He had also heard that young doctors were deterred from entering the service by the absurd insistence on military discipline. In going round the wards the doctor had to wear full military uniform, including a helmet, in case his colonel should appear. He was told that it was a frequent occurrence for the surgeon's helmet to fall on to the patient's face during a stethoscopic examination.
  COLONEL LOCK WOODsaid he thought the hon. Gentleman must be mistaken. He had never seen such things happen in a military hospital. The question he desired to ask, however, was whether the Army surgeon was encouraged to attend courses of lectures at civilian hospitals in order to keep abreast of the most modern practice. A little while ago the Army surgeon who attempted to keep himself efficient in this way had to do it at his own expense; and, he believed, if he obtained leave for three weeks or a month his pay was deducted. Would the right hon. Gentleman see whether military surgeons, and even reserve surgeons, attending hospital lectures could not be allowed full pay for the time so occupied, and have their fees paid? The military surgeon was not
  1574
  generally a very rich man, and the fees to begin with were a heavy fine upon him, and if he were deprived of pay during his attendance at the lectures it was an additional reason for his not attending them.
  MR. HALDANEsaid the hon. and gallant Gentleman would find on the Estimates this year the fees entered for the purpose mentioned. What the Government did was to pay the fees of those who were sent to the lectures and also for getting proper kinds of lectures given. It was part of the regular training of an Army surgeon to go through these professional courses at ordinary hospitals. The fees were paid and the pay was not stopped. What they were very anxious to do was to keep the military and civilian courses of training as much in touch as possible.
  Vote agreed to.
  2. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £819,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Pay, Beunty, etc., of the Militia (to a number not exceeding 141,058, including 8,000 Militia Reserve), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1907."
  COLONEL HERBERTsaid he rose to move a reduction of £100 for the purpose of calling attention to a matter of some constitutional importance, namely, the intervention of Militia officers in Parliamentary elections. Circumstances had occurred in his own constituency which had led him to raise the question. His constituency included the ancient Borough of Monmouth, which was the head quarters of a Militia battalion called, he believed, the Royal Monmouthshire Militia Battalion Royal Engineers. It was also the place where the training of the battalion was usually carried out. The period of training naturally caused considerable local interest, leading as it did to expenditure of money in the district. In the course of his I candidature, it was put forward without any ground whatever that he was opposed to the retention of the battalion in those quarters. The statement went about that he was avorse to the training being carried out in that place. It became

  1575
  necessary for him to make a clear statement to the contrary, because nothing could be further from his wishes than to disturb in any way the connection between the territorial Militia regiment and its local headquarters. A letter appeared in a local paper, called the Monmouthshire Beacon, a somewhat archaic journal, purporting to be signed by the officer commanding the regiment in question, controverting the statement he had made, and saying that if the venue for training were changed he would, to a considerable extent, be responsible. That letter was calculated to cause a certain amount of feeling in the agricultural district, which was closely connected with the regiment, and with which he also was connected. He regretted to have to bring the matter forward, and he should not have done so except under a strong feeling of public duty, and in the interests of the Militia force, to obtain a clear definition as to the limits to which officers might go, so that they might be restrained from that which would be a serious detriment to the Militia force and which had been so detrimental in other spheres, namely, the introduction of political questions. It was immaterial what the question at issue was. He was quite willing to believe that it was a mere error of judgment, and he did not want to impute anything more than was in the four corners of the letter, but it would have been much better if it had not been written. Here was a gentleman who was the commanding officer of the Militia endeavouring to influence certain persons in the neighbourhood who were interested in this particular election. The letter appeared on the nomination day, Friday, and as it was a weekly paper it was impossible before a week had passed that there could be any reply on his behalf to make clear to the electors what his real opinions were. Therefore he had to take his chance, and it was a good chance, because in spite of this and other difficulties he managed to be returned by a very large majority. The point he wished to know was, how far an officer might go on such occasions? The gentleman in question, Lord Raglan, was one of the best commanding officers in the country and was a very good friend of his outside politics, and he was quite sure that Lord Raglan would understand that he brought forward the matter merely in the interests of the service. He had shown the letter to the
  1576
  Secretary of State for War, and he left it to his judgment, as one who understood the legal aspect of such matters and the interpretation that might be placed on it, to say whether it was not quite possible-that such a letter would influence persons against him. At the same time in his view a serious error of judgment was committed.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £818,900, be granted for the said Service."—(Colonel Herbert.)
  SIR CARNE RASCHsaid he only wanted to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War what he was going to do with the Militia. The right hon. Gentleman alluded to the Militia in his opening speech on the Army Estimates, but he could not make out definitely what the right hon. Gentleman was going to do. He (Sir Carne Rasch) spoke as the man-in-the-street, who wanted to know what was going to be done in regard to this very difficult problem. What was the condition of the Militia at the present moment? He did not think anything was ever so bad in the British service in the last 200 years. There was a force nominally of 90,000 men, which had no guns, no transport, and hardly any officers in the junior ranks. So far as the personnel went, he did not think the Militia could turn out under any circumstances, within 40 per cent. of the recognised and official regulation strength. There had to be deducted all those men who were coming from the Militia to the line —probably about 22,000—those men who were recruits and who had not passed any musketry test, and also fraudulent enlistments, because men in the Militia had a way of serving in half a dozen regiments, and there was nothing to stop them. Under the circumstances, the Militia force was not within 40 per cent. of its recognised strength. They all knew that the Militia brigades were under orders for the Peninsula, though they did not go there; that they garrisoned our stations in the Mediterranean during the Crimean war; and that a portion of them went to the front during the South African War. He thought that the Secretary of State should tell them what he was going to do now. The right hon. Gentleman had a good set

  1577
  of men in the Militia, but they were of no good whatever as they were at present. If he would undertake to mend them he would have good results, and the money devoted to this purpose would be well spent.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he did not observe that the attack made on Lord Raglan had any bearing on the question of the Militia. He thought it would be most unreasonable to press the Secretary for War for an Answer in regard to the Militia, because he had told them so often and so clearly that he had not yet fully considered the question. They were in this difficulty, that this would be the only opportunity of discussing the Militia question this year, and it was quite possible that before another opportunity came again, the right hon. Gentleman would have dealt with the Militia in a way calculated, they all hoped, greatly to improve them. He thought, therefore, it would do no harm to say a word or two about some matters which might claim their attention. He would respectfully recommend the right hon. Gentleman to go and see for himself what the Militia was. He believed there was no more certain road to understanding the problem. They talked of the Militia as if it had no relation to the Army at all. What happened every year? Every year the Secretary of State for War had to put his name to a statement with regard to the Militia which he knew to be untrue. He was afraid he had done it himself, but he had taken great pains to inform the Home of the fact. At present hundreds and indeed thousands of young men were going to the Militia depots who were never intended for the Militia at all. In one year alone 15,000 of these beys were entered in the Books as Militiamen, though practically the whole of them passed into the Army. They were put down on one page as 15,000 Militiamen, and on another page as 15,000 of the Regular Army. The reason for this was that the non-commissioned officer in charge of the recruiting got a beunty for recruiting a bey for the Militia, and he kept him at the Militia depot for two or three weeks, and then enlisted him in the Army, for which he received a half-crown in addition to the original shilling. For some of the depots this happened in the case of 70 per cent. of the recruits, and thus they were dealing with an
  1578
  absolute sham. The right hon. Gentleman said the other day that he regarded the Militia as a force that ought to supplement the Regular Army, and to a certain extent act as a reserve. That was a very admirable aspiration, but until the functions of the Militia were much more clearly defined it could not serve that purpose. He would like to know how they were to supplement the Army. Were they to be a reserve of the Army in the sense of the ordinary Reserve? Were they to furnish drafts to the Army, or were they to be a force to be utilised to assist the Army in the field? If that was so, he would like to tell the Committee what would happen. If it was desired now to put two divisions of Militia of eight battalions 800 strong each into the field it would be necessary to go all over the United Kingdom to get the men. Even if the men were got together, under the ordinary rules which governed the formation of a battalion for war, some 5,400 men would have to be left behind. Of these 5,400men many hundred, he might say thousands, would be beys of seventeen, eighteen, or nineteen years of age, and one, two, or throe years must elapse before they could take their places. There was no reserve and no means of filling up these battalions in the field without calling up men equally unfit. It would be necessary to draft 5,400 men from the rest of the Militia, and if two more divisions were required nearly 11,000 men would have to be taken in the same way. For fighting purposes the Militia was now an absolute delusion. There would be nothing but decay so long as the present system lasted, and until the Militia was put on a basis which did not make it absolutely essential to the Line that decay would go on. Hon. Members did not realise what would happen to the Regular Army recruiting if this experiment of the right hon. Gentleman were to prove successful. If the Militia were really to be kept out of the Regular Army until they had served their training the recruiting for the Regular Army would be destroyed. Any commissioned or non commissioned officer who knew the Militia would say that was true. That would be paying "too dear for their whistle." He would try to point out to the Committee the only method by which the Militia could be saved. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not abandon his idea of connecting the

  1579
  Militia more intimately with the counties. He did not see why the position of deputy-lieu tenant should not be confined to those who in some way had shown a desire to serve in a military capacity. But he believed there would be no fruition of that promise until the Militia was made a separate body and not regarded as an adjunct to the Line. Without giving a complete survey of the position, he had merely alluded to some of the difficulties which were, he thought, most serious in dealing with this question. The whole survey of the question must come when the right hon. Gentleman submitted concrete proposals. He anticipated these proposals with nothing but sanguine feelings. As to the Militia Artillery it was true, as the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean had said, that money had been taken in successive years for the formation of three brigades instead of one. It was also true that the reports on the whole in regard to the one brigade were good. But he himself had given an immense amount of attention to the whole of these reports, and he considered that at present the Militia Artillery was a rather expensive article. He wished to impress on those who were pressing the question of reinforcing the Field Artillery from the Militia Field Artillery that they must remember first, that the artillery was a highly skilled arm; that unless they got the very highest skill in that arm they might be terribly out-classed in action. Secondly, they must remember that if they wished to add to the force of Field Artillery there were other sources than the Militia Field Artillery from which it could be reinforced.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERwhilst admitting that the Militia was not in a first class condition, thought that the hon. and gallant Member for the Chelmsford Division of Essex went too far when he stated that the Militia was in a worse condition than it had ever been. Although the hon. and gallant Member was supported by the right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary of State for War, he was still of opinion that the picture had been painted blacker than it was. It was perfectly true in the old days, as stated by the hon. and gallant Member, that
  1580
  men served in several battalions, and were counted on paper over and over again, but those who knew the Militia of to-day were perfectly aware that that sort of thing took place so seldom that practically it might be said to never occur now. A Question had been put as to whether the Militia was to be done away with or turned into an efficient military force. The Militia had been very nearly done away with by the continuous changes that had been made in its constitution by the late Secretary of State for War. Those changes had done more injury to the Militia than anything else had ever done, and he was glad to see that the present Secretary of State for War had not brought in a great plan to change everything at once. The great difficulty at the present moment in the Militia was the question of recruiting. The shortage of recruits was greatest in the regiments belonging to agricultural districts, because of the migration of the people from the land to the large towns. He would suggest that those regiments should be allowed to recruit in the towns in their neighbourhood which were now outside their recruiting area. He could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon as to men who had been in the Militia a year not being willing to join the Army. In many cases the men joined the Army at once in order to get the benefit of the year towards seniority, but if they were not allowed to join the line until the end of the year they would join at the end of that time just as willingly as they joined now. The only difference would be that where the bey was now taken into the Army and grew into a man at the expense of the country, he would then go into the Militia and would join the Army when he had grown to manhood. He hoped the suggestion which he had made as to the recruiting of regiments in agricultural districts would be taken into considera -tion, and that no alteration would be made in the Militia system by the right hon. Gentleman until he had had full time to consider the position. They could trust to the right hon. Gentleman to keep the Militia the force it was intended to be, namely, the best system of reserve which we had in this country.
  LORD BALCARRESsaid he desired to put a few

  1581
  Questions to the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the new scheme of training of these Militia regiments. That scheme was first announced in the debate on the address by the President of the Local Government Beard, who put it forward as a practical attempt on the part of the present Government to deal with the problem of the unemployed. The right hon. Gentleman then said that one of the actions to be taken by the Government to deal with that problem was to call out twenty battalions of Militia for training during the winter; that that was the time when there was most distress, and that by deferring the training of these battalions to the winter they would contribute, to that extent, to the solution of the problem of the unemployed. He failed to see how that was going to benefit these regiments. We were now getting on in the year, and it would be a great convenience if the Secretary of State would suggest which twenty regiments were to be so trained. If these twenty regiments were going to be trained during the winter it would be impossible to put them under canvas in one of our great camping grounds, which was the best course of training that could be given. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that barracks were to be utilised where possible. He could not help thinking that putting these men into barracks in the winter rather than under canvas in summer would be the last way in the world to make them efficient. But the right hon. Gentleman also seemed to indicate that in some cases it would be impossible to find barracks, and that meant that in such cases the men would have to be billeted. Everyone knew that of the three ways of keeping troops together, keeping them under canvas, keeping them in barracks, and billeting them, the last was the worst. In the first place, they could not be sure of the times at which the men came in at night; unpunctuality in the morning always followed, and where men were billeted all over the town they lost that esprit de corps which was engendered by men always being together. Under the new scheme he understood that increased attention was to be given to musketry practice. Every one welcomed the decision of the Secretary of State with regard to that. But how increased attention to musketry was to be given by bringing the men out in the winter passed
  1582
  all comprehension. One of the difficulties of the Militia officers was how to find sufficient time for proper attention to be given to musketry. They would take these men out in the winter when the weather was most severe, and all the conditions were possibly most inimical to suitable musketry training, added to which there was the range difficulty. They would find it impossible to send these men to our great camping grounds, and in case after case they would find that the men had to put up with the old-fashioned ranges close to the town in which they were billeted. The scheme of the right hon. Gentleman meant that twenty regiments were to go through their training during the winter months by themselves, and without cavalry and without artillery. The manœuvres which these men would be expected to go through would therefore be manmanœuvresuvres of infantry alone; there would be no mixed force. That in his opinion very much diminished the value of the scheme, and he wanted to know what the effect upon the recruit was going to be. He could not ask the right hon. Gentleman to give him an answer now, as he had already indicated that he was going to watch carefully the result of these changes both on the Militia and on the line. He could not help thinking himself that if the right hon. Gentleman had inquired of the commanding officers concerned, he would not have received from them any great encouragement as to the likelihood of this scheme's having any important effect upon recruiting. He also wished to know what effect this scheme was going to have on the unemployed problem. It was paraded originally as a solution or a partial solution of that question. He should like to know what proportion of these Militiamen were what one might call habitually unemployed during the winter months, and it would be still more interesting to learn upon what proportion of these Militiamen their families could be said properly to depend. His impression was that, so far as this scheme was designed to render relief to the unemployed, it would be a complete and abject failure. As to its effect upon the Militia, of course it would be premature to offer any judgment, but certainly from the obvious criticism which arose upon its consideration he did not think it had many elements of success. The right hon. Gentleman had stated in his introductory speech that the test

  1583
  which he applied to all those Army schemes was that of fighting efficiency. That was an admirable test, and no doubt if it was carried through would provide a suitable measure for Army organisation. But he could not believe for a moment that this scheme was introduced in order to enhance the fighting powers of the Militia. The internal evidence pointed to its having been introduced by the Local Government Beard and not by the War Office. [Mr. Haldane dissented.] He was glad to find that that was not the case, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to show the House that the fighting test as applied to I this particular machine would demonstrate that the training of the Militia battalions during the winter was likely to be of some: effect. He was glad think that fighting efficiency was the test by which this scheme was to be measured, but he could not but think that other portions of the problem were measured with anything but economy.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid the noble Lord had rather suggested that this scheme of bringing up the Militia battalions for training in winter was the work of the Local Government Beard, but if the noble Lord looked to the Report of the Norfolk Commission he would probably find that this suggestion was made by them. He noticed also that one or two of the other suggestions put forward by the Secretary of State were taken from that Report. Everybody who had looked at the figures and remembered the glowing picture drawn in this House by Mr. Brodrick four or five years ago would regret the state of the Militia, the numbers of which had gone down from 113,000 in 1899 to 85,000 at present. That was a most regrettable drop, but what the Committee wanted to know was the exact position as to efficiency of the Militia at the present moment. The noble Lord had drawn a very melancholy picture as to the difficulties of recruiting if the men were billeted at home. But his own recollection went back to a regiment which adopted that particular method of recruiting and training. He took the case of the 7th battalion of the Rifle Brigade in 1901. On April 1st, 1901, that battalion was 490 strong and on April 1st, 1902, it was 471 strong. The commanding officer obtained from
  1584
  the War Office leave to allow the recruits whom he enlisted to live at home during the period of enlistment. What was the result? On January 1st, 1903, recruits were allowed to live out of the barracks and on April 1st the strength of the battalion had risen to 775. At the last training in 1904 the strength of the battalion was 850, and it was a better battalion of Militia than any other. That was the direct result of allowing a Militia battalion to do the thing which the noble Lord had suggested would be so disastrous, in regard to both its efficiency and its strength. He should like to ask the Secretary of State whether he could do for him a thing which was refused by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon. A few years ago there was created at the War Office the post of Inspector - General, whose duty it was to go round in person or by deputy and inspect the arms of His Majesty's forces. The duty was mostly performed by deputy, but this House knew nothing of the nature of the Reports made to the Secretary of State. The condition of trade in this country was reported upon by inspectors, the factories were reported upon, the details of local government were also reported upon, and the various Reports were invariably presented to the House of Commons. They got detailed statements about many Army matters, including the actual fighting force of the Army and recruiting, and they even got a Report upon the prisons of the Army, but of the actual state of the Army as to efficiency they knew absolutely nothing from the military authorities. It might be said that it was injudicious, unwise, and impossible to give to the House information which might be used by the enemy, but he was quite sure that there was nothing which was known to the War Office about the actual fighting efficiency of the Army which was not known to foreign powers, and he thought it would go a long way to justify military expenditure if they knew exactly the state of the Army. As to the Militia, there was a terrible dearth of officers. It was due to the fact that there was in the Army a class of officers who had long maintained that they had a right to a monopoly of the commissions in the Army and Militia. The want of patriotism of these people had been displayed in a deplorable manner during

  1585
  the last few years, and they had failed to come up to national expectations. It was necessary that some more democratic system should be introduced which should apply to all the subjects of the Crown, and he hoped the Secretary of State would take steps to draw officers from all classes of society instead of from one only. He thought it unnecessary to have the very long rifle ranges which had been created since the South African war. If the War Office went to the counties from which the Militia and Volunteers were recruited and asked for support, not from one class and not from the few, but appealed to local sentiment, and if the men were given freedom of leave during their training, he was sure that they would get a very much larger measure of support than they did at present. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon used to talk about the drilling of the Army by soldiers, but he thought that that drilling should remain in the hands of the civilian element. The training of the Militia had been from time immemorial that of a civilian force, and it was important that it should be continued to be trained in the same way.
  COLONEL LEGGEwished to urge upon the Secretary of State for War that he should do everything in his power to foster and encourage the Militia. He believed in that force as a very valuable reserve for the Army. It was an old constitutional force and was based upon the fact that every citizen should be trained for the defence of his country. Originally the Militia were not called upon to serve outside their counties, but now they were liable for service in any part of the United Kingdom. He believed also that it was possible to bring it about that they should now serve out of the United Kingdom in time of war. When called upon as Volunteers he was confident that they would be prepared to accept that responsibility and duty. He sincerely hoped that when the right hon. Gentleman put forward his scheme next year he would introduce some means by which the Militia could be properly utilised as a reserve for the British Army.
  SIR ROBERT HOBARTcraved the indulgence which
  1586
  the House always extended to a new Member who addressed it for the first time. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had foreshadowed in his very admirable, and, if he might say so, delightful, speech in introducing the Estimates an idea of reviving the local influence of lord-lieutenants and deputy-lieutenants in raising the Militia, increasing its popularity, and facilitating recruiting. They were all agreed on these beneficient objects. They all wished God-speed to the right hon. Gentleman in his efforts to electrify or galvanize this old constitutional force. The position of lord-lieutenants and deputy-lieutenants towards the Militia Forces of the Crown was defined by law. Every year the Militia ballot was only suspended for one year by a suspensory Act, which was included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, and, but for the passing of this Act, the Ballot Act for raising the Militia would actually come into force. The Militia Ballot Act was not repealed but only suspended year by year.It still therefore remained on the Statute Book as a final resource of defence of the country in time of dire need. The functions and duties of lord-lieutenants and deputy-lieutenants, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon had said, were defined and regulated by this dormant Act. In simple language, these gentlemen were appointed to raise the Militia, and the machinery and method of doing so were laid down by the Militia Ballot Act. The deputy-lieutenants were given defined areas from which they are to produce a defined quota of eligible men, and the lists of such men are to be furnished by the local overseers. Might one gather from the Secretary of State that some such voluntary system could be devised, on a similar plan, for raising Militia recruits by the local influence of the deputy-lieutenants? It had, however, been the custom for many years to look upon deputy-lieutenants simply as distinguished local gentlemen, to whom the right was given of wearing at Court or at a levee uniforms more or less ugly or comical. That had come to be regarded as the be-all-and end all of the appointment, but the real reason for its existence had been strangely forgotten. It was satisfactory to know that the Secretary of State contemplated furbishing up and putting to good use this constitutional machinery.

  1587
  He hoped that under this scheme deputy-lieutenants would be brought up-to-date, and that they would be men who would really do something more than once or twice a year to drag ancient ugly red coats out of camphor-lined boxes, for the purpose of parading before His Majesty at Court functions. This question had been raised on various occasions in Parliament recently, and it had been dealt with in another place by Lord Lansdowne when Secretary of State for War. If the right hon. Gentleman now saw his way to make some good local use of deputy - lieutenants of counties in recruiting our gallant country lads in a popular manner to join the ranks of the local Militia he should, speaking as a deputy-lieutenant, like to encourage the right hon. Gentleman to pursue that excellent course.
  LORD MORPETHsaid there had been numerous debates upon the questions which concerned the Militia, and there had been questions raised as to whether the force should be ended or mended. Before the South African War the Yeomanry of the country had got to such a state that the same kind of thing was talked about them. It was said that the money spent upon them could be saved by their abolition, but they now knew that the Yeomanry was one of the most useful auxiliary services. They knew the services that the force had rendered in the past and the services which they were likely to render in the future. As to the Militia, he did not think it was one of the forces to whom the country should grudge their sustenance; it should be supported in the same way as the Regular Army. For that reason he believed that it was a wise policy that in the future recruits must serve with the force with which they had been recruited. He did not propose to go into the question of how far the Militia could be a supplement to the regular Army at the present time. They knew the shortcomings of the present system; but he thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon went somewhat too far in his description of their weakness, although he recognised the truth of his general outline. If there was a brief campaign in this country or on the continent, many Militiamen would be able to go at short notice. Many Militiamen who had never loaded a rifle in their lives were sent out to
  1588
  South Africa, and they did well there. He did not say that that was as it should be, but they ought to face the difficulties of the situation and to train these men properly. He believed that the Militia officer and the Militiaman himself were zealous; and, given the opportunity, they would avail themselves of it. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had told the House that he would be guided in all he did solely by the consideration whether the changes that were to be made would conduce to efficiency in time of war. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman to abide by that statement. If the Militia battalions were to be trained in the winter months, that was only a sort of underhand way of dealing with the question of unemployment. Unemployment was, however, a non-military matter, and the right hon. Gentleman would be training the Militia for not a military but a civilian purpose. He did not go so far as the noble Lord the Member for Chorley on the question of billeting. He himself had served in the battalion referred to by the hon. Gentleman in which the system of billeting was adopted, and he thought that it was an experiment which might be tried now and again. He could assure the noble Lord that the Militiamen in billets did not turn up late at the early parades, and that his battalion did not suffer any of the inconveniences to which the noble Lord referred. He believed that barrack life was not altogether congenial to the Militiamen. Although he enjoyod life under canvas in camp, he liked the billeting system, which combined the discipline of drill with the freedom to which he was accustomed in civil life. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War had said that he would not for the present adopt any far-reaching plans. A constantly increasing difficulty in connection with the Auxiliary Forces was to get good men. That was not from want of patriotism, but because there was an increasing competition or recruits for the Militia, the Volunteers, and the Regular Army. He suggested to the right hon. Gentleman that, when he came to deal with his general plan of Army reform, ho should find some system of unification for recruiting for all the Auxiliary Forces, because the present system was breaking down.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that they had

  1589
  had a very interesting debate. The noble Lord who had just spoken had taken the line which had been taken by himself and his friends upon certain of the proposals of the former Secretary of State for War. The noble Lord had put his finger on the difficulty that there were too many classes and different kinds of recruits, primarily for home service, but with some idea of preparation for service abroad, competing one with another. At the present time the position of the Militia in the future was the subject of a difference of opinion — he would rather say a difference of nomenclature. The Secretary for War had said that, in his view, the Militia should be attached to the Regular Army rather than to the Volunteer portion of our defensive forces. While he (Sir Charles Dilke), favoured such a Militia, and well-trained Volunteers, he was not in favour of a policy which would lead to the subsidising of gipsy saloons, or stalls at fairs for the destruction of tobacco pipes. He believed in something like discipline and esprit de corps. He sympathised with the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War in trying to make out of the Militia a great home Regular Army. It was altogether premature to do more at present than to adumbrate the ideas in their minds on this question. The Secretary for War had sketched a general scheme, extremely vague, of course, but which showed that his mind was pointed in the right direction, and that they might expect proposals from him later in the year, or next year, which might be worthy of serious consideration by the House. There was only one topic which he should like to press on the right hon. Gentleman on the present occasion. Was it possible for the right hon. Gentleman to show a little more of what was in his mind than he had manifested at Question time to-day? The right hon. Gentleman had given to the House no hint of his views on the subject of field artillery. In his first speech the Secretary of State for War alluded to the remarkable success which had attended the Swiss Artillery under the Militia system. The late Secretary of State for War had limited that view' by saying that after consideration of this problem, and the evidence given before the Norfolk Commission, his mind pointed in the direction of Volunteers rather than of Militia
  1590
  Field Artillery. Would it be impossible to accede to the wishes of the Militia Field Artillery and comprise them amongst the twenty battalions to whom the tentative system was to be applied of training in the next winter?
  MR. COCHRANEsaid he had for many years taken great interest in the question of the Militia. He was in favour of all kinds of experiments, and he believed they would not arrive at a solution of the difficulty of getting enough men to serve if they did not try experiments. He had the greatest respect for the opinions on this subject of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean, but in alluding to some of the suggestions which had been made he seemed to be under the impression that it was proposed to bring together large crowds like what might be seen on a bank holiday at Hampstead Heath.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that what he had referred to was the suggestion in regard to rifle clubs.
  MR. COCHRANEsaid he had seen something of the results of well organised rifle clubs. A patriotic countryman of his own had started a rifle club in a mining village where there were few occupations.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid there was just a chance of his being misrepresented in this matter. He was a little afraid that in some places the rifle club movement might be so used, unless worked in connection with responsible Volunteer officers, as to be of no practical good for the purpose of discipline.
  MR. COCHRANEsaid there was always a danger of that. There was only a limited number of men who were ready at all to bear arms. There were different circumstances in different localities, and they could not lay down a hard and fast rule applicable to every district in the country. In some scattered villages, for instance, it was almost impossible to get up a unit for a Volunteer regiment, but there might be a number of young men in a village who would be pleased to join a rifle club. In a case within his knowledge a certain number of the members of the rifle club were got to compete against the local Volunteers with very satisfactory results

  1591
  indeed. The right hon. Baronet had spoken of discipline. He would undertake to say that with good officers who understood how to handle that class of men in a short time they would be got to obey any orders given to them. Although they might not get men who would march with the precision of Regulars marching on the Horse Guards Parade at the trooping of the colours, they would get a very substantial and efficient body of men, who could be relied on to defend the country if called upon to do so. What they wanted behind the Army and the Volunteers was a body of men who in the course of a few weeks would make thoroughly good soldiers. When anything went wrong in the Army or Militia someone was found to say that it was the fault of the officers. The hon. Member for Bristol said it was the fault of the officers and the class from whom the officers were drawn. He thought that was exceedingly unfair. He had seen a a good deal of the Militia officers, and he could testify that they gave up a great deal of their valuable time to the service of the country at considerable pecuniary loss.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid it was not the class of men who joined that he referred to, but the class who did not join. Of those who did join nothing could be said but the highest praise.
  MR. COCHRANEsaid those who joined were doing their best. Nowadays there were very few people of the leisured class. Most people were engaged in business of one kind or another, and that had reduced the number of men who were prepared to serve in the Militia. The Militia officers and men did splendid work in South Africa, but they got little thanks from anybody. The rewards were given not to those who did good service, but were scattered broadcast among the senior officers. He appealed to the Secretary of State to do something to put the Militia ona better footing. If he did that he would find no difficulty in getting better officers. The training officers got in the Militia was extremely valuable to those who afterwards entered the Army. A great many commanding officers would rather have young officers who had come through the Militia. The Militia had
  1592
  always been a sort of Cinderella. In every one of our great wars the Militia had sent reserves of men to fight alongside of the Regular soldier, and he had never heard that the Militiamen had done worse than the Regulars. He welcomed the promise that the Militia would in future go out as complete units under their own officers in time of war. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to mean that the Militia were no longer to be deprived of the cream of their battalions and scattered about among other regiments. As to the recruiting of the battalion to which he belonged, he had never had the slightest difficulty in keeping up its numbers. There had been a system of looking after the men in winter and of trying to find employment for them. Some of the officers who had large works of their own had been able to aid materially in and facilitate this work. There had also been kitchens kept open in winter and distress had been relieved largely at the cost of the officers. As to training, one thing which militated against it was the sending of recruits to the depots to be trained. They liked to be trained with their own battalion. With regard to rifle ranges, if the men were trained in summer, when the weather was good and the evenings long, of course it was pleasanter, and much better results in shooting were obtained. But men in time of war could not always be firing in summer, and therefore a certain amount of practice under less favourable conditions was not at all undesirable. The amount of shooting practice the men got was of importance as well as the length of the range. He had seen splendid results from men trained at small safety ranges where the limit was 250 yards, and practice could be carried on under cover in any weather. Men so trained had been able to go out and compete at long ranges with considerable success. If they could have long ranges all over the country, and always shoot in summer, he would infinitely prefer it, but the next best thing to that was practice with the full-sized rifle with the ordinary charge and experience with sights at shorter ranges, so that the men might be accustomed to the recoil and learn generally how to handle the weapon. If there were some parts of the country where it would be more convenient to train the men in winter let that be tried, and if in other cases men liked to take

  1593
  their summer holiday under canvas then let that course be pursued as in the past. Why not try both systems? The Militia could be trained for £10 per man, as against £00 or £70 per man in the Regular Army. There was not much difference between the two when it came to hard work. A Militiaman wearing baggy trousers, an ill-fitting tunic, and not walking with alacrity might not inspire them with great admiration for the Force to which he belonged, but if that man were stripped naked they would see as magnificent a man as they could find. He spoke from very considerable experience, and took a very deep interest in the Militia. If the Militia were given a fair chance, they could be made into an extremely valuable body of men. They would march down any ordinary Line regiment, as they were used to a rougher life, and were not so pampered as the youths who joined the Regular Army.
  MR. HALDANEsaid that early in this debate the hon. Baronet the Member for the Chelmsford Division of Essex had asked him pointedly what he was going to do with the Militia. If he had had to answer that Question immediately after the hon. Baronet had sat down he would have been at a disadvantage. Since then, he had been singularly blessed by receiving a multitude of counsel. They had had a most interesting debate, not the less so because every Gentleman took a different view. One hon. Member said "Go and see the Militia at drill, and it will do you good." Another hon. Gentleman said "Go and see the Militia and you will learn something"; while the hon. Member for North Ayrshire said "You ought to see the Militiaman without his clothes." The noble Lord the Member for Chorley had drawn a most gloomy picture, in which his imagination ran riot, as to the ruinous condition of the Militia forces, but if he would have half an hour's private conversation with the right hon. Member for Croydon he would emerge a sadder and a wiser man.
  LORD BALCARRESsaid that he referred to the winter training of the Militia.
  MR. HALDANEsaid that it had never been proposed that the training should be given exclusively in winter. What they had proposed was that they
  1594
  should take twenty battalions of Militia to operate upon experimentally. The twenty-seven days period of training would be raised to forty-one days, and the period of training for recruits would be increased from sixty-three days to six months. He hoped the Government would be able to put many of these twenty battalions in the big towns. They wished to see what they could get there in the way of support from a class of young men who had not hitherto come into the field of Militia recruiting and who were at present unemployed. Many of them, perhaps, were not in a fit condition to become soldiers; but if we took them for six months and put flesh on their bones we might make them into very different men. The essence of the experiment was an extension of the time of training and not a change in the system. He thought that, considering the condition of the Militia, it would be admitted on all hands that it was necessary to proceed experimentally. In reference to the views expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon, he wished to point out that the Militia was no new institution which we were trying to create for the first time. It was an institution with a history, and a history which showed that in other days these men had done splendid service for their country. The question was whether we could afford to neglect the traditions of a body of this kind, or whether we should not do better to try to make all the use we could of the forces which in the past had gone to make them what they had been. Undoubtedly the condition of the Militia was far from satisfactory at present. Out of the 108 battalions a very large proportion were inefficient. We must get real and not sham soldiers for our money. The first thing to be done was to assign to the Militia a definite function, and a definite function which should be interesting and intelligible to them.? They had a definite function not long-ago, which was of great use to the Regular Army, but not to the Militia itself. Under the Militia reserve arrangements which had now ceased to exist, men were taken out of the Militia for the Regular Army and sent as individuals to South Africa. That experiment was disastrous to the Militia and must not be repeated. The Militiaman must feel that he belonged

  1595
  to a unit under his own officer; that if he served abroad he did not cease to be a militiaman, but preserved the traditions of his battalion, and that his own officer would go with him. He would like to see a far larger force available in case of a national emergency than was now available, but we could not get the whole or even the greater part of that force out of the Militia. The Militia could only be a supporting second line to the Regular Army. On one side of the line of division in our Forces we should have the Regulars and the Militia, and on the other the Territorial Army, comprising Volunteers, rifle clubs, and everything else. This organisation should furnish skeleton training and give instruction in shooting, to which he attached great importance, in time of peace. He agreed with the hon. Member for North Ayrshire that rifle clubs ought to be associated with some corps organisation. There was a second consideration which arose from our position in bringing out our reserves at the outbreak of war. He was under no illusion as to the absolute necessity for war training before the men would be fit to be placed in the field. It might be that in course of time they would have a natural Reserve put into action by being called into an effective condition in this fashion. The point was that the force had suffered, not only from having no function assigned to it, but from having been called on to perform a perfectly wrong function—namely, that of being a Reserve for the Regular Army. A great deal of drastic reform might be required, but he was sure that the Militia would never be placed on a sufficiently attractive footing unless it had the reputation of being composed of real and efficient battalions, which in too many cases was not the case now. As to the position of Lords-Lieutenant and Deputy-Lieutenants, it was obvious that, if they were going to deal with the Militia and with a territorial organisation of the Army generally, these functionaries ought to have real duties, and to be appointed only if they could show services rendered to the country, and were ready to give a promise of services in the future. That was one way in which we might hope to get more support for the Militia than was obtained at the present time. Then there was the question of Militia artillery. He quite agreed that it was necessary to have
  1596
  a high state of efficiency in the artillery, not only among the officers, but among the gunners, because the very essence of the work was a skill and judgment in placing the shell and in solving the many problems which arose in the course of an action. A perfectly efficient artillery on a large scale could not be got out of the Volunteers; but the case of the Honourable Artillery Company and other cases showed that the Militia and Volunteers could render very great services to the nation in the matter of artillery. There was an enormous amount of artillery work in which Militiamen, could take a large part. The introduction of the quick-firing gun had made a great change in the number of men requited for ammunition columns. They might look to the Militia trained man to do a great deal of the work which the progress of modern artillery necessitated. That, at all events, was one large function which might be performed by Militiamen. But, as regarded both the Militia and the Volunteers, he hoped it might be possible to go further. A good deal of the Volunteer artillery work consisted of pulling about big guns which were practically obsolete, and what was wanted was to train the men with guns they would have to use if matters came to a reality. He wished to say no more than this, that the problem was being thought out, not only by himself, but by others who were more competent. He would be very sorry to see the Militia and Volunteers cut off from all functions connected with artillery work. The matter, however, was too serious and far-reaching to be dealt with in a hurry. His hon. and gallant friend the Member for Monmouthshire had alluded to an incident during the late election. He had himself known many annoying incidents of the kind take place, and he congratulated his hon. and gallant friend, who was no doubt much less emotional than he was himself, on not only having suppressed his feelings, but also in having reached the top of the poll. That showed, he thought, that the matter was not taken very seriously. There was a regulation under which officers and soldiers were forbidden to take part in any meeting demonstration, or procession of a political character. Under no circumstances were they to attend such meetings, wherever held, in uniform.
  COLONEL HERBERT: But they can write letters to the papers, I understand.
  MR. HALDANE: Oh, yes. Soldiers and officers were, after all, human beings. They all of them had two capacities. Even a War Minister had his emotions and he had a public and a private capacity, and it was very difficult to differentiate between him in his double capacity. Some years ago Lord Rosebery made a speech in Midlothian while an election was proceeding at Leith, and there was an immense amount of controversy as to the capacity in which he made that speech; whether as Prime Minister or as a peer or as a Lord-Lieutenant of the county, and they found it impossible to solve the question. He was sure that if Lord Raglan had infringed that regulation he did so unwittingly. He was also sure that he asked bona fide in a spirit of exuberant political enthusiasm.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that he had never been strongly in favour of the long period of Militia service, and the only difference between himself and the right hon. Gentleman was whether it should be seven or twelve months. He had approved of two years because every military authority declared that was the minimum period consistent with efficiency. He should be content with a period of twelve months, because it did give an opportunity of successful and continuous training and of the training of Regular officers. The right hon. Gentlemanhad said that that would be departing from the old traditions of the force, but he would most respectfully suggest that they would be just as much departing from those old traditions by training the men for seven months as if they trained them for twelve. He thought battalion after battalion would be willing to join the right hon. Gentleman in making the experiment. He did not know why it was thought necessary to have curious performances upon Hounslow Heath, because at Walmer men were turned out trained after six or eight months.
  MR. HALDANEsaid he had had nothing to do with the experiment at Hounslow Heath. It was suggested by an officer of experience, and he had refrained from mixing himself up in the experiment.
  MR. HUNTsaid he had seen men taught not only foot drill but also to shoot and to become good useful soldiers in a period of three months. If a man could shoot, surely he could be turned into a fairly good soldier in about a month or six weeks. It seemed to him that it would be possible in regard to the men so trained to enter into-agreements with them that they should be called up in times of emergency. He thought everyone who was able ought to be willing to defend his country and his women and children when they were in danger. If such people as that were not prepared to defend them, who was to defend them? He did not think that in this country men should be encouraged to think it was neither their business to guard against starvation in time of war, nor their duty to defend their country in time of peril.
  SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDERdid not wish to say a word against the idea of asking Militia battalions to come for training in the winter. There might possibly be very good reasons for that course, and it seemed to him to be an experiment which would be successful. If, however, it was intended to remedy the evils of unemployment in the winter, it did not appear to him to be the most satisfactory way of diminishing the unemployment in the casual labour market by making the training to last a period of six months. What class of men were going to be recruited? Under this condition of things the recruits would come from the ranks of casual labour. No man in regular employment could possibly join a force which had to train for six months. He believed that every reform in our Auxiliary Forces must be in the direction of raising the standard of the men recruited. If the Militia was ever to be a useful branch of the Regular Forces it must be recruited from a higher standard of men; and if the training was to be prolonged for six months it would be impossible to get men, except of the lowest standard, to join. It was only to sound that note of warning that he had intervened in this debate.
  COLONEL HERBERT,in view of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman

  1599
  the Secretary of State, asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  By leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. HICKS BEACHsaid that as a militiaman he was glad to hear there was to be a prolonged training. He was also glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that this experiment was not to be a real winter training for the whole battalion, but that there was to be six weeks training in the summer for the battalion, and six months winter training for the recruits. Every one would agree that an experiment which increased the duration of training to six weeks was one that deserved encouragement, because it was generally felt that a month was not sufficient to make a militiaman as efficient as he ought to be, if adequate time was to be given to musketry. He therefore rejoiced in this experiment. He hoped, however, in the case of the agricultural regiments, that when they were called out the right hon. Gentleman would allow those men to return home after a month's training who desired to do so, in order that work on the land might not be brought to a standstill. Would it not be possible in the future to train recruits at the battalion headquarters? At the present time the recruit was taken to the regimental depot and trained under officers he might never see again. If recruits were trained at their own battalion headquarters under their own officers and permanent staff non - commissioned officers, it would do much to encourage recruiting and esprit de corps. As regards officers, there were always a certain number who were willing to come and serve every winter, if necessary, at their own headquarters who would not be so willing to go to a regimental depot. The hon. Member for East Bristol had expressed the opinion with regard to the scarcity of officers that if they went to a lower grade they would get more officers. He dissented from that view, because the supply of officers largely depended upon the amount of time a man had to spare for military affairs. If recourse was taken to a lower grade the
  1600
  officers selected would have less time to spare, and would require a larger amount of pay. He welcomed the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that he was going to encourage and improve the musketry training of the Militia, and he was glad to think that the old system, under which men were got up at four in the morning, taken to the ranges and told to get through their rounds as quickly as possible, had come to an end.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid it seemed that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State was going to take the Militia very seriously, and as that was the case, he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that he must not leave the condition of the officers out of consideration. The right hon. Gentleman must take care that the officers were well treated as well as the men. From a great deal of correspondence addressed to him lately he had come to the conclusion that there was a legitimate grievance on the part of the officers. If a regiment was to be efficient it must be well trained and smart in every part of its equipment. One part of a regiment's equipment was its band, and it certainly was not fair that the expense of supporting and maintaining the band should fall upon the officers. If the right hon.Gentleman inquired he would find that in many regiments the band was maintaned by two or three officers who were well off. That was a condition of things that should not be. The right hon. Gentleman should consider the matter from the point of view of whether it was not possible to make a small extra grant for the support and maintenance of the bands. Again, all officers in the Militia were not wealthy men, and having to provide themselves with a well-trained and good-looking charger was a very important matter with them. The right hon. Gentleman might extend to mounted officers in the Militia regiments the rights conceded to officers of the Line in this regard. Did the right hon. Gentleman contemplate any extension of the system under which officers of the Militia might pass from the Militia to the Regular Army? Because there again was an opportunity of making the Militia service more attractive and of

  1601
  drawing into it men who were reluctant to give their services.
  MAJOR ANSTRUIHER-GRAYagreed with everything that had been said with regard to this experiment. They did not know whether it would be justified or not, but it was certainly a step in the right direction. It was better to have a large amount of shooting at 200 yards than a little shooting at 1,500, because it was not a very difficult thing for a man well up in shooting at 200 to make a good show at 1,500. As an old field artillery Militiaman he thought they could do a good deal with field guns in the Militia., and militiamen, if there were enough of them and they were allowed to shoot, would do very nearly as well as the Regulars. If they got men keen at their work, and gave them a little sympathetic treatment, they would repay them a thousandfold. They should also, in his opinion, have machine guns in the Militia. Within a very short time they would be able to handle them quite as well as the Regulars. And with regard to the scarcity of officers in the Army, they had only to offer a few commissions to Militia officers. When a militiaman joined the Regulars he was of a good deal more use than a Sandhurst man, because, though he might not, technically, be so well up he was in the habit of handling men. No man had a greater respect for the non-commissioned officer than himself. Noncommissioned officers were the backbone of our Army, and no praise was too high for the way in which they served. But he believed we should do wrong to lower the status of our commanding officers. The armies of those continental countries which maintained officers of a very high class were much more efficient than the armies of those countries where:such was not the case. But while it would be a mistake to lower the status of our officers, it would be wise to encourage them and help them out in the way of expenses. As one who saw what was done by the Militia regiments in the late war, he desired to add his meed of praise to that which had been given to them. In physique they were not inferior to the Regulars, and for British pluck and endurance they were a credit to this country.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid that though it might be urged that the result of six months training of the Militia recruit might have some element of uncertainty, he hoped the experiment would not be limited to one year or to six months. It had been said that the character of the recruits obtained would deteriorate under this system; but it must not be forgotten that there were large industries, like the building trade, with its million of men, whose slack time was in the winter, and who could not engage in the summer, when work was most easy to find. Prom such trades we should be able to draw a large supply of the beat kind of recruits. He should have thought that the artillery Militia was a class which might have been trained in the winter. Many of the difficulties which had been advanced against infantry training in the winter would be much less felt in the artillery. At Dunbar they could train regiments in barracks in winter quite as efficiently as under canvas in summer-time.
  MR. COCHRANEsaid the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had spoken very sympathetically in regard to rifle clubs. Might he point out that rifle clubs to be efficient must have ammunition? At present a very heavy tax was placed upon young fellows in having to pay something like a penny a shot. Could not the right hon. Gentleman find some method by which ammunition could be supplied at a less charge, or a certain number of cartridges provided free on reaching a certain standard of efficiency?
  MR. HALDANEsaid he did not think he could give any Answer now, but he should be glad to consult his hon. friend the Financial Secretary.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  £423,000, Imperial Yeomanry; Pay and Allowances.
  MR. STANLEY WILSONasked the Secretary of State for War for an explanation of the considerable reduction in the Vote this year, and what were his intentions

  1603
  with regard to the Yeomanry. He hoped it was not the right hon. Gentleman's intention in any way to reduce those forces. At the present time the force had reached a very high state of efficiency, and whatever some might think of Mr. Brodrick's scheme, there was no doubt that that portion of the scheme which dealt with the Imperial Yeomanry had proved a very great success, and the Yeomanry force was in a far better condition than ever before. With regard to the uniform, some of the new regiments were clothed in the horrible uniform known by the name of khaki. Khaki was all very well, but it was not fit for men to walk out in the streets in as full dress, and they objected to it most strongly. His regiment was among the sufferers. What the men liked was to have a smart kit in which they could walk out, and the result was that in the present year he was losing a considerable number of excellent men. Last year they had spent their annual training close to Scarborough, and in the town were encamped the Yorkshire Hussars who had an extremely smart walking-out kit—one of the smartest that any regiment in the country had. When his unfortunate men went into Scarborough town they found they could not compete at all with the Hussars. The ladies of Scarborough would pay no attention to the unfortunate Yeomen, but always insisted on walking out with the Hussars. He should like to ask if the right hon. Gentleman could not give his regiment some assistance and clothe them in a respectable and decent uniform. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would give this matter his very grave consideration. He should like also to suggest that it would be worthy of the attention of the Secretary of State to attach to the Yeomanry regiments during the annual training two Regular officers. He believed it would have the effect of keeping the regiments in a state of the highest efficiency and completely up-to-date.
  MR. HALDANEsaid the reason for the reduction of the Vote was that they had estimated only for the existing strength. With regard to the other point, he was bound to say he thought the Yeomanry did pretty well in the way of
  1604
  the money they received out of Imperial' Funds, and he could not hold out any hopes that the State was going to assist them in the point of clothes.
  MR. GIBBSsaid he should like to associate himself with the remarks of the hon. Member for the Holderness Division in regard to the khaki uniform of the Yeomanry. He was glad to see that additional encouragement was to be given to the Yeomanry in the matter of teaching them how to ride and manage their rifles during manoeuvring. It was impossible to expect a bad rider, after galloping over rough ground and being jumped about in the saddle, to shoot straight. It was eminently desirable that every facility should be given to the class of men from whom they got some of their best men, namely, clerks in towns, to make themselves as efficient as possible. The experience of the South African War very clearly demonstrated of what service the Imperial Yeomanry could be when they were properly trained. He should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he could not revise the present system of re-engagement for the Yeomanry. At the present moment after a man had served for three years he had to be reengaged and medically examined each successive year, and many men objected to that system. For instance, if a man joined when he was seventeen years old and left when he was fifty, the present age limit, he would have to be re-engaged and medically examined twenty-nine times. As regarded training he thought that the present period was too long. He believed that if they had fourteen days they would get not only more men, but what was more important, more officers. If that was not possible some facility should be given to the commanding officers to give leave to the men and officers more frequently.
  LORD WILLOUGHBY DE ERESBYsaid there was one question with regard to the Yeomanry which he desired to bring to the notice of the Secretary of State for War; and it was very important if the Yeomanry were to be really an efficient fighting force. He believed the right hon; Gentleman had taken a very

  1605
  wise step in regard to the Volunteers and brigades, and he firmly believed that if the Yeomanry were to be an efficient force in case of emergency the same principle ought to be adopted for them. There ought to be appointed throughout the whole Yeomanry force brigadiers — preferably retired Army colonels—and under them. a staff of Regular officers. Unless there were first-class Regular officers to instruct the Auxiliaries, those Auxiliaries in the day of trial would be little better than a useless mob. He would like to see for every three or four regiments of Yeomanry a brigadier appointed who should be responsible for the training of those regiments, and at the end of three years, or whatever period was fixed upon, the brigade ought to be brought together and inspected by a superior officer, and if the brigade showed any falling off in certain respects the blame would lie with the brigadier. Having served in the Yeomanry for twenty years he could assure hon. Members that under the present conditions it was extremely difficult for an officer, however willing, to bring his corps to a high state of efficiency. As to what was expected of the Yeomanry, they were supposed to know about horses, to be first-class shots, and to be able to take upon themselves the duties of cavalry and also of infantry. What happened under the present system? One year they were inspected by a distinguished cavalry officer whose one idea was cavalry tactics; his great idea was that the regiment should be very good at squadron drill; that the men should be able to ride in beautiful line and perform cavalry manœuvres in a highly efficient way. They did not know until a few days before the inspector came that they were to be inspected by a cavalry officer, and when he arrived he found fault because some of the manœuvres were not smartly done. In the following year an officer came whose one great idea was in regard to the work of mounted infantry, and he did not in the least care a bit about squadron drill or whether the men could ride in a straight line or not. That officer went in entirely for work in connection with mounting and dismounting and taking up positions. Possibly during the year
  1606
  the men had been getting instruction to meet the views of the cavalry inspector, and, special attention not having been given to mounting and dismounting work, a bad report was given. He thought, therefore, it was most important—he did not believe it would cost a very large sum—that brigadiers should be appointed for the different regiments of Yeomanry. Brigadiers ought also to be the inspecting officers. He was one of those who believed that if the Yeomanry were called out to serve in this country and they had not a brigadier and a brigadier staff, they would be almost useless. The only other alternative was to offer Yeomanry officers further facilities for improving their education. Since he had been in the Yeomanry he had been to three or four different schools of Yeomanry, and on each occasion he had been taught nothing but the elementary principles of drill. At Aldershot he practically did the work of a trooper while three or four of the biggest dunder-headed subalterns endeavoured to give instructions to the squadron as to how they should wheel. He considered that the whole of the time spent there was wasted. If he had been taught a certain amount of staff duty and other work than ordinary elementary drill he should have considered that he was doing work which would be of use. The number of schools should be increased and an effort should be made to build up a staff out of the Yeomanry officers. He was in favour of putting officers of the Regular force in high positions in the Auxiliary Forces. Some officers had said that they did not think it was necessary, and that if it were done it would create jealousy in the Auxiliary Forces. They said also that they could do the work as well as those who might be appointed as brigadiers. His opinion was absolutely different. If a Volunteer officer or Yeomanry colonel who went out for a fortnight's training in the course of the year was as capable as the man who made it the business of his life to be a soldier, what was the use of Regular officers going through a course of classes to learn their art? If the Auxiliary Forces were to be of use in time of war it was absolutely essential that those who held high commands should be Regular officers, and that they should

  1607
  have a staff of Regular officers as well. If the Auxiliary Forces had Regular officers who could draw up instructions and give orders, he did not believe that in England there would be any difficulty in getting transport. It would say very little for the patriotism of the people living in the country—farmers, traders, and others in the different localities—if they could not produce the few horses and carts necessary to get the men and their baggage to the points where foreign invasion might be threatened. To be a useful force in time of war it was absolutely necessary that the Yeomanry should be properly organised, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to accept the suggestion that brigadiers with proper staff should be provided for three or four regiments, even if the cost of doing so had to be met by making reductions in other directions.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid the War Secretary had made a comparison between the cost of the Yeomanry now and the Yeomanry under the old system. He had shown that whereas the cost under the old system was £11 or £12 per man it had risen now to £20 or £30 per man. At all events the return the country got out of the modernised Yeomanry was far greater than the return it got under the old system. He submitted to the War Secretary that under any mobilisation scheme the Yeomanry—a regiment of which he had the honour to command— should be given a definite place. The work they would be expected to do and the part they would be expected to play in Imperial defence at home should be thoroughly understood by them beforehand. At present they possessed no such knowledge. It was an excellent thing that some system should be devised under which the services of competent officers would be available to supervise the work done by regiments and regularise their training under a definite scheme. He did not know that it was necessary to have regular officers for this work. He had known many Regular officers who had the supervision of the Volunteer force who had been infinitely worse soldiers than those who never had any regular training. When the demand for officers became severe during the South African war a large
  1608
  number of civilians who had never had such training went out and rendered excellent service. The best scheme available should be adopted in order to ensure complete and efficient training. He did not think that hard and fast rules, to be applicable to all regiments whatever part of the country they were in, should be laid down by head quarters. He suggested that where a man was competent to command his regiment much more discretion should be given to him than was given at the present time. He should be charged with the responsibility of producing a regiment efficient to do the work for which it was intended. If this were done the country would get a cheaper and more efficient force. The Imperial Yeomanry was a very valuable force for the defence of the country, and they could provide both officers and men fit for service abroad if they received the proper training. Unless it could be shown they got full value for their money the taxpayers of this country ought not to be called upon to pay for the Yeomanry. If the suggestions he had made were adopted the results would be satisfactory, not only to the country, but also to the taxpayer in the return he would get for his money.
  Vote agreed to
  Resolution to be reported.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,244,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge for Capitation Grants and Miscellaneous Charges of Volunteer Corps, including Pay, etc., of the Permanent Staff, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1907."
  MR. MCCRAEsaid he had hoped that they might have had longer time to discuss the question of the Volunteers and to have heard from the Secretary for War a more definite pronouncement than had yet been made in regard to his policy in dealing with the Auxiliary Forces. He would, however, say at once that the administration of the Volunteer Force since the right hon. Gentleman had come into office had been such as to afford a sense of security to

  1609
  the Volunteers of the country which they had not enjoyed for some years past. He would like to know whether the policy of the right hon. Gentleman was to have a large Volunteer Force, and whether that policy would maintain the present standard of efficiency. The statement which the right hon. Gentleman made in regard to the nebulous force which was to be behind the Volunteers—and which he hoped would remain nebulous—did not satisfy him. He had no faith in an armed mob, or even in rifle clubs. If we were to have an efficient reserve, either for home defence or as a stand-by for the Army, that force must have some considerable training. If the young men of the country did not have the training of Volunteers, the other organisations would be of little use. He thought the right hon. Gentleman must have taken a hint from the scheme of the Canadian Militia or of the Japanese Army which had five different grades, I the lowest of which were not trained at all in arms. As to camp allowances, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon made certain proposals after Parliament rose last year which did not meet with the approbation of the Volunteers. But there was one point in the right hon. Gentleman's proposals which commended itself to all interested in the I Volunteer Force. That was that every Volunteer should have the opportunity of going into camp for fourteen days. No doubt the grant was to be reduced for fourteen days men, while the grant to the men who went into camp for seven days was to be increased. He would like the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War to say whether the allowance of every Volunteer who went into camp for fourteen days was to be 5s. a day; and that every man who went into camp for seven days was to be paid 3s. 6d. a day. Then the medical circular issued by the right hon. Member for Croydon was considered by many Volunteer officers to be illegal, but in the performance of their duty they acted upon it. That circular had been withdrawn, but some men had suffered on account of the illegal demand made upon them by the War Office. The right hon. Member for Croydon had said that there was no compulsion laid
  1610
  upon individual Volunteers by that circular, but the late Financial Secretary to the War Office stated that it was compulsory in so far as supplying information was concerned. Certain non-commissioned officers had been degraded from their rank and privates had been dismissed from their corps because of non-compliance with the demand of that illegal circular. He wished to have the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War that those men who had wrongfully suffered would be reinstated. There was an impression abroad that the right hon. Gentleman had an idea that a large number of men should be enrolled in a citizen army, and that the conditions in regard to their efficiency should be relaxed. He hoped there was no intention of reducing the standard of efficiency in the Volunteer Force.
  SIR H. AUBREY-FLETCHERsaid he would like to say a few words in connection with the force with which he had been associated for a longer period, he believed, than any other Member of this House. He was one of the founders of the Volunteer Force in 1859, and had watched it throughout its career, although he was no longer an active member of it. In the early days of the Volunteer Force it was composed of men of quite a different social status than at present. They found their own uniform, their own rifles, their own ammunition, and paid for their drill instructors. But as time went on a different class of men joined the Volunteer Army, and great difficulties arose because men who ought to have been serving in the Militia joined it. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would see, when he came to consider the whole Volunteer question, what he could do to put the Volunteer Force on a sound footing. For many years past the Volunteers had suffered owing to the various schemes which had been brought forward in regard to them by the War Office; and there was great disquietude throughout all ranks. The result was that the numbers of the Volunteer Army had diminished considerably. He believed that if the force were put on a sound footing it might be brought up into

  1611
  a state of efficiency such as the Secretary of State for War and the War Office would be satisfied with. There were some points of the right hon. Gentleman's statement with which he was in cordial agreement. The Secretary of State for War had said that brigadiers would be appointed to the force—men generally selected from the Regular Army. He was glad to see in the Estimates this year that there was an increase of the sum allotted for the formation of brigades on a more satisfactory footing than at present. The Estimates this year showed a sum of £10,000 for enlarging the staff of the Volunteer brigades as against £1,800 last year. Having served as brigadier for a great many years he could claim to have some knowledge, and he was sure it would be for the benefit of the force if brigadiers were selected from the Regular Army. But this must be taken into consideration. The officer selected as brigadier should have the full instruction of the Volunteers under his command during the whole year and not only during the week that the Volunteer brigade was in camp. Up to the present time a brigadier, such as he himself had been, had had nothing whatever to do with those under his command except for a week in the year. He had no return presented to him. He had no knowledge of the number of men of the various battalions, and then at the expiration of the week's camp, on the inspection day, he had to hand over his brigade to an inspecting officer, who might have no knowledge whatever of Volunteers or their requirements. He could recollect a commander being sent who had spent many years in India and had never seen a Volunteer. It was most desirable to have brigadiers appointed who should have full command of their brigades during the whole year, and should be allowed, when the day of inspection came, to inspect the different battalions of their brigade. They were the men who had or ought to have a thorough knowledge of the Volunteers, and who could report and inspect just as well as some of the colonels who were sent on inspection days without any knowledge whatever. He wished, if he might, to say a few words with regard to rifle clubs, in which he took a great interest. He was happy
  1612
  to say they were progressing, and that there were now some 700 affiliated to the National Rifle Association, of which he had been chairman for many years. As far as he could tell they were doing well. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would do what he could to help these clubs by way of granting ammunition and acceding to other requests which they made.
  MR. AINSWORTHwished to call attention to a matter which seriously affected the Volunteer battalions in the Highland counties. For instance, the area of Argyll and Bute was 100 miles long by sixty broad, and it was enormously difficult to maintain efficiency in the battalions of Volunteers spread over such a wide area. The artillery corps were also armed with old muzzle loading guns.
  And, it being half-Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee also report Progress; to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS) BILL. (BY ORDER.)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. BURDETT-COUTTSsaid that as one who had consistently opposed tramways being brought over Westminster Bridge and down the Embankment, not only on the merits of the scheme but because the representative local authority of the district for which he sat had always requested him to do so, he would like to say a few words at this final stage of the discussion. He would not go over the many reasons that had in former times been urged against it. There were, however, two which he thought it was sufficient to

  1613
  mention in order to dismiss. It had been alleged that people who had carriages and horses objected to these tramways because they interfered with their pleasure. It had also been alleged that for some occult reason they desired to see poor people trudge in the rain and mud over the bridge. He thought he might put such arguments aside. The real reason for their objections was that they considered the great and complicated problem of London locomotion ought to be viewed as a whole, and that it had not been established that tramways in such a position were the best means of dealing with it. Their doubts had been increased by the many different and conflicting forms in which the London County Council had brought this proposal before the House. First it was a project to cross Westminster Bridge and go along the Embankment to Blackfriars; then it was a project to cross the bridge only and transfer the block at the south side to the north side, close to that House; then they had proposed a tramway to Waterloo Bridge only; and then they proposed to lay the tramway on the Embankment only from nowhere to nowhere. All this showed either that the London County Council did not know its own mind or that it had some purpose which was not disclosed. The arguments used on behalf of the proposal were equally?conflicting. During the earlier stages the whole argument was that it was necessary, after bringing the public across the bridge, to take them along the Embankment to the city. But they had found that of all the omnibuses belonging to competing companies, which were always looking out for new routes, not one ever turned towards the city. Then it was pretended that they wanted to link up the south with the north. But there was no point within practical distance on the north side to link to. Later on, the scheme of a tramway down the new street from Holbern to the Embankment, came into view; and he was quite prepared to admit that now that project was nearing completion, it afforded a justification for the proposal now before the House. But the Royal Commission on London Traffic was then appointed. While that Com-
  1614
  mission was sitting and actually taking evidence on this very project, and before it had reported, the London County Council twice brought in this Bill and sought to forestall the decision of the Commission by the action of that House. That was the case last session. When the Bill was before the House the Commission had not reported and the division resulted in a tie, the Speaker giving his casting vote in favour of the Bill for the express purpose, as he stated, that the House might have another opportunity of considering it. The Bill was rejected by the House of Lords and he, for one, thought that the outcry got up against the House of Lords on that account was quite unreasonable. Surely there could not be a case in which the House of Lords was so legitimately free to exercise its discretion as one dealing with a subject on which a Royal Commission had not yet reported and on which the lower House had been equally divided. The Commission reported in favour of an extension of the tramway system. But by that time an entirely new factor in the problem had come into view in the shape of the motor omnibus. No one who had been in the former House of Commons could accuse him of holding a brief for motors. He hated motors, he had not got one and never used them—except at an election. But although the motor omnibus had yet only been tried on a small scale, it was evident it was destined to play an important part in London locomotion; and those who believed, as he did, that the real solution of that problem lay in tubes for long distances, tramways for the outer districts and broad roads, and motor omnibuses for the more central and crowded thoroughfares, were justified in attaching great importance to this new means of conveyance. He remembered that while as early as the 1904 debate on this subject, he was arguing this proposition, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Beard threw an interjection across the House— "Motor 'buses are done for already." [Mr. JOHN BURNS: Hear, hear!] What a prophecy! In addition to the large number of motor omnibuses already on the streets he understood there were something like ten times that number

  1615
  now on order. The Road Car Company had raised £60,000 for motor omnibuses, and he believed the London General Omnibus Company was about to raise £500,000 for the same purpose. There could not be a moment's question that motors were destined to play an ever increasing part in the solution of this problem. They were much faster in crowded traffic; their flexible line of progression caused far less blocking and inconvenience; when streets were blocked or in repair they could be diverted, so as not to suspend the public service; they could follow the changed current and volume of traffic and no one could deny that in a great city like London, changes of that kind were constantly occurring. They had two other advantages of greater importance. They did not require a great capital outlay in laying tram lines, an outlay which, once it was applied to a fixed route, was buried there and could never be recovered if the route was abandoned or the traffic became less or some other means of locomotion—tubes, railways, and the like—supplanted the use of the tramcar. Secondly, being in the nature of private or private corporate enterprise, they involved that healthy principle of competition which was the surest safeguard of the public interest, as to cheapness and efficiency. But they had one great disadvantage which, in the eyes of the London County Council, outweighed all the claims he had spoken of. They did not involve a great and risky outlay of the ratepayers' capital, and they did not secure to the London County Council a great body of labour which, when elections came, would vote for the promoters of the scheme. They did not play any part in that policy of Socialism which had been ingeniously transferred from Hyde Park to municipal bodies. To that policy he had always given, and always would give, a determined opposition. But on this occasion the Westminster City Council had not requested him to oppose the Bill; and in the recent election he found that a certain number of his poorer constituents were in favour of the trams being brought over Westminster Bridge. For those high reasons of State he would not vote against the Bill.
  DR. MACNAMARAcongratulated the hon. Member or the rather graceful manner in which he had accepted the inevitable. It had been a long and gallant fight, extending over sixteen years, and had ended in the right being given to the people of London to use their roads to the best advantage. In passing from this point he desired to pay a real tribute to the aims and genius of those put up to oppose and fight this scheme. The arguments first used by them were that it would spoil the artistic effect of the slender lines of Westminster Bridge if cars were brought over it. But that argument disappeared when it was pointed out that omnibuses were just as ugly. Then came the argument that what might be termed the umbrageous solitudes of the Thames Embankment would be invaded by the rattle of tramcars and the clanging of bells, and that that was not desirable. That argument was eventually given up. Then there was the Royal Commission on London Traffic for whose Report they had had to wait. They eventually got the Report last year, before the Bill was discussed in another place. The hon. Member had said that the Members of the Upper House were entitled to throw out the Bill because they had not the Report of the Royal Commission before them, but that was not accurate. As a matter of fact the Bill was thrown out by the Upper House without any practical discussion. The mover of its rejection said that the Bill merely proposed to take people for a little pleasure trip on the Embankment, and on those grounds it was rejected. The hon. Member was aware with what indignation the population of London received that verdict. They had now, however, got to the end of the struggle and he was much obliged to the hon. Member for the graceful manner in which he had accepted the position. It was right, in the opinion of 5,000,000 of the people of London, that these trams should come over the bridge. It was the determination of the London boroughs, of the London County Council, and of this House that they should come over, and he would suggest to the London County Council that they should proceed at once with this great scheme and confer this unspeakable boon on London.
  MR. BAKERsaid the hon. Member for Westminster had made one or two statements with regard to motor omnibuses, and with regard to the action and the reasons of the County Council in promoting this measure which should be, he thought, referred to. One of the County Council's electric tramcars carried double the number of passengers carried by a motor omnibus. In the early morning about 4,000 persons alighted at the tramway terminus at Westminster, and while sixty tramcars would be sufficient to carry these passengers over the bridge it would require 120 motor omnibuses to do the same work. At the Elephant and Castle 440 tramcars passed a given point in a single hour, and the number of motor omnibuses required to carry the same number of passengers would be 900. Therefore, from the point of view of the congestion of traffic, the tramways had the advantage. Again, the cost of the tramcar was about 6d. or 7d. a mile, as against 11d. or 1s. a mile in the case of the motor omnibus. He had just received a message from the chief tramway officer of the County Council stating that in his opinion they were not seriously affected by the motor omnibuses. The tramway receipts were steadily increasing, and they only required more power and a through service over the bridges to make the opposition a negligible quantity. He also reminded the House that on this occasion the County Council were in the position of having the hearty co-operation of the City.
  MR. NEILDcongratulated the hon. Member for East Finsbury, whose experience in these matters was considerable, on the speech he had made in support of this Bill. Speaking also in support of the Bill, but from a different standpoint, since he was in no sense interested in the question of over-bridge tramways, he thought, so far as the Edgware Road part of the scheme was concerned, that it would greatly facilitate the action of those who desired by means of these light railways to secure a better means of communication with London. At present Edgware was very badly served, being wholly dependent on the Great Northern Railway, whose line went through Finsbury Park
  1618
  and Finchley, and whose service left much to be desired. The proposal of Middlesex which was contained in the Bill that would follow this was to make a direct connection with London by a line of trams along the Edgware Road, by doing which they would confer a very great benefit on the population. The boundary of the two counties of Middlesex and London was for some distance down, the centre of the Edgware Road, between Kilburn and Brondesbury,, and it was most desirable that the Councils of both counties, as well as of the Borough of Hampstead and the urban district of Willesden, should be in agreement, especially on the question of the necessary widenings. The objections urged by the hon. Member for Westminster had been heard more than once from the Conservative side of the House. Whatever might be said about the motor omnibus being best adapted for the streets of inner London, he thought that the system of electric tramways was that best adapted to deal with suburban traffic. But his objection with regard to the control of these lines by a local authority was-the fact that the large body of municipal employees might be manipulated at times of election to the interest of the municipal body, but this consideration did not apply to the County Council of Middlesex. Under the agreement which was mentioned in the Middlesex County Council Tramways Bill, the Middlesex County Council had arranged for the line to be worked by a private company on terms which would give the Council and the company a good rate of interest on their capital expenditure, and under all circumstances the arrangement ought to be very beneficial to both the parties, securing as it did a preferential rate of interest to the County Council of Middlesex, and an ultimate share of the profits to be derived from the undertaking, an arrangement which already applied to all the existing lines of the Council in the county. He ventured to hope that no further opposition would be offered to this Bill, but that it would now be sent to a Committee, and finally passed, in which case it would supply facilities much needed by Londoners.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BEARD (Mr. JOHN. BURNS,)said he rose to take this opportunity of saying a few words, because of the extraordinary spectacle which the House had witnessed this evening on the termination of what might be called the battle of the bridges. It was to the credit of all, and particularly to the credit of the hon. Member for Westminster, who had led the van in this fight against the population of London in this matter. He had now given up his policy of opposition and said he did not intend to take any part in opposing the tramways coming over Westminster Bridge. They then had the remarkable fact that the name of the senior representative for London, whose absence they all deplored, was on the back of the Bill. That was followed by the still more extraordinary fact that the representative of one of the Divisions of the County of Middlesex had joined hands with the City of Westminster and the City of London and had appealed for the Bill. Surely their happiness was overdone, and as one of the hon. Members who from the back benches had preached in favour of this Bill, and who saw the fruition of one of those useful schemes which had been too long delayed, he wished from the vantage ground of the Treasury Bench to say how glad he was that the City of London had taken a more useful way of serving the citizens of this vast Metropolis than it did thirteen or fourteen years ago. Moreover, although the hon. Member for the City of Westminister had made reparation rather late in the day, he forgave him for his past. He also welcomed the support of the hon. Member for Ealing, who, in making his first speech on this subject, had joined hands with the London County Council, and he would only say he was sure that the hon. Member would regret that the Middlesex County Council had not had the prescience of the London County Council in this matter and taken steps to own and work by their own men the London tramways. Five years hence there would be no regrets for the course which the House was taking, and now it was roses, roses, all the way. They would, he hoped, get over Westminster Bridge. He trusted the House would allow the tramway to go down the Embankment in order to link up the
  1620
  north with the south. He believed that the scheme would lead to the people both in the south and in the north having greater access to the river. It would also, he thought, give workmen that greater mobility which they ought to have in a place like London. It would give them freedom to get to and fro from their work and to convey their wives and children to every part of London. From every point of view he thought the Bill would receive the blessings of all Londoners, even of those by whom it had hitherto been condemned. It had indeed come as a boon and a blessing to London, and he believed that London would be thankful and pleased to all sections of the House of Commons for coming to so sensible a decision, although it had been long delayed.
  MR. C. DUNCANsaid he should like just for a few-moments to address the House upon the Bill before it—not because he had any particular interest in the business, but because at the present moment he was one of those who were suffering from a very bad dose of private enterprise. For many years now he had been living in Hampstead, and if this House sat to an unreasonable hour, as it did quite recently, it meant that he had to walk no less than four miles because of the lack of system which existed in regard to the tramway arrangements. As to the motor omnibuses it was a common sight to see them broken down at the side of the road and of no use to anybody who wished to travel. When one wanted to cross London from the north to the south or vice versa it took an hour and a half. One might just as well live ninety miles out of London, as if one did it would be possible to travel the distance in the same time. He was delighted to be present to see an end put to the opposition to the London County Council system, and he hoped the people of London would appreciate what was being done for them. It would be a great advantage to the people to be able to get to and from their work quickly and cheaply, and it was obvious that working men could not afford to call a hansom when they were going to work in the morning.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  MIDDLESEX COUNTY COUNCIL TRAMWAYS BILL (BY ORDER).
  Read a second time, and committed.

  SUPPLY [4TH ALLOTTED DAY].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. EMMOTT in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1906–7.

  CLASS II.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £212,756", 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, 1907, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of His Majesty's Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues."
  MR. FLYNNsaid he noticed in the Estimates an item of £1,200, which showed an increase of £100 over the preceding year. He understood that this was in connection with quit rents in connection with the woods and forests and foreshores in Ireland. He believed that several tens of thousands of pounds of these quit rents were appropriated and lodged in a common fund, but he was unable to understand the mysterious system which the Treasury adopted towards Ireland. The policy seemed to be one of heads they won and tails Ireland lost, and every point was taken againstthe poorer country. Although the Treasury had frequently been questioned as to the way these quit rents were applied, no satisfactory answer had been obtained. Irish Members had a right to know how much of this money received from Ireland was appropriated by the Treasury. The right to the enjoyment of the foreshore was, he submitted, the common right of the community, and he complained that in Ireland this right had been filched away. In Ireland, which had a very large seacoast and a great number of estuaries, only £2,725 was spent around its shores, whereas ten times that amount was spent in England.
  MR. ROGERSsaid he wished to raise one or two points in regard to Crown lands. He was strongly interested in the necessity of land reform and was himself interested in some 5,000 or 6,000 acres of land. There was in the country a general concensus of opinion that it was desirable-that instead of going into towns the agricultural population should be retained on the land. The President of the Beard of Agriculture had himself made many experiments which had this object in view, and there was a great body of evidence contained in Rider Haggard's "Rural England" which went to show the importance of small holdings. If a stimulus was given to the movement for the creation of small holdings it would induce men to remain on the lands. He had studied the statistics of pauperism in villages where small holdings were prevalent and where the land was let in one or two large farms, and in nearly every case the statistics were in favour of the villages in which there were small holdings. He thought that the Crown lands should be used as far as possible for the purpose of creating small holdings. He asked that in future the Commissioners of Woods and Forests should pursue a more human policy and see that the Crown lands were used for the welfare of the people who lived in the country. He wanted a more progressive land policy to be carried out by this Department. He did not want to be harsh to the sitting tenants, but he did say that when, from time to time, farms were given up they should be used to carry out a policy of establishing small holdings. If the Commissioners could let the land at an increased rental, he had no doubt that that result would be satisfactory to them, and he held that when a farm was vacant this principle of small holdings could be applied without any hardship to anybody, and without disturbing the sitting tenant. There was no reason to believe that a policy of this kind would be any less satisfactory from the point of view of income than that under which Crown lands were now administered. It was almost the? universal experience of those who lived in country districts that land which was let in small quantities realised a larger

  1623
  return than that which was let in large quantities. Everybody who had been in agricultural districts, moreover, would know that the land which had made the greatest loss was the land which was let in the form of large farms. The rent paid for small farms, however, was out of all proportion to their value. The same policy of establishing small holdings should be pursued in regard to sales and purchases of land. During the last fifty years of the last century J. he noticed from the reports that more than £3,000,000 worth of land was bought and more than £3,000,000 worth of land was sold. That was an intelligible policy if the idea was to consolidate these lands in the hands of the Crown, and he did not think that anybody would object to its being carried out, but he did hope that when that course was pursued the greatest care would be taken not to extinguish small freeholds, and it should not be done with a view of amalgamating farms and buying up a small holding here and there in order to add it to a large farm with a view of increasing the rant. He urged that the Commissioners might with some of the Crown lands make a beginning with a scheme of national afforestation. He knew some Crown lands in his own district which for ordinary agricultural purposes were not worth more than 2s. 6d. an acre. He was talking as a practical farmer, and he was sure that some of the land would be much better utilised in making the beginning of a [national system of afforestation such as he contemplated. We in this respect fell much behind all foreign nations. Another point he should like to mention was that there was some reason to believe that Crown lands were let in large holdings and the tenant of the large holding was in the habit of letting again to small holders and allotment holders. He could not help thinking that that was not a good practice, as everybody who held Crown lands ought to have the advantage of holding them direct from the Crown, and no middleman should be allowed to make a profit out of them. Then there was the question of tied cottages as to which a good deal could be said on both fides. He knew in Wiltshire tied cottages as cottages which were let with the farm. The
  1624
  occupant sometimes received hi. cottage rent free and sometimes he paid a small rent for it, but it was a definite condition of his employment, and if he had any dispute with his employer he was liable to be called upon to leave his cottage at a fortnight's notice. This system had caused widespread discontent and grievance, and was, he thought, the cause to a great extent of that migration from the villages to the towns which they all deplored. On the other hand he was quite willing to recognise the fact that it was only reasonable that on an outlying farm a farmer should have on his hands cottages for stockmen, shepherds, and others, who were necessary for the conduct of his business. That, however, was a practice which ought not to be carried to excess, and when in a village all the cottages were tied to the various farms he thought that that was carrying the practice too far, and it certainly caused great discontent. He hoped that those responsible for Crown lands would seek to secure the welfare and happiness not only of the tenant, but also of those who lived under him. They were told that the State should be a model employer and he wanted them to be a model landlord. He moved the reduction of the Vote by £100.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A (Salaries, Wages, and Allowances) be reduced by £100."—(Mr. Rogers.)
  MR. CROOKScongratulated the hon. Gentleman upon his speech, which showed that the villagers were in no need of a champion in that House. There was always a good deal of red tape in the administration of the Woods and Forests Department, but he hoped the Government would use all its influence to get rid of this red tape in the interests of the village population. They had now a President of the Beard of Agriculture who did really know something about the question of land and small holdings and allotments, and the proposal was that the 4,000 odd acres of land which the Government had at their disposal should be handed over to the Beard of Agriculture to be split up. He hoped this would be done, and that the Department would have power to

  1625
  exercise their powers in any way they I saw fit. They had the power under the Act of 1866. When he and the President of the Local Government Beard fought side by side in 1879 during the dock strike they had difficulty in dealing with the influx of labourers into town, and the men said it was all very well to grumble to them for coming to town to take the place of the dock labourers at fivepence an hour; they were content to let the dock labourers go and take their places in the village and live in a hut upon 10s. a week. Here was a chance for the Government to use its land in the very best possible way, and to set an example as to how this difficulty should be met. He felt some jealousy of Ireland, because under the Labourers Acts beards of guardians could provide cottages and the occupant had not to work for the farmer in the immediate neighbourhood or even for the owner of the land. Was it not wonderful that in this enlightened land no provision of the kind existed? In the London workhouses there were 2,500 men capable of working who had been pushed out by the influx of strong healthy men from the country who commended themselves to employers, who thought they were not only stronger than London men, but were more innocent and would do more work. He wished to keep the men in the cottages, and did not believe in men being driven to migrate against their wills.
  The Government could do what they liked with the foreshores belonging to the Crown. The Act of 1866 set forth exactly what they could and ought to do. Yet there were men idling away their time and wasting their manhood when they might be usefully and profitably employed in improving the foreshores of the kingdom. Here was a profitable work, which might be started without delay. When it was said that there was no work for people to do he contended that there was plenty, and it was only the fear of interfering with the surplus labour of the country that stood in the way. For his part he wanted to get rid of the surplus labour, which was a social evil.
  SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid he joined in the congratu-
  1626
  lations to the hon. Member for East Wiltshire for having brought forward a matter of great importance, and one by which the Government might effect a great deal of improvement in the agricultural districts. The Government had wide areas of land upon which an experiment might be made not only with small holdings and allotments but in other directions for employing labour. The cry of rural depopulation was being continually re-echoed, and up to the present time there had been found only one remedy, namely, the creation of small holdings and allotments. The remarkable fact was brought out by the last census that the only purely agricultural district in England which had not lost its population in the last decennial census was a district in which small holdings and allotments were provided in much larger proportion than in other districts of the country. The developments in this respect in the Holland division of Lincoln showed what could be done. When the Allotments Act began to be in operation there were about 130 acres of land given up to allotments. By 1905 there were between 2,000 and 3,000 acres given over to this beneficent purpose through the application of the Allotments and Parish Councils Acts. In the early days of the county council, that authority was approached, and by the exertions of the hon. Member for South-West Norfolk about 180 acres of land were obtained and cut up into small holdings; afterwards, through the kindly interest of the President of the Beard of Agriculture, some 500 or more acres. The consequence was seen at the next census, for it was the only rural district in England that had not declined in population. The Government had the opportunity of putting people back on the land belonging to the Crown, the first object of which land should be the benefit of the whole nation. In the last Parliament he endeavoured to get the Woods and Forests Commissioners to enter upon this question in the spirit which he had indicated, and he raised the question in this House as to whether these Crown lands should be divided into small holdings. What happened? A farm fell vacant in the very district to which he had alluded, and the hon. Member

  1627
  for South West Norfolk made an application, and he himself made an application in this House, but they did not get it, although they offered the Commissioners to take the farm at the rental they fixed. They proposed to put a proper tenant in the farmhouse, and to use the cottages and all the farm buildings for the benefit of the small holdings into which the farm was to be cut; but the reply was that it would not be to the interest of the Crown estate to divide the farm in this way. The Commissioners put the farm up for public tender, and one of the tenants of a Crown farm got it, thus adding a second farm to his jurisdiction. By that means labour was displaced, because wherever one farm was added to another the agricultural labourer suffered. It sent labour into the towns, where the price of labour was lowered, whereas it would better the condition of life in towns as well as in the country if they could establish more small holdings. An opportunity was now given to the administration which he hoped would be taken advantage of to carry forward a beneficent policy, and he hoped the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, stimulated by hon. Members in this House, would carry out that policy and endeavour, wherever Land became vacant, to see that it was utilised for putting people back on the soil.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid he desired as an Irish Member to ask the Financial Secretary of the Treasury the exact amount spent on Ireland in connection with the Woods and Forests Department. It was very difficult indeed to follow the hon. Gentleman's figures. He was a very good Unionist, and as an Irish Member he did not object to being identified with the Empire. But Scotland, Ireland, and the Isles of Man and Alderney seemed to be mixed up in a very hopeless way in these figures. The Commissioners in the English office appeared to be paid very high salaries. So far as he could gather, the very highest salary paid to a Commissioner in Dublin was £580, as against £1,200 in London. The principal clerks in London received £900; but in Dublin the first-class clerks only got £400. This seemed a very
  1628
  unfair disproportion of salaries in the same departments in London and Dublin.
  MR. WINFREYsaid the proposal to use Crown lands more for small holdings was not a new one. So long as twelve years ago he had an interview with the late Sir William Harcourt, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer—he believed it was in 1894—and pointed out various farms in South Lincolnshire which he thought might be utilised for small holdings. Sir William Harcourt was quite in sympathy with the suggestion, and he believed that if the Liberal Government of that time had lasted a little longer there would have been a more sympathetic management of the subject by the Department of Woods and Forests. The fact was that that Department was entirely out of sympathy with the movement, and he ventured to say they were not managing their estates, so far as he knew, in South Lincolnshire, in the most business-like way. If these lands were let to small holders they would let at 25 per cent. more rent than at the present time. The association with which he was connected would be prepared, whenever any of the Crown farms in South Lincolnshire became vacant, to rent them at 25 per cent. more rental than the tenants were now paying. For twelve years they had been making attempts to get hold of these Crown farms, but he was sorry to say they had not succeeded in getting an acre of Crown land in South Lincolnshire for small holdings. The reason seemed to him to be that the office of Woods and Forests found it was a simpler process not to cut up a farm into small holdings. Some years ago he and others formed a South Lincolnshire Small Holdings Association. One of the Crown farms became vacant only last Michaelmas and it was suitable for small holdings. They put in a proper application and pledged themselves to pay the same rent that the outgoing tenant was paying. They said they would not ask anything to be done in adapting buildings to small holdings, but that if they could get a lease for seven or fourteen years they would do that themselves. The answer they received was that it would be to the detriment of the estate, and the officials

  1629
  immediately put out tenders to let the farm, the successful applicant being a gentleman who already had a farm under the Crown and two or three other farms not under the Crown. He might safely say they would have been prepared to have paid a little more rent than the outgoing tenant to have obtained that farm. The office of Woods and Forests had at different times sold portions of their Crown lands, and they had at the present time £750,000 invested in Consols. If that were so there need be no difficulty about putting further houses and buildings upon the present Crown lands, because they had the money without going to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He did hope now that they had a progressive Government they would have a progressive policy with reference to this land question, and he trusted the result of this debate would be that they would get quickly to work. He suggested that the small houses and buildings which might be erected on these farms might be done by a gradual process, and he was certain that if the Woods and Forests Commissioners would spend some of their money in that way they would get a return of at least four per cent. on it. He believed that what was true of his own district was true of the whole country, and he ventured to hope they would have a satisfactory answer from the Government to-night with reference to the future management of these Crown Lands.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. MCKENNA,)said the criticism which had been directed against the Department of Woods and Forests placed him in somewhat of a difficulty. He agreed entirely with the views expressed by the hon. Member for East Wiltshire. His hon. friend made a speech with every word of which he could assure him, on behalf of the Government, that the Government was in full sympathy, but when he said that the Committee would understand it was somewhat difficult for him to reply to the criticism which had been directed against the Department. If he answered these criticisms and showed hon. Members that they had been, at any rate to a considerable
  1630
  extent, mistaken in the views they had expressed, it might immediately be argued that he was really not in sympathy with the views which had been expressed so forcibly. It was, however, his duty to explain that several of the charges made were based, he thought, on an inaccurate understanding of what was the true position of the Woods and Forests Commissioners. In the first place it must be remembered, notwithstanding that his hon. friend the Member for Woolwich waved a Book at his head and said that in that Book would be found authority to the Treasury to do what they pleased with the Crown lands, that the Treasury had no such authority. He had read the Act of 1866, and it contained not a word authorising the Treasury to deal with the Crown lands as they pleased. The fact was, the Commissioners of Woods and Forests were a statutory body holding authority under an Act of George IV. By that Act the Commissioners were bound to administer the Crown estates for the advantage of the Crown. It was not national property. His hon. friend asked that the people should be put back on their own land, a sentiment with which he entirely sympathised, but it so happened that this particular part of the land did not belong to the people. It was the Crown land which was administered on behalf of the Crown and which, theoretically at any rate, reverted to the Crown on the demise of the Sovereign. Under the Acts by which the Crown Land Commissioners were given their power they were bound to administer the property in the interests of the Crown, and consequently they were not at liberty to make all sorts of experiments, however valuable those experiments might be on other grounds, if they were satisfied at the time that those experiments would not be for the benefit of the property itself. The hon. Member for South West Norfolk raised a case which had been referred to by the hon. Member for the Ilkeston Division. It was the caseof a farm of 500 acres in a somewhat out-of-the-way district on the edge of the Wash. It was proposed that this property should be let to the Lincolnshire Small Holdings Association at the same rent as had been paid by the late tenant.
  MR. WINFREY: We also asked to be allowed to tender.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid upon that point he was not in a position to answer his hon. friend. The Commissioners had to consider, first of all, whether in their judgment the land was suited to be split up into small holdings, and, secondly, whether it was better that the property of the Crown should be let in one farm. It might very well have been that this land was suitable for cutting up, but they were bound by statute to consider whether it was better that it should be let in one farm, and they came to the conclusion that the second course was better. They subsequently put up this farm for tender and the highest tender was from a gentleman who already held a farm in the immediate neighbourhood. This gentleman applied for the farm at a higher rent for his son, whom he was going to put into the farm. He was himself an excellent tenant, and the Commissioners had therefore a guarantee that they were letting their farm not only for a higher rent than was proposed by the Lincolnshire Small Holdings Association, but to a tenant in whom they had every confidence. Under those circumstances, however desirable it might be that the farm should be let for small holdings, he submitted that so long as the law stood as at present the Commissioners were bound to let the farm in the way that they did. He was informed that after the reply of the Commissioners no further communication was made by his hon. friend or the Lincolnshire Small Holdings Association. As the hon. Gentleman informed him he was anxious to tender he accepted it from him, but he was informed that as a matter of fact no communication was made. The hon. Member for Woolwich bad asked about the administration of the foreshores. A great part of the foreshores was not under the control of the Woods and Forests Commissioners. The very Act which the hon. Gentleman had quoted handed over the jurisdiction to the Beard of Trade, and the only foreshores remaining under the authority of the Woods and Forests Commissioners were those which were let prior to the Act of 1866.
  MR. CROOKSsaid as the hon. Gentleman had challenged his opinion, he would point out that under Clause 1 they could do anything with the land so long as it would realise the income, and their contention was that it would be better for the purpose of realising that income to let the land as had been suggested.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid a question had been raised by the hon. Member for East Wiltshire as to re-afforestation. He thought in that respect the hon. Member was a little severe in his criticism. Re-afforestation had already been established in several places, and to his own knowledge on the Crown lands in Wales a considerable amount of such work was being done. He did not know that his hon. friend had in his mind any case of land suitable for planting which was not being planted. If he had he should be very glad to hear of it, because one of the difficulties at present was to find suitable land. When they did find it, efforts were constantly made to plant it, and he could assure his hon. friend that those efforts would be continued. The hon. Member for North Cork had raised the question as to the amount being spent upon and received out of these Crown lands in Ireland. The hon. Member spoke of this money being essentially Irish money, and asked how much was being given back for Irish purposes. He could only answer that this money, like all other revenue, went into the common purse. He was afraid if the money which was spent in Ireland were to be exclusively confined to money which was obtained from Ireland, Ireland would not come off so well as it did now, because as a matter of fact more money was spent in Ireland in proportion to the revenue raised than was spent in England, Scotland and Wales in proportion to the sum raised. As things stood at present, therefore, hon. Gentlemen from Ireland would be ill-advised to insist that all money raised in Ireland should be spent there; otherwise they would surely raise a cry on behalf of England and Scotland that all money raised in those countries should be spent in the countries where it was raised. The hon. Member for North Down had asked about the salaries in the department of Woods and Forests.

  1633
  He thought the hon. Gentleman must be under a misapprehension. In both England and Ireland the minimum salaries of first-class clerks was £300 and the maximum £400.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid the chief officer in London received £1,200 and the principal clerk £900, as against £580 and £400 in the Irish offices. They might call the positions what they liked, but the Commissioner in Dublin only received £580 while the corresponding individual in London got £1,200, and the principal clerk only received £400, as against £900.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid the argument of the hon. Gentleman was that no matter what the size of the office in Dublin was, the chief was to have the same salary as in the London office, which was ten times the size. If that were so he had no answer to give the hon. Gentleman. So far as clerks of the same rank were concerned, identically the same salaries were paid in both offices. The Head Office was in London, and consequently the Commissioners and principal clerks were also in London. If they were in Dublin of course they would be paid higher salaries. As a matter of fact the superintendent in Dublin got exactly the same salary as the senior clerk in London, the ranks corresponding. The hon. Member for Woolwich had asked whether an arrangement could be made whereby the powers of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests with regard to agricultural land under their control could be exercised in conjunction with the Beard of Agriculture. He could only say at the present moment that the subject had been under the consideration of the Government. It was not yet clearly determined on what conditions such a change could be made, nor was it yet quite certain whether the change could be made at all without a new Act of Parliament. Subject to that he could assure his hon. friend that any change which would enable the Commissioners to act with greater freedom and be calculated to make the policy more consistent with the views of hon. Members would certainly be adopted by
  1634
  the Government. That was all he could say at the present moment.
  MR. HARMOOD-BANNERsaid there was one question in connection with the Crown lands which he should like to ask. He had been looking into this question since Parliament met, with the view of getting some information as to whether any of these lands could be utilised for the purposes of the Distress Committees and for the purpose of creating small holdings. It seemed to him that it was quits unnecessary to go far afield to obtain rights to confiscate the property of other parties and pay the high prices which agents generally asked when selling land for these purposes, when there was so large a quantity of Crown lands at the disposal of the Government. He could not say that it was easy to get information in these cases. He had to drag out the information by two or three Questions. He found from the Report of 1905 that the gross rental from these properties was £513,000, but there was no information in the Report to show how much were farm lands and how much were mining properties. He was then referred to other Reports for the information he desired, and with a little diligence he was able to discover that there were 70,000 acres of farm lands in twenty-four counties of England with an average rental of £1 4s. per acre. Therefore it was quite clear that there was a large amount of land at their disposal for the purposes of the Distress Committees and the creation of small holdings. As to the farm lands, the first thing one had to consider was how they should deal with the existing tenancies. He was bound to say that with the little knowledge he had of the management of Crown lands, he had come to the conclusion that they were managed not in the interest of the farmers, but entirely in the interest of the Exchequer and to furnish it with the very utmost that could be obtained. He had once a client who was a tenant of Crown land, and unfortunately the man was owing the bank some money and was in difficulty. What was the result? The lease under which he occupied the farm when he came into difficulty confiscated

  1635
  his hay, manure, and the buildings which he had put up for improvements. Such a lease he had never seen under any landlord in this kingdom. That lease was current at the time when this House was passing laws for the improvement of the position of agricultural tenants, and it was not altered, notwithstanding that this House was considering what the rights of the tenants ought to be. There was a Liberal Government in office at the time, and it was making the tenant pay under the strictest lease which it was possible to enforce. The present Government had assented to the Land Tenure Bill which had been brought in to improve the position of the tenants in this country. He wished now to ask whether they had set to work at once to rearrange their leases with their own tenants in order that they should be on the good and beneficial terms which they desired to enforce on landlords under the Bill? In his belief the worst landlords in the whole country were the Members of the Houses of Parliament who owned all these lands, and yet leased them and placed the farmers in the very strictest position it was possible for tenants to occupy towards landlords. It seemed to him that when they wanted land for the unemployed the first thing they had to do was to look at home. Before they passed laws to utilise other people's property for small holdings and for the purposes of the Distress Committees, their duty was to look what could be done with their own lands. Could they utilise them for the purposes of the poor and needy, and if they could they should at once at all cost take these lands into their own hands and utilise them for these purposes. Let them at once commence to utilise these lands for small holdings, and for the purposes of the Distress Committees, if they could not be leased to farmers on the terms provided in the Land Tenure Bill. They knew very well that at £1 4s. per acre they could not get land from other parties suitable for these purposes. It would be a disgrace to them as Members of Parliament if they did not utilise the 70,000 acres of land which they had in their own possession in such a way as would be an example to the rest of the kingdom. He found that the expenses of collecting
  1636
  the rental of the Crown lands were about £20,000 and to his mind that was excessive. He did not blame the officials. It was the Treasury who were responsible for dragging every possible penny out of the farmers in order to make a good Budget. The Treasury merely looked at this matter as a monetary affair, and he appealed to them to look at it from the point of view of doing justice to the poor and needy and going away with the feeling that they had done their duty.
  MR. VIVIANsaid the Department was altogether wanting in imagination. These stiff replies did not satisfy some of the Members who desired to do something. With reference to the reply as to the Small Holdings Society in Norfolk, he said that if the officials had any business qualities they would enter into negotiation with the public-spirited gentlemen who were promoting the small holdings movement. He protested against the mechanical way of running Crown lands. He suggested the formation of a Committee of this House with whom the officials might take counsel. The officials seemed to be entirely out of touch with all that was going on around them. They should get to know the gentlemen connected with small holdings associations who were prepared to utilise these lands. The hon. Member for the Everton Division had said that these lands were being run for commercial purposes only. He himself wanted them to be run for commercial purposes, and did not desire to see them run as charitable institutions. His contention was that if they were run in the way suggested they would be more productive. Experience had proved that it was possible to get 25 per cent. more rent out of the land, even after taking into consideration the further capital expenditure which would be needed. It was a policy which would check the decline of the rural population and check the great influx into the large towns of the population. In Germany some steps had been taken in this direction. The public authorities there were prepared to work in harmony with what had been described as public utility societies. It seemed to him

  1637
  that where there was a clear indication that a small holding society in this country was to be run, not from the mere purposes of gain to directors, but to enable public-spirited men to help in solving some of the evils which had been referred to, something more was expected than mere dry official replies. Those public-spirited men were giving much of their lives to this work, and they had a right to expect something like co-operation on sound business lines from the officials of the State.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid the question they were now discussing was one which aroused a good deal of attention in Ireland where for many years they had been striving for the multiplication of small holdings and the placing of the people on the land, and thereby preventing the overcrowding in cities and towns which caused so much distress and misery. It was undoubtedly a difficult thing to get land on which to put the people. That was the difficulty which they were trying to overcome in Ireland, and which they trusted would to a large extent in the immediate future be overcome. In cases such as this, where the Government had control of considerable areas of land eminently suitable for the experiment of small holdings, there was serious ground for complaint when the Government refused to do anything. The reply of the Financial Secretary of the Treasury hardly dealt sufficiently seriously with the problem which had been brought before him by the hon. Member for the Ilkeston Division and others. There was not the slightest use of any Minister in any Government, and still less a Radical and Labour Government, or whatever it might be, getting up and speaking on this question in cut and dried official terms. They were confronted with the problem of the unemployed, and with the spectacle of the rural population becoming less every year. Any proposal seriously made to keep the; people on the land ought not to be placed on one side in a few official words. It ought to be treated with the greatest possible consideration and sympathy by the Government. When they spoke of the Crown they meant His Majesty. They were supposed in
  1638
  this House not to refer to the Sovereign. Everyone knew that the head of the State if he had his way would be only too delighted to see the people put on the land. Everybody knew very well that no paltry consideration of getting a few pounds more from this or that tenant would influence his mind against any scheme for the creation of small holdings.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not in order in using the Sovereign's name in a way which might influence the House.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I have had the satisfaction of saying what I wanted to say.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That is scarcely a proper remark to make. I told the hon. Member he was out of order, and he rejoices in the fact when he ought rather to have withdrawn.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: with great respect, declined to withdraw, but assured the Chairman that he had not the slightest desire to disregard the authority of the chair in any way. The remarks which were said to be out of order, and which he deliberately declared he did not intend to be out of order, elicited the sympathy of the House, and he ought not to be penalised for making them. If he could not use the name of the Sovereign he would say the Crown, and he hoped that would be in order. The Secretary of the Treasury had said that the Crown was influenced in these matters by the consideration of getting a few pounds more or less from this tenant or from that. That was an unworthy consideration. When the hon. Gentleman opposite, who represented a small holdings association in Lincolnshire, made a representation to the Crown that certain Crown lands could be profitably occupied by small holders, it was not a proper act on the part of the representatives of the Crown to say, "Oh, no; we sympathise greatly with the idea of putting people on the land; we admit the overcrowded state of the cities; we admit that it would be a splendid thing if these Crown lands could be occupied by sturdy toilers of the soil to

  1639
  keep up the rural population, and to give employment, but we cannot allow this because we can get a few pounds more from a single tenant." It was the interest of the representatives of the Crown to see, not that a few pounds more or less were realised, but that the best was done that could be done for the nation at large. He had no doubt that the hon. Member for the Ilkeston division and his friends really meant what they said, but if they wished to make progress in this matter they would go to a division in order to place on record the opinion of Members of the House. The Secretary of the Treasury had given no satisfaction to his hon. friend the hon. Member for North Cork, who had stated the opinion felt on this question by the Nationalist Members. As far as Ireland was concerned there were considerable sums of money over which they had absolutely no control. They had absolutely no information about them. Under the operation of the recent Land Purchase Act a considerable number of the quit rents had been capitalised, and they wanted to know what had become of the redemption money. They know that it was not spent on any Irish purpose whatever. Was it unreasonable for the hon. Member for North Cork to ask the Secretary of the Treasury to give the figures? The reply given by the Secretary to the Treasury might really have been given by the Secretary to the Treasury in the infamous Tory Government. When he said "infamous" he trusted hon. Gentlemen would understand that he was more anxious to be emphatic than discourteous. It was time that they got something more than officialism with a little sympathy. They expected to have something done by this Government; they could dispense with sympathetic words. It was time in matters of this kind that the Government should do something. They did not want legislation which might be blocked in another place. What they wanted was that in matters which were in the hands of the Government the Government should behave in a thoroughly liberal and sympathetic spirit. Since Parliament met he had been waiting for the Government to show that they were not the same sort of men as composed the last Government, and he had come to the
  1640
  conclusion that there was something really uncanny about the Front Bench. At any rate, as soon as a right hon. or an hon. Gentleman took his seat upon it it was extraordinary how much he looked like every other man who had been there. He really thought that in those matters they should at least get something more than sympathy from the Government. He was anxious to give the Government fair play. He was in the position of a person who, after attending to his religious duties, was in a state of grace and could stand any amount of provocation. That was exactly his state of mind at the present time; but it could not possibly be expected that he would remain in that state for long. He appealed to hon. Gentlemen opposite to give a little practical evidence of the great good which they meant to do with their majority. The memory of the Secretary to the Treasury was at fault when he referred to the question of the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland. The hon. Gentleman had told the Member for North. Cork how much money was spent in Ireland.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Financial Secretary of the Treasury only discussed the revenues and expenditure of the Woods and Forests Department.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid that the hon. Gentleman speculated how much money would be spent in Ireland, and in that respect he was entirely out of order, if he might be allowed to say so; but he had no intention of following the example of the hon. Gentleman. He sympathised most heartily with the hon. Gentleman who had raised this question of small holdings,and he would urge him and his friends strongly to make a stand, and if necessary to go into the division lobby, in order to induce a more sympathetic treatment of the question than had been indicated in the speech of the Secretary of the Treasury.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid this question had two distinct aspects. One was whether these Crown lands should be administered for charitable purposes, and the other was whether they should be administered in the way

  1641
  in which an ordinary estate was administered, viz., to get the best result out of them. He asked the Committee to recognise that there were other interests involved besides those of small holdings. He contended that there was a great deal of unreality about this agitation for small holdings. There were many portions of the country where small holdings would be a curse. He thought it was questionable whether we should be conferring a benefit on the rural labourers by dispossessing the farmer, who was an employer of labour, in order to substitute small holdings. It was the farmer class which had brought this country into the high state of cultivation which all were proud to claim for it. He himself had striven hard to create small holdings, and from experience he could say that just in proportion as they created one kind of occupant of agricultural land they dispossessed another class. At any rate, if a fair solution of the problem were to be reached, both sides should have fair advocacy in this House, and it would ill hecome those who knew what efforts farmers had made to improve the cultivation of the soil to allow it to go forth that the disappearance of these farmers would be a public benefit. He hoped that the Government would bear in mind that while it might be right and proper that every effort should be made to encourage the new system of small holdings, the interests of the large farmers should not be neglected.
  MR. TOMKINSONsaid that he lived in a part of the country where small holdings extensively prevailed and he knew the immense benefit which they had brought to the district. As an instance of how the Crown lands were administered he would point to a case in which the Department of Woods and Forests had cleared 2,000 acres. They set to work and cut down all the larch on that estate; and the expense of doing so was greater than the return received for the timber. The situation of the land was good, there were admirable roads, and an abundance of water. The Department divided these 2,000 acres into three farms only, and let them for a time at 30s. an acre. But they were compelled afterwards to lower
  1642
  the rent to 10s. an acre, which did not pay the interest on the cost of the buildings. Did the hon: Gentleman opposite mean to say that there was no room for small holdings? He maintained that there was room for hundreds of thousands of people on the soil in occupancy of small holdings.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid that the hon. Member was now discussing the general question of small holdings. He must keep his remarks relevant to the Vote under discussion.
  MR. TOMKINSONsaid his object was to criticise the administration of the Woods and Forests Department. He insisted that it was the consolidation of large farms which had led to agricultural depression in the community, and he had only given an instance which showed how badly the Crown lands had been managed in the past.
  MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid that the Secretary of the Treasury had stated that these Crown lands were in the personal possession of His Majesty, but he contended that they were the possession of the nation. What had been asked for by the hon. Gentleman who raised this question was not that the Crown lands should be used for experimental purposes, but that they should be utilised for the best advantage of the whole community. He believed that if the number of small holdings on these lands were increased they would yield a greater rental than at present. He wished to refer to the question of the afforestation. The Report of the Departmental Committee which sat on afforestation two or three years ago had been practically a dead letter. Most such Reports were. But in that Report there was one small paragraph which stated that immediate action should be taken, and that there were 21,000,000 acres of waste lands in this country, most of which was available for timber growing. The Report quoted figures to show that in Saxony waste land which was formerly worth only 4s. an acre yielded 38s. an acre when planted with forest trees. The Committee recommended that the Department of Woods and

  1643
  Forests should take steps to compile a statement of the areas in Great Britain suitable for afforestation; and he asked whether that had been done, so that when the Government decided to begin to afforest the waste places planting operations could begin at once.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid he had heard with surprise the Secretary of the Treasury of this new progressive Government defending the system of giving stereotyped official answers to criticisms which had been made from different parts of the House. The Secretary of the Treasury had told the Committee that this particular Department could not make experiments, from which he gathered that it was the hon. Gentleman's view that the Department would not take a different course from that now followed.
  MR. MCKENNA: I made no such statement.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid that in that case his memory was evidently at fault. But he would like to tell the Secretary of the Treasury that the leases executed by the Department of Woods and Forests were the most onerous, most oppressive, and the most antiquated in the kingdom.
  AN HON. MEMBER: Your Party was in power for twenty years; why did they not alter these leases?
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid that might be so, but he had not been in power for twenty years, and surely he was entitled to give his views of matters which had come within his own personal observation. The Committee would be rather surprised to hear that this Department did not collect their own rents, but employed agents to do so, who charged a very large commission. He complained that the cost of the management of the Crown estates was not shown in the Report of the Department. He found on the paper that certain expenses were put down for architects and surveyers, but in his dealing with the Commissioners of Woods and Forests he had been obliged to pay the architect's
  1644
  fees himself. Then he found that there was an item for legal expenses; but he could tell the Secretary of the Treasury that those who dealt with the Department were charged for legal expenses, so that it seemed as if somebody were collecting fees twice over. There were evidently several things which the Secretary of the Treasury would require to learn before he had been many more months in office. He knew of a fine Crown property of 2,000 acres, 90 per cent. of which paid no income. A few philanthropic gentlemen in Manchester and Liverpool had put up a sanatorium for dealing with consumptives, and they were charged £4 per acre, which he thought was scandalous. He had come to the conclusion that if there was one Department of the administration of the country which was entirely antediluvian it was that of the Woods and Forests. That Department wanted to be shaken up, and he quite believed that the energy of the Secretary of the Treasury who said that he was going to cut adrift from the hide-bound regulations of the past would be equal to it.
  MR. MCKENNA: I never said that, or anything like it.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid that at any rate, from his own experience he had come to the conclusion that this was a Department which required considerable reform.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had made a most extraordinary speech. In his opening remarks he had endeavoured to defend the acts of administration of the late Government. No single ground of attack made against him had been made in respect of what he himself had done. His attitude had been to make the best defence he could, and yet hon. Gentlemen opposite who supported the late Government for years had made him the subject of attack because he had made a defence, a lame defence he admitted, of the Estimates of the late Government. He appealed to the Committee whether that was treatment which he ought to receive from hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House. It had been suggested that

  1645
  he was not in sympathy with the policy of small holdings. That impression was a mistaken one. He had stated that the Government were fully in sympathy with the policy of extending small holdings, and that policy would be steadily pursued, always consistently with the welfare of the present tenants, which was a duty imposed on him and on the Government.
  MR. MORTONmoved that the Chairman should report Progress and ask leave to sit again. He wanted to discuss this Vote, not so much in regard to the past as in regard to the future, but had had no opportunity of doing so.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Morton.)
  And, it being Midnight, the Motion to report Progress lapsed without Question put.
  And the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to, Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill, Army (Annual) Bill, without Amendment.
  WALLIS'S DIVORCE BILL.
  That they communicate Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings taken upon the Second Reading of Wallis's Divorce Bill, as desired by this House, with a request that the same may be returned.

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BILL.
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 29th March; Mr. Secretary Gladstone]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 98.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the House do now adjourn."
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid: On this Motion, I desire to ask a Question of the Under-Secretary for the Colonies—namely, whether he has any information to the effect that the Government of Natal have resigned, or tendered their resignation, and, if so, whether he can state the reasons which have led them to take this action.
  MR. J. R. MACDONALDasked whether the reports they had received in this country of certain Natal events which had happened yesterday and the day before were true. Those who had been following, week by week the course of public opinion in Natal understood that, at the present moment, that opinion was in a very dangerous and inflamed state. Consequently, he thought it was fair to say that martial law, carried out to the extreme capital sentence, ought to be very carefully revised by His Majesty's Government. He hoped the Under-Secretary for the Colonies would give the House an assurance that His Majesty's Government would demand that full information should be placed before them in regard to the sentences that had been passed by the Courts established under martial law, and that those sentences would be considered in cold blood, and not under conditions such as, unfortunately, existed in Natal at the present time. Re was the very last person, however, who would suggest for a moment that His Majesty's Government should interfere with the legitimate constitutional liberties of any of our Colonies. It was because he desired those constitutional liberties to be real and unassailable, when any unwarrantable attempt was made to assail them, that he hoped His Majesty's Government would recognise their grave responsibility to this country by revising the capital sentence passed on twelve natives under these inflamed conditions of public opinion. He hoped the Government would give the House an assurance that they would not allow the sentence to be carried out without the

  1647
  fullest investigation into the circumstances attending the act for which sentence had been passed.
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid he was much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the St. Augustine's Division of Kent, and to the hon. Member below the gangway, for having given him notice of the points they wished to raise. He would also acknowledge generally the moderation and caution which had characterised the observations of the hon. Member for Leicester. In reply he had to say that the Colonial Office yesterday received the following telegram from Sir Henry McCallum—
  "Court-martial which tried murderers of police officers have sentenced twelve prisoners to he shot out of twenty-four tried for the offence. Proceedings of court-martial have been carefully reviewed by Governor in Council. The proceedings being in order and no injustice committed, I have accepted the unanimous advice of my Ministers that sentence shall he carried into effect. Another court-martial passed sentence of death on seven other natives, but as actions with which they were charged were not immediately connected with actual attack on police, the sentence in this case has been commuted."
  Lord Elgin immediately telegraphed— in some reports in the newspapers it was suggested that Lord Elgin was not the author of the telegram, and he need scarcely say that he himself would be guilty of no such unwarrantable presumption as to send a telegram on his own responsibility upon a matter of high State importance of this character— Lord ELgin telegraphed to the Governor of Natal asking for information and for a postponement of the execution of the sentences pending information. Had he not done so the twelve men who had been sentenced would have been shot at noon this day. He need scarcely say that His Majesty's Government had no intention of standing between persons convicted of murder and their proper punishment by law. They had no intention of invading the legitimate discretion of a responsible self-governing Colony, and certainly His Majesty's Government were not actuated by any want of sympathy with the people of Natal in the long and anxious trials through which they had been passing during the last three or four weeks. He thought that every one in the House who considered the question
  1648
  for a moment would see that a population not very numerous and in parts widely scattered, dwelling amongst a vast native population, must regard anything in the nature of turbulence and unrest as a matter which was of the most urgent and vital consequence to them and to all dependent upon them; but, having regard to the fact that it was the duty of the Government, from which they did not in any way recede, in the face of anything like a general native rising, or any serious emergency occurring, to come to the aid of the colonists of Natal with the armed power of the Crown, he thought it was not unreasonable that they should ask to be fully informed of any action taken under martial law for which an Act of Indemnity must ultimately receive the Royal Assent and of all steps involving life and death after the most imminent character of the emergency had passed away, before those steps had become irrevocable. Hon. Members had no doubt read in the newspapers the telegrams the Press agencies had sent to this country. He had at this moment nothing to add either by way of amplification or confirmation to those telegrams with regard to the action of the Natal Cabinet. Perhaps it might be possible to make a statement to-morrow or on Monday; but His Majesty's Government did not apprehend that any serious or grave constitutional issue would be raised. They had every reason to expect that the matter would be dealt with on both sides with composure and good feeling, and they believed that in following the path they had entered upon in sober integrity they would command and receive the support of the House of Commons.
  SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid that the hon. Gentleman had not answered the Question whether the Executive Government of Natal had resigned or tendered its resignation.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I said distinctly that I had nothing to add in the way of official information to the telegrams published in the newspapers, and when I have official information on the subject I shall take the earliest opportunity of conveying it. [Cries of "Is it true? "]
  SIR GILBERT PARKERasked whether the Government had received, through the Governor of Natal, the resignation of the Natal Government.
  MR. CHURCHILL: No, Sir.
  SIR GILBERT PARKERasked whether the Natal Government had tendered its resignation. [Cries of "Answer."] He protested that the hon. Gentleman had not answered the Question which had been put to him. He would again press the hon. Gentleman. What they wished to know was whether the Natal Government had tendered its resignation through the Governor—whether the Government had information upon the point.
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid that the Government had no information which could be imparted to the House. [Cries of "Oh!".]
  MR. EVELYN CECILasked how the Government of Natal was to be carried on if no Ministry could be induced to take office.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid it was perfectly evident that a very grave occurrence had taken place, and it was also perfectly evident that the Government had received information which they were not able to impart to the House. [An HON. MEMBER: Then why press for it?] He had a Question to ask. There was evidence to make the House believe that the Government of Natal had strong views on this question. He did not wonder that they had because, as the right hon. Gentleman said, the situation in Natal was very grave, and also this was a matter which had again and again been decided constitutionally in a sense which appeared to be entirely at variance with the action taken here. The law as he understood
  1650
  it was that in all our Colonies this prerogative must be exercised by the Governor on the advice of his own Ministers. The Governor had accepted the advice of the Ministry, but something had intervened which prevented the carrying out of the will of the Ministry and Government of Natal. The population of Natal was 82,000 whites and 956,000 natives, and it might be a very serious matter that the news should go out from this country that the whole constitutional machinery of Natal had been arrested by a telegram from England, admittedly sent without full knowledge of the facts, and admittedly contrary to the advice of the responsible advisers of the Crown in Natal. How long was this situation to last? Were His Majesty's Government prepared to take the full responsibility for any calamity that might occur as the result of this very unusual and very unconstitutional interference with the Government of a self-governing Colony? He did not think they had been ill-advised in raising this point. There was great urgency in not allowing human life to be sacrificed without endeavouring to ascertain what might be put forward on behalf of those accused. Still they ought to consider whether by interfering with the course of justice they might not be inflicting greater injury and by solacing their own views be acting contrary to the constitutional practice.
  MR. STANLEY WILSONasked why it had been left to an Under-Secretary to answer this most important Question. It was an insult to the House of Commons that the Leader of the House should absent himself from their debates at such a time.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned at Twenty-six minutes after Twelve o'clock.

EARL OF BESSBOROUGH.
Ordered, That the Report of the Lord Chancellor of the United Kingdom, made to the House of Lords on Tuesday last, that the right of the Earl of Bessborough to vote at the elections of representative peers for Ireland has been established to his satisfaction, be sent to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland, together with a certificate stating that such report has been made, and that the House has ordered it to be sent to the said Clerk of the Crown in Ireland.
Several Lords took the Oath.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
South Lancashire Tramways (Extension of Time) Bill [H.L.]. The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn; the Order made on the 8th instant discharged, and Bill committed.
Mersey Railway Bill [H.L.]. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Wolstanton United Urban District Council Gas Bill [H.L.]. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Norwich Union Life Assurance Society Bill [H.L.]. Reported, with Amendments.
Great Central and Lancashire, Derby-shire, and East Coast Railways Bill [H.L.] Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Mirfield Gas Bill [H.L.]. Reported, with Amendments.
Wirral Railway (Extension of Time) Bill [H.L.]. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Bridgewater Canals Bill [H.L.]. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Channel Ferry Railway and Quay Bill [H.L.]. Read 2a (according to order), and committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Rugby Subordinate School Bill [H.L.]. Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.
Bombay, Baroda, and Central India Railway (Purchase) Bill [H.L.]. Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.
Folkestone and District Electricity Supply Bill [H.L.]. Read 2a (according to Order), and committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Sheffield Assay Office Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

PETITIONS.

  EDUCATION.
  Petitions in favour of denominational religious teaching in schools—
  Of the Founder, Trustees, and Managers of a school at Charnock-Richard.
  Of teachers in schools at Mawdsley; Walkden; Euxton; Mosley Common; Charnock - Richard; Standis Lower Ground; Walton-le-Dale.
  Of parents and guardians of children attending schools at Mosley Common; Walton-le-Dale; Euxton; Mawdsley; Standish Lower Ground; Walmsley; Charnock-Richard; Heysham; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  COLONIES (GENERAL).
  Statement of present contributions to the Imperial Institute made by the Government of India and by the British Colonies and Protectorates
  TUBERCULOSIS.
  Report of the delegates of His Majesty's Government to the International Congress on Tuberculosis, held at Paris from 2nd October to 7th October, 1905.
  LOCAL TAXATION (IRELAND).
  Returns for the year 1904–5.
  EXPLOSIVES (EXPLOSION AT NETHER WALSTEAD, NEAR HAYWARD'S HEATH, SUSSEX).
  Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department by Captain M. B. Lloyd, His Majesty's Inspector of Explosives, on the circumstances attending an explosion which occurred at Nether Walstead, near Hay ward's Heath, Sussex, on 26th October, 1905.

  HISTORICAL MANUSCRIPTS (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Report on American manuscripts in the Royal Institution of Great Britain. Vol. II.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  TRADE MARKS ACTS, 1905.
  Statutory Rules and Orders made by the Board of Trade under the provisions of Section 60 of the Act.

  ARMY (MILITARY SAVINGS BANKS).
  Statement of the amount due by the public to depositors on March 31st, 1904, and of the receipts, interest, and disbursements during the year ended March 31st, 1905.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to he on the Table.

  SUNDAY TRADING.
  A Message ordered to be sent to the House of Commons to propose that the Joint Committee do meet in Committee Room A. on Tuesday next at Three o'clock.
NEW BILLS.
  SETTLED LAND BILL [H.L.] (NO. 37).
  A Bill to amend the Settled Land Acts, 1882 to 1890.
  MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY BILL [H.L.] (No. 38.)
  A Bill to amend the Married Women's Property Act, 1882, and—
  CONVEYANCING BILL [H.L.] (No. 39.)
  A Bill to amend the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881, were presented by the Lord Davey; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday next.
  JUVENILE SMOKING BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to provide for the prevention of juvenile smoking was presented by the Lord Reay; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 40.)

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of RIPON): My Lords, in accordance with the practice which has usually prevailed in this House in respect to the Consolidated Fund Bill, I propose, with your Lordships' permission, to pass it through all its stages to-day, as the Royal Assent must be given to it tomorrow. I therefore beg to move that Standing Order XXXIX. be considered in order to its being suspended for this day's sitting.
  Moved, That Standing Order XXXIX. be considered in order to its being suspended for this day's sitting.—(The Lord Privy Seal.)
  Ou Question, Motion agreed to.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
  Read 2a (according to order); Committee negatived; then (Standing Order No. XXXIX. having been suspended) Bill read 3a, and passed.

  PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.E.].
  Order of the day read for the House going into Committee.
  LORD HYLTON: My Lords, in moving that the House resolve itself into Committee on this Bill I am very anxious

  1409
  not to stand between your Lordships and the Motion on the Paper in the name of my noble friend Lord Halifax. A number of Amendments to my Bill have been put down by the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, I am quite willing to accept them all, and I would suggest to your Lordships that the most convenient course, one which has been agreed to by the noble Earl opposite, is that the Bill should pass through Committee without Amendment and that the Amendments should be made in the Standing Committee.
  Moved, That the House resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.—(Lord Hylton.)
  LORD BURGHCLERE: My Lords, I rise to make an appeal to the noble Lord opposite. A great number of Amendments to this Bill have been put down by the Local Government Board. They are very complicated Amendments and rather difficult to understand. My noble friend has expressed his willingness to accept those Amendments. I would suggest to him that he should withdraw his Bill and have it reprinted with the Amendments incorporated. The Bill would then be intelligible to your Lordships. For myself, I approve entirely of the principle of the Bill. There are, however, one or two matters in it which require consideration, and this observation applies also to the Amendments standing in the name of my noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture. If my noble friend in charge of the Bill would pursue the course I have suggested it would not interfere with the prospects of the Measure, but enable it to be much better considered and render it more intelligible.
  LORD HYLTON: I hope my noble friend will not press that suggestion. These Amendments are all practically accepted. I trust the House will agree to the course which I have proposed.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of ONSLOW): I understand that no Amendments are to be proposed at this stage.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (Earl CARRINGTON)intimated that that was so.
  Bill passed through Committee, and reported without Amendment to the House and re-committed to the Standing Committee.

  THE CASE OF MR. JOSEPH NELSON.
  LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, I desire, in accordance with the Notice standing in my name on the Paper, to call attention to the case of Mr. Joseph Nelson, lately chief officer of the British steamer "Aro," who, on a charge of shooting a Krooboy labourer on board that vessel, was found guilty by a coloured jury at Sierra Leone, and sentenced to nine months imprisonment; and to ask whether, in view of the circumstances of this case, His Majesty's Government will be pleased to recommend the immediate release of Mr. Nelson.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of ELGIN): My Lords, I have to say, in reply, that I am much obliged to the noble Lord for giving me certain information in addition to the evidence which was brought out at the trial. I have considered the whole case, and am of opinion that the sentence might be reduced. I will make a submission to His Majesty to that effect.

  LORD MILNER.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAXrose to move to resolve, "That this House desires to place on record its high appreciation of the services rendered by Lord Milner in South Africa to the Crown and the Empire."
  The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I do not bring forward the Motion which I desire to submit to your Lordships this afternoon in the interests of any

  1411
  party in this House. The subject is one which should be outside party considerations. Neither do I bring it forward in the interests of the late High Commissioner in South Africa, though those who have the best means of appreciating Lord Milner's services to England and the Empire have heard many things said about him within the last few days which have been painful to their ears, and have not heard what they might well have expected to hear from the lips of those who, in regard to one single incident in his career, have been so ready to blame him. It would be easy to say much on these points if I were so minded; much that, in my opinion, would be just, much that would be true. But I refrain. The matter is too important for mere personal considerations. What I desire beyond all else is to obtain the unanimous consent of your Lordships' House to this Motion, and I will not say one word which may make that consent more difficult, or put any obstacle in the way of securing it.
  My Lords, the Prime Minister has used words on recent occasions to the effect that the furtherance of British interests in South Africa is as much a matter of concern to him as it is to any man. Even the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, speaking the other day of Lord Milner's many devoted friends in South Africa, declared that he desired to send a message of peace and conciliation and encouragement to the Colonies. My Lords, that is the object of this Motion. It is on behalf of British interests in South Africa that I bring it forward. It is in order to soothe the painful feelings which will have been excited in South Africa by recent events that I ask your Lordships to assent to it. My Lords, all over South Africa Lord Milner's name stands as the name of the one man who pre-eminently and more than any other has understood and defended British interests in South Africa.
  Throughout the whole of the South African Colonies you will not find a single man who has fought for England, and who, if need were, would fight for England again, who does not look to Lord Milner as the representative of all
  1412
  he most cares for, as the defender of all. he holds most dear. These men have made great sacrifices for the integrity of the Empire. They have seen their sons and their kinsfolk shot down by their sides and they have made no complaint. They have sacrificed their property—for it is not the loyal English who have been forward to press their claims for compensation—but they have not grudged those sacrifices. They have been consoled by the thought that those sacrifices have not been made in vain, that the man who fought their battles and represented their interests, to whose foresight, determination, courage, and firmness they believe that South Africa forms to-day a part of the British Empire,. had at least won the gratitude and esteem of his country, and that the policy he had so successfully inaugurated, which was indeed succeeding so well and which would, there can be no doubt, succeed so completely if it were given time to develop and take root, was firmly established and was not to be revrsed in deference to party politics; and the exigencies of party warfare.
  This, my Lords, till a short time ago, was their hope and their consolation. What do they see now? They see a single point in Lord Milner's career, a point as nothing in the long list of his services, sought out for censure. They see it not obscurely hinted that his work is to be destroyed. They see it stated by one speaker on behalf of the Government that the ideals, the principles, the policies for which he has toiled are entirely discredited, that the schemes which he has pursued with all his energies, into which, as he has himself said, he has thrown his whole soul, are about to be reversed, his work to be undone, that though he once counted for much in the councils of this country, he is now nothing, and has ceased to be a factor in political life, that though he could once direct, he is now powerless. That is what they hear said by a responsible Minister of the Crown, and then, galling beyond all else, galling to themselves, galling because it seems to threaten all that has been won by the late wa, they see the triumph of all those who were beaten in that war, at the slight put upon the man who, more than any

  1413
  other, stands for British supremacy and Imperial interests in South Africa.
  My Lords, I know South Africa fairly well. I know what will be said when the news of recent events in England reaches that country. The men who have fought our battles will be fiercely indignant. Their hearts will turn as one man to Lord Milner, who, they will feel, has been so unjustly treated, and then, which is the more dangerous symptom, they will begin to say as they said in 1881–2: "What is the object of being loyal to England? She will neither stand by her own sons nor by us. She has great servants, greater than any other nation. She is better served than any nation ever was served in the history of the world; she breeds up a race of men above all suspicion of seeking their personal interests, incorruptible, courageous, high-minded, not afraid of responsibility, shrinking from no labour and no toil—such a man as is the late High Commissioner of South Africa—and see how she treats them." One error, one unintentional error—if indeed the error be a fact—an error which he has taken on himself, because he is too loyal to throw over a subordinate, and all else is apparently forgotten. His past services, great and illustrious, are as nothing, they are not even mentioned, and, so far as those who attack him are concerned, his case is dismissed with the contemptuous plea that so powerless is he now to do further mischief, so vanished are all his ideals, so remote all the objects for which he strove, that mercy may be shown him, nay, that those now in power can even afford to be generous and extend to him that measure of contemptuous pity which would not have been accorded him were it not for the fact that he still has many friends in South Africa who would deeply resent a more severe treatment.
  My Lords, Lord Milner has still many friends, and they are not confined to South Africa; but of those who were his friends amongst those who now hold the reins of power, some of whom composed the throng who wished him God-speed when he started to take up the government of South Africa, which of them has thought it worth while to
  1414
  remind the country of all his past services, and of the debt England and the Empire owe him? Is this an exaggerated statement? There is indeed one exception, I recognise it with gladness, and I thank him for it. The noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies did indeed speak of—
  "those years of stress during which Lord Milner's conduct would not be forgotten by his countrymen,"
  but who else has spoken in the same key?, So little is it the case that the Under-Secretary for the Colonies could find nothing better to say about Lord Milner than to compare him with Mr. Parnell, and to say that in a similar matter Mr. Parnell was innocent and that Lord Milner was guilty.
  I wish the task had fallen to worthier hands than mine; but in face of such statements let me at least recall to your recollection Lord Milner's conduct before the war, during the war, and after the war. And having done so, I will ask your Lordships to say whether you do not think that justice and honour alike require some redress of the balance, some acknowledgment of Lord Milner's services to the Empire which may express the real feeling of the country, and may relieve us of the charge of base ingratitude to a great public servant. I will say nothing about Egypt, and the prosperity of Egypt so largely due to Lord Milner's exertions. I will say nothing of his work for the Inland Revenue, but I will confine myself to South Africa.
  I will ask your Lordships to carry your thoughts back to the year 1897, the year after the Jameson Raid. Remember the state of South Africa at that time. Affairs in the Transvaal were in a more dangerous state than ever. The grievances of the Uitlanders were further from any redress. The British were insulted and despised. The Transvaal was arming, denying the rights of the paramount Power, and preparing to assert its absolute independence, an independence incompatible with British supremacy in South Africa, at the first opportunity. It has been said again recently that it was owing to the Jameson Raid and Lord Milner's own action that war supervened. Those who so speak

  1415
  must surely have forgotten that before Lord Milner came to South Africa, prior to and apart from the Raid, the Transvaal had been arming upon a scale entirely unwarranted by any possible legitimate necessities.
  In the manifesto of the National Union, published in Johannesburg, on December 27th, 1895, it was openly stated, and the correctness of the statement has never been denied, that £250,000 was to be spent by the Boer Government upon the completing of the fort at Pretoria, and £100,000 upon a fort to overawe the inhabitants of Johannesburg, that large orders were being sent to Krupps for big guns, that maxims had been ordered, and that German officers were to be sent out to drill the burghers. Repeated attempts had previously been made by the Transvaal to get control of affairs in Bechuanaland, Matabeleland, and Zululand. Dr. Leyds had already been in Europe looking for allies, and there is every reason to suppose that in one case at least he had been successful. In a speech made by President Kruger at the German Club in Johannesburg,on January 26th, 1895, there was the following statement—
  "Amongst other places I visited Germany, where I was received by the Kaiser. The Kaiser received me as the representative of a grown-up Republic. I was courteously treated and was able to enter into a treaty with Germany."
  —this was before the Raid—
  "Our Republic being recognized as an important country. … I know I may count on the Germans in future. I hope the Transvaalers will do their best to strengthen and increase the friendship that exists between them. …We are growing up, and although we are young, we are feeling that if one nation tries to annex us the other will try to stop it."
  Your Lordships will remember, in this connection, the German Emperor's telegram to President Kruger after the Raid. It is scarcely denied that there had been a previous correspondence between Germany and the Transvaal which could not be avowed. Your Lordships will remember also the determination of the Transvaal to reject any control on the part of England in regard to its foreign relations. Can any one doubt, in view of such facts, that when Lord Milner came to South Africa there was a distinct determination on the part
  1416
  of the Transvaal to deny any control by the paramount Power, and gradually to substitute the Transvaal as the leading Power in South Africa in the place of England?
  In Cape Colony itself the state of affairs was hardly more satisfactory. Lord Milner found himself face to face with a Government which was more than unwilling to take the necessary steps for the defence of the colony, and which, in fact, did connive at the transmission of arms into the Transvaal immediately before the break-out of the war. He had to meet the insidious and mischievous action of the Bond. The hostility of the Afrikander element was growing day by day. The difficulties caused by the internal state of Cape Colony were indeed great. How few there are who realise the task of patience and firmness achieved by Lord Milner, and the triumph of his personal character, in getting through all the time of Mr. Schreiner's Afrikander Government without a, break.
  In respect to the Transvaal, let any one read the record of the negotiations at the Bloemfontein Conference, and he must be convinced of the patience and forbearance shown by Lord Milner throughout the whole course of those negotiations. No doubt those negotiations were doomed to failure; war was; inevitable, unless this country was prepared to surrender the principle of equal rights in the Transvaal. But a weaker man would have dallied with the situation in the hope of putting off the evil day in his time; a more selfish man would have thought of his own interests, and that for them it would be well that the War which sooner or later was inevitable should not be connected with his name; a less brave man would have shrunk from the responsibility of a decision. But Lord Milner was neither-selfish nor a coward. He saw what was essential for British interests and he refused to surrender it—for that he stood firm as a rock. It depended upon his attitude and determination whether South Africa should become a Dutch Republic in all but the name. We owe it to him that South Africa remains within the sphere of British influence to-day.
  It was not he who broke the peace. In the hope of peace he had permitted

  1417
  delay even after delay had become a danger. For nearly two years he had patiently studied the situation. Throughout that time there were a hundred possibilities of a quarrel with Pretoria, questions arising out of Uitlander grievances, wrongs of British coloured subjects, veiled breaches of the Convention, and so forth, and he showed a forbearance to which justice has never been done. The first occasion on which he used any plainness to Pretoria was in a despatch of March 10th, 1899, dealing with the maltreatment of Cape coloured people in the Transvaal, a fact which is not without significance at the present moment. But by his action, when the time for action arrived, he saved South Africa to the Empire; and because he saved it he secured the undying enmity of those whose plans he had defeated, whose aspirations he had thwarted, and whose carefully conceived preparations for asserting their entire independence and supremacy, long and skilfully laid, he had brought to naught. My Lords, it is a good thing to be generous to your enemies; to construct a golden bridge over which they may retreat is indeed the secret of all politics; but it is no less a good thing, it is even a greater duty to support your friends. It would seem that we have amongst us some who think that to vilify their friends and to justify and excuse their opponents is the height of political wisdom.
  I turn to the late High Commissioner's conduct during the war. Do people in England realise sufficiently how serious the condition of things was in South Africa, and especially in Cape Colony, when the war began? Speaking genera-ally, it would be difficult to exaggerate the extent of the difficulties that confronted Lord Milner in Cape Colony during the war and after. It only required an advance of the Boer forces into Cape Colony for a great part of that colony to have risen in arms. There is no one in South Africa who doubts that if, instead of besieging Ladysmith and Kimberley, the Boer forces had advanced on Durban, and above all on Cape Town, England might have had to fight for a landing at Cape Town itself.
  General Smuts has recently been saying that the mistake the Boers made
  1418
  during the war was not acting on the offensive. The man who drove our wagon from Mafeking to Pretoria had been a Boer farmer. He had fought against us through the whole war; he had been at the siege of Ladysmith. He was one of the last to hold out and one of the few who made his sub mission too late to obtain compensation I like the man, and I do not blame him for his conduct. What he said might not always be reliable, but he did say one thing the truth of which, from the manner and determination with which he said it, I cannot doubt—
  "At the siege of Ladysmith, we younger men," he said, "went to General Botha and entreated him to press forward. We urged an advance into Natal, above all we urged an advance into Cape Colony. When the Boer generals refused to make that advance we knew it was all up; but, by God," he added, "if we had advanced, we should have won."
  Such was the state of Cape Colony with which Lord Milner had to deal Then cams the news of British reverses We know what those black days were in England. What do you think it must have been to those on the spot? I suppose in the history of the world there has hardly been a greater feat of arms than that a country like this, so many thousand miles away, should have been able to transport across so many thousand miles of sea a force such as England landed in South Africa. It was almost a still greater feat to feed that Army as that Army was fed. But, great as those feats were, legitimate as is the pride that it is this England of ours which performed these feats, have we not also reason to be proud of the Englishman who, in the midst of such difficulties, never flinched, was never turned back from his purpose, never abandoned his courage, was equal to all emergencies, and, in the darkest moments never despaired of his country's success.
  I have travelled over most of South Africa. Wherever you go, at every wayside store, wherever you find English settlers, colonists proud of the English name, with hearts bound up in the fortunes of Great Britain, there Lord Milner's name is a household word. "He," they say with one voice,"is the man to whom we owe everything. He it is

  1419
  who stemmed the movement"—a movement which, if it had been successful and how nearly it succeeded none knew so well as they—" would have separated us from the mother country and left. us settlers in a Dutch land." Think of these men, the loyalists in South Africa. Think how touching, how pathetic their loyalty to this country is—this country which has often treated them so ill. And, remembering that loyalty and remembering their sacrifices, tell them in a way that none can mistake that what has recently been said in Parliament is no proof of a reversal of the past. Tell them that the present Government, no less than the past, are determined to maintain the integrity of the British Empire and the supremacy of Great Britain in South Africa; that Lord Milner's services to the Crown and the Empire are appreciated as they deserve at home, and that England is not again, in the face of the warnings afforded by history, and in the light of the experience of past years, about to repeat the fatal mistake made after Majuba, and sacrifice the real supporters of the Empire for those who care little for England, nothing for the Empire, and who, if they could, would establish an Afrikander Republic throughout the whole of South Africa.
  I turn now to the record of Lord Milner's work in South Africa after the war. Have your Lordships ever considered how great, how enormous the work is that has been done for the reconstruction and reorganisation of South Africa since the war? Lord Milner found the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony, as the result of war, in ruins. He has left them on the high road to recovery. That they have not recovered sooner is due to financial causes, which neither Lord Milner nor any other man living could control. What he has done in a land denuded of all apparatus of government is to create an admirable machine, efficient for the government of the country, and after the ravages of the war to set the country once more on the path of moral and material prosperity.
  The amount of work in regard to reconstruction that has been inaugurated and carried through by the band of workers under Lord Milner's guidance
  1420
  and under Lord Milner's government is simply colossal. I should doubt whether it had a parallel in history. Let me enumerate a few of the things that have been done. The Statute-book has been reduced to reasonable proportions and put in an orderly form. The steady, incorruptible administration of justice under a Supreme Court which has no superior in any British colony has been organised. A new life has been infused into agriculture. Experimental farms have been started. Stock of a high class has been introduced. The planting of forests has been undertaken —a point of vital importance to the prosperity of the Colonies. Municipal institutions as liberal as any in the world have been created. Free schools containing twice as many children as at any previous period have been started. New provision for higher technical training has been made. A careful scientific study of the great problem of irrigation in all its branches has been set on foot. Two hundred and seventy-five miles of new railway have been completed; 311 miles are in course of construction and 488 miles arranged for. The management of telegraphs and telephones has been greatly improved. Asylums and hospitals have been built. Some 1,300 miles of road have been repaired, and anyone who knows South Africa will realise what a boon that is.
  A great work has been done in regard to schemes for land settlement; but on this I need not dwell, for it was touched upon by Lord Milner himself in this House two days ago. I would only desire to emphasise again how important that work is as a link between British and Dutch, and as a reconciler of differences if only time is given it to bear its proper fruit. The economic side of the land settlement is important; the political side is more important still. I turn to what Lord Milner has done for the native population. His administration has conferred on the natives great benefits; he has been their great protector he has stood by them in Swaziland and in Basutoland. His name is associated with the humane treatment of the natives and respect for their rights to the very fullest extent. He has asserted over
  † See (4) Debates, cliv., 1032–2.

  1421
  and over again his belief in the principle of equal rights for every civilised man. At the same time he has had the wisdom to look for the vindication of that principle to the gradual change of opinion in South Africa itself. It is a South African question, and anyone who knows the feeling of South Africa on the subject will endorse Lord Milner's words in the last speech he made at Johannesburg on the subject when he said that—
  "Nothing could be worse in principle or likely to be more unfortunate in its results than to attempt the solution of it, even in a right direction, by external pressure."
  I will only refer to one other point, to the fact that it is Lord Milner's policy which has made the eventual federation of South Africa possible. It is bad enough in Europe to have rival States Intriguing one against another, involving perpetual anxiety as to the European equilibrium; but it would be an intolerable state of things in South Africa. Such however was the state of things before the war, and it was largely due to the perpetual menace resulting from the action of the Transvaal—at one time intriguing with Germany, at another time encouraging the jealousy of Natal against the Cape. That with the assertion of British supremacy this has ceased to be the case is due to Lord Milner. I have endeavoured to keep the one issue plain and simple before your Lordships' House. I have hardly entered into the disputed question of Chinese labour, though on that my opinion is clear and decided. I have taken the matter on the broad lines of Lord Milner's services to his country.
  The incident for which Lord Milner has been blamed, which has been utilised as an opportunity for attacking him, is, my Lords, a question which very little deserves the importance which has been given to it. The study of the Blue-book reveals that, if Lord Milner sanctioned anything in a conversation of which he has himself no remembrance, it was such slight caning as I should suppose we and our children have all been exposed to at school, no doubt very much to our advantage; and so far as it was abused, that abuse took place after Lord Milner had left South Africa, and it was an abuse of which he was entirely ignorant. Could anyone say that such an incident
  1422
  as that is to be put into comparison with the long list of Lord Milner's services, and that it is either just or generous, or such treatment as we should expect from our friends and countrymen, that this alone should be mentioned, and no mention made of the many and the devoted services, extending now over many years, which have marked Lord Milner's distinguished career at home, in Egypt, and in South Africa? Suppressio veri, suggestio falsi.
  I appeal to your Lordships to redress the balance, to hold the scales of justice true and level. It is not Lord Milner's character which is at stake. It is the character of his countrymen for justice, generosity, and for fair and equal dealing. These are at stake; and there is something more at stake also. Let me quote some words in the speech made by Lord Milner in this House a short time ago. Those words sum up the whole matter—
  "My Lords," he said, "from my point of view the alienation of South Africa is too high a price to pay for another swing of the pendulum at home; for the pendulum may swing hack-wards and forwards many times, but South Africa once lost will be lost forever."
  Before I sit down, I will once again ask your Lordships to accept unanimously the Motion I have had the honour to place before your Lordships' House. I have said that I do not bring this Motion forward so much in the interests of Lord Milner as in those of South Africa. Speaking on 26th July, at a dinner given him at Birmingham, not quite six years ago, the present Under-Secretary for the Colonies said—I am quoting from The Times report of 27th July, 1900—
  "The removal of Sir Alfred Milner from the control of South African affairs at the present time would be a greater blow to Imperial interests than the defeats of Magersfontein, Stormberg, Colenso, and Spion Kop put together."
  May I not appeal from "Philip drunk to Philip sober," and suggest to the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies that he need not concern himself too seriously with the recent utterances for which his Under-Secretary has been responsible? I believe he who made them must wish nothing so much as that they should be consigned to the oblivion which they deserve. Certainly the circumstances are as dissimilar as the men;

  1423
  but in this respect, at least, the circumstances which attended the discussion in the House of Commons on Lord Olive's conduct are not unlike those of to-day. By a vote the House of Commons implied that Lord Clive had been guilty of an illegality; by another they declared that he had rendered great and meritorious services to his country. The House of Commons has done the former, it is for your Lordships' House to complete its action and supply the latter.
  LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, I rise to second the Resolution which has been moved by the noble Viscount on my right; and if I venture to intervene in this debate it is because there are several reasons which seem to me to impose that duty upon me. When I returned to England three weeks ago I had no intention of taking any further part in the business of your Lordships' House than that of a dutiful listener, unless, indeed, the affairs with which I had been actually concerned for the past five years were to come up for discussion. I did not anticipate such a discussion as this, which concerns in a general way all those who have had the honour, or who have at present the honour, of serving His Majesty in different parts of the Empire.
  As one who has held a post in some respects similar to that which Lord Milner held, I think I can speak—and I feel that I ought to speak—from the standpoint of the servants of the Crown in India and the Colonies; as one who has been living for some time past far removed from the noise, the smoke, and the confusion of the conflict of political Parties in this country, I trust that I can speak without the prejudice or the bias of a Party politician; and as one who has seen the effects of the action of Parliament on our fellow citizens, whether they be Englishmen or whether they belong to other races, in a distant part of the Empire, I hope that I can give your Lordships a correct impression of how such action is likely to be regarded by those fellow citizens of ours who are as much concerned in it as the voters in the United Kingdom, although they care but little for
  1424
  the struggles of political Parties in this country.
  But before I endeavour to explain this standpoint any further, let me plainly state once more the object of this debate as it appears to me. A vote in Parliament has condemned a single act in the long and brilliant public service of one who is admitted by all fair-minded and reasonable men to be-one of the most capable, single-minded, and devoted public servants that the Empire has seen for several generations. That vote stands alone as the only formal reference to Lord Milner on the journals of Parliament; for, although Lord Milner's name is not mentioned in the Resolution, no doubt whatever will exist in the minds of future generations as to the responsibility for the act which has thus been condemned. I shall refrain, for the reason I have already indicated, from questioning the discretion of the. House of Commons; but I desire to express my strong conviction—a conviction which I know is shared by many, not only in this House but also outside of it—that the opinion of the nation will not be fully recorded on the journals, of Parliament unless there be entered on them some further and more definite reference to Lord Milner's services in South Africa. The object of the Resolution which has been so eloquently proposed by the noble Viscount is to remedy the omission which has taken place and to make the formal records of Parliament in accord with the feelings of the nation.
  I take it that one of the functions of this House is to do that which the House of Commons has left, undone, whether the omission be due: to accident or to the exigencies of Parliamentary procedure; and particularly if the omission be not in accordance with the real feeling of Parliament and,, above all, with the real feeling of the nation. It is part of the larger function of this House, which is to see that the final verdict of Parliament is that of which the nation really approves. For this purpose, I take it, both Houses of Parliament are as one, and unless-there be a direct conflict of opinion, the.-vote of one House is equivalent to the vote of the other. The House of Lords,

  1425
  is, in one particular sense, as truly representative of the nation as the House of Commons. The House of Commons is, in another sense, less representative of the people than the House of Lords. It would be irrelevant if I were on this occasion to endeavour to explain my meaning at length, but I feel convinced that your Lordships will recognise the truth of the principle of which I venture to remind you if I merely point to the constant changes in the political complexion of the House of Commons, and the extraordinary and anomalous results of the present system of representation, whichever Party may be in power.
  My Lords, the British nation is not a political weathercock. Whatever be the changes on the surface, there are certain settled convictions and unalterable principles deep down in the hearts of the people. The sea may be rough or smooth, it may be blue or grey, but it remains salt; and so it is with the British nation. The House of Lords represents, or ought to represent, the permanent principles and settled convictions of the people of this country It stands for the depths which remain undisturbed by the commotion, however terrible, which may for a while take place on. the surface of the sea. Whatever may be before us, let us remember our true function and let us endeavour to speak, not for ourselves, but for the nation. Those noble Lords who were here two nights ago cannot fail to retain a vivid remembrance of the impressive exhortation—I might even say warning —which was addressed to us by the noble Lord who supported the Lord Chancellor's Criminal Appeal Bill from the Front Opposition Bench. The nation as a whole, has no Party, and you have only to mix with Englishmen in the distant parts of the Empire and watch Party conflict far away from the din and dust and confusion to realise how small a thing it is, and how little it affects the true progress of our race.
  And now, my Lords, what are the predominant characteristics of the British race? I think that nine men out of ten would answer that they are generosity and a love of fair play. If this be so, it is on these grounds that I exhort you to
  1426
  make the voice of Parliament in accord with the real heart of the nation. The Britisher admires pluck, perseverance, and devotion to duty, and in circumstances of ordinary life he is always ready to accord his tribute of admiration to any man who displays those qualities, whatever may be his personal feelings towards him, and however much he may be out of sympathy with the objects of that man's endeavours. It is on. that principle that I ask your Lordships to accord to Lord Milner that which the whole nation must regard as his due. Was: Lord Nelson censured because, on one occasion, he turned his blind eye to the signal and disobeyed orders? Have any of the great leaders of our Armies, of not one of whom can it be said that he never made a mistake—have they gone without thanks or without reward? Yet those who most strongly condemn Lord; Milner's action or inaction, whichever it was, do not attribute to him anything more than an error of judgment, nor do they deny the greatness of his public services.
  This is no Party question, nor is it a matter of antagonism between this House and the House of Commons. It is merely a matter of making the verdict of Parliament complete and correct. Noble Lords opposite can vote for this Resolution with perfect consistency and perfect loyalty to the leaders of the Party which is now in power. I understand, from conversation which I have had the advantage of having with more than one noble Lord opposite, that they imagine that the terms of this Resolution commit them to approval of each and every one of Lord Milner's acts. I venture to say that that is a most extraordinary misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the ordinary meaning of the English language. Although there are many belonging to the Party of which I am a member who disapproved of many of the acts of Mr. Gladstone, was there, or is there, one of them who would deny his claim to greatness on account of his. valuable services to this country? Do we refuse to accord the tribute of admiration and appreciation to great soldiers, to great sailors, to painters, to poets, to literary men, because we cannot admire, or because we disapprove of

  1427
  one or other of their works? I feel sure that at any rate those outside this House will not consider that noble Lords opposite are committing themselves to approval of every one of Lord Milner's acts if they vote for this Resolution. I trust that nothing will be said on this side of the House which will deter them from doing so, and I for one shall be disappointed if, during the course of our debate, this question in any way becomes a Party one. But, at the same time, I am bound to say that the action of my friends on this side of the House must depend upon the course which is taken by His Majesty's Ministers on the other side.
  The noble Viscount and I have come -as messengers of peace, and if the olive branch which we have tendered is rejected, there will be no alternative for those who follow us but to accept the gauge of battle. My Lords, let us show the nation that the House of Lords can treat a question from the national point of view, and let us thus give an earnest of our intention to treat future questions with which we have to deal—and there will be many of great importance—in a similar manner. No moment could be more?opportune than the present one to make a beginning in that way. There is in this House a majority as overwhelming and disproportionate to the minority as is the majority, with Parties reversed, in the other House. I can only speak for myself, but I assure noble Lords opposite that I consider it my first duty as a Peer to see that the will of the nation is carried out when it is known, and when it is not known to see that it is rightly ascertained. And in this matter there can be no doubt whatever that the nation would not tolerate a single condemnation of an eminent public servant for a single act to override and cancel all his claims to gratitude and appreciation.
  I now return to the point from which I began, and I ask, How can we expect that the servants of the Crown in the Colonies and dependencies of the Empire should act with courage and with confidence, and act on their own responsibility if they feel that the slightest mistake
  1428
  is liable to expose them to the severest punishment? I venture to claim that I know something of the anxieties of such men. Although, as Governor of Madras, I experienced no difficulties or anxieties which can compare with those of Lord Milner in South Africa, the position was one in which I could fairly estimate what they were; and at any rate for eight months I held a position of the greatest anxiety and responsibility as Viceroy of India. I therefore know something of the feelings of men in such positions, and I tell your Lordships that the recent vote of the other House is likely to chill the courage and diminish the confidence of the men who administer the Colonies and dependencies of the Crown and thus impair the two qualities which they most need, and which have, more than any others, gone to build up our great Empire. And what of our fellow-subjects abroad who are watching the political game in this country, and who as spectators see most? I know from what I have heard among them that, rightly or wrongly, they attribute much that is done in Parliament to the exigencies of Party politics. I know that they are beginning to lose their pride and confidence in the British Parliament. They hate the unreasoning prejudice and the blind passion which mark the conflict of political parties in this country, and which seem to them, rightly or wrongly, to hamper the work of the Imperial Parliament. Shall we give them further cause to persist in that opinion? And what of those who are not loyal, who desire to hamper and embarrass the British Government? Will they not eagerly avail themselves of the new weapon which we are putting in their hands, and seize every opportunity of alleging illegality against the King's deputies? What could be easier, with hundreds of sharp critics on the lookout for such opportunities, for who is there who has never made a mistake or who can claim that he has never transgressed the law?
  Again, the viceroys, governors, and administrators of the dependencies of the Crown represent, each in their respective sphere, the dignity and authority of the Sovereign. Is it not well, in these circumstances, that any verdict on

  1429
  their conduct which has the high authority of Parliament should not be liable in any way to misunderstanding, and should be in itself complete and comprehensive? Lord Milner filled for eight years the post which was universally admitted to be for the time the most arduous and responsible one in the Empire. Nobody who has not seen them with his own eyes—and I may, perhaps, tell your Lordships that I had the advantage of doing so from the Colonial Office during the first part of Lord Milner's administration—'Can realise in any way the enormity of the labours and the incessancy of anxiety which he had to endure. That he endured them with unexampled courage, patience, and devotion to duty is pretty well known; but the personal sacrifices which he made, the sacrifices of health, of leisure, and of fortune, have never been publicly advertised; and yet these sacrifices form part of the debt of gratitude and appreciation which the nation owes to him.
  It would take a long time to detail all the acts of Lord Milner's administration, and if I attempted to do so I would to a great extent be repeating that which the noble Viscount who moved the Resolution has already said. But I think that in any circumstances it is unnecessary. The Papers which have been laid before Parliament contain all the requisite information, and have no doubt during the past eight years been attentively studied by your Lordships. Again, there have been numerous debates in both Houses of Parliament in which appreciative references have been made to Lord Milner's work, and not least of them was the eloquent and generous testimony made to him by the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies. It will suffice if I remind your Lordships, in general terms, that Lord Milner mitigated the bitterness which naturally results from a great war by his just, tactful, and conciliatory methods, and we can none of us estimate what far greater difficulties and troubles those personal characteristics and methods of his have saved us from. He evolved order out of chaos so far as the Government of South Africa was concerned, and he averted ruin from agriculture, commerce, and industry by methods in
  1430
  which his courageous optimism is generally admitted to have been the principal. factor.
  My Lords, those are no small deeds and I venture to think that they merit the gratitude of the nation no less than the triumphs which have been won by the commanders of our fleets and the leaders of our armies. Is it too late for us to voice, on behalf of the nation, that debt of gratitude and appreciation which we owe to Lord Milner? Surely not! It would have been more graceful to have done so before, but it would be worse than graceless not to do so now. It rests with your Lordships to prove to the Empire that the British Parliament represents the British nation, and that that nation is not ungrateful, ungenerous, or unjust.
  Moved to Resolve, "That this House desires to place on record its high appreciation of the services rendered by Lord Milner in South Africa to the Crown: and the Empire."—(Viscount Halifax.)
  THE EARL OF ELGIN: My Lords, my noble friend who moved this Resolution has spoken with all the eloquence for which he is noted, and with that fervent conviction which is characteristic of him. The noble Lord who has just sat down was not less emphatic. I am afraid it is my fate to approach this subject from a somewhat different point of view. But I would ask your Lordships to believe that I approach it with no less sincerity and earnestness, though it may be with less gifts of Oratory. The Resolution which the noble Lords have put before the House is one which lends itself to warm and effusive language that is grateful alike to speaker and listener. I am afraid that my arguments may, in comparison, appear somewhat cold and formal. But, at any rate, it shall be my endeavour to say nothing that may grate on the ear or leave behind it any sense of injustice, however unintentional.
  A Resolution of this kind, proposing to record once and for all upon our journals our appreciation of services done, is not one to be undertaken lightly. I have not thought it necessary to examine the pages of history to seek out precedents in this matter, because I cannot

  1431
  help thinking that it would be impossible to find an exact precedent for the present Motion under similar circumstances. It is the fact that the thanks of Parliament have been voted to military and naval commanders on the occasion of some great action, or the completion of a brilliant campaign. But in all these cases Parliament had to deal with an incident that had closed, with a story that had come to an end. It had not to deal with a matter from which future consequences might arise. I can well imagine in such a case as that, supposing there was a dissentient or doubting minority, that it would seem ungenerous on their part not to give way to the evident judgment of the majority.
  As I have used the word "ungenerous," I should like to say that in this case I should be sorry, indeed, to be supposed to be advocating anything that is ungenerous. I have always held that it was instinctive of the British nation to be generous to those who have upheld its interests in difficult circumstances, or in distant lands. If I may venture to make a personal remark, I have myself, although unworthily, profited by that instinct. For that very reason I should be the last to deny the same to other persons. Words which I have used in this House in regard to Lord Milner have been referred to. I do not wish to speak of them as generous. I thought then, and I think now, that my words were just. I do not think it will be denied in any part of this House that Lord Milner has done his work strenuously, faithfully, and disinterestedly; and has played a part which must leave its imprint for good or for ill on the pages of history. I am glad your Lordships acknowledge that declaration, because it was a declaration that was made in another place on behalf of the Government by the representative of the Government.
  I would like to go a step further. I would point out that, if we were really dealing, as I think the noble Lord who last spoke seemed to imagine, with the recognition of personal characteristics, and if it were the case that all we had to consider was what he called a condemnation on a single point, I daresay
  1432
  it would not be difficult to get a larger amount of unanimity in the case of such a Resolution. But that is not the whole case. I have already referred to Resolutions of this character which have been passed by this House in reference to feats of arms. I would only repeat again that a victory which may have, perhaps, even far - reaching consequences, so far as the general himself is concerned who receives the thanks of this House, is a solitary act or deed standing by itself. No one can say the same of Lord Milner's career in South Africa. Certainly the noble Lords who have spoken cannot say so. My noble friend who began the debate took us through many pages of history dealing with negotiations, and with alarms of various kinds, not only in South Africa but even in Europe. Both the noble Lords who have spoken must admit that it is the policy of Lord Milner which the House is asked to consider in the Motion.
  On behalf of His Majesty's Government, I have to say that we are neither to deny nor to affirm a judgment on this point here and to-day. The Government would be quite willing to discuss a question of this kind on a fitting occasion, and when they do discuss it they will be quite prepared to express their opinion frankly. But in spite of some provocation, they are resisting the giving of any judgment now. They did so also in the case of the vote of censure in another place. The only reason is that they consider that they have to deal with more important interests than the interest of any individual. The Government, not from any choice of their own, but owing to the course of events and the accidents of political warfare, have become responsible for the solution of great problems, full of complexity and full of difficulties, constitutional, economical, and social. In these problems the future of South Africa and its relation to this country are gravely involved. It is the honest and fervent desire of His Majesty's Government to deal with these problems with the utmost fairness and impartiality to all parties concerned.
  It is the deliberate judgment of His Majesty's Government that it is impossible to discuss the Motion without

  1433
  entering into questions of policy and the consequences which result from that policy. I am not sure, after the speeches of the noble Lords, that we can stop at the policy of the late High Commissioner, and whether we ought not to enter also into the policy of the late Government. We consider that it is impossible for us to make an examination of these policies without the use of language which might aggravate difficulties or create new ones, and I confess I am confirmed in that belief by the speeches made to-day. At any rate, the Government must decline to be parties to any matter of the kind.
  I am well aware that no words of mine can influence the course which noble Lords opposite are determined to take in regard to this Resolution. But I would appeal unto Caesar. I would appeal to the noble Viscount himself, who two days ago spake in this House upon a matter which is part of the larger subject now before us, and spoke with evident earnestness and sincerity, using words for which I desire to take this opportunity of returning him my best thanks. He said—
  "'I recognise the good will of the noble Earl, and I do not want to create difficulties for him in the great and arduous task he has to perform."
  Of course, Lord Milner could not be present on this occasion. If he had been here and heard the announcement which I have had the honour to make for the Government that we regard the discussion of this Motion as likely to raise up fresh obstacles to the progress of peace and good will in South Africa, I can scarcely believe he would not have been the first to have proposed the postponement of this Resolution to a more fitting occasion. At any rate, I maintain that this course is the one which patriotism would dictate. It is well known that the Government in this House cannot command its adoption, but they can, at any rate, follow it. It was for that reason I gave notice of the Motion which stands in my name on the paper and which I now move.
  Amendment moved—
  The Previous Question. "—(The Earl of Elgin).
  EARL CAWDOR: I do not know whether one is the more surprised at the Amendment that has been moved by the noble Earl or at the speech which has accompanied it. No one for a moment doubts the noble Earl's sincerity and straightforwardness. We all recognise that to the full, but I am bound to say that I think, not alone the Amendment, but the speech must have caused many of us much surprise. We have before us a plain and distinct issue, simple enough for anyone, and capable of being answered in one of two ways with the ulmost simplicity. We are asked by the noble Viscount who has brought on this Resolution to record our appreciation of the services rendered by Lord Milner to the Empire and the Crown. That is a simple question, and one would think that anyone in this House could give it an answer "Aye" or "No." One would think that anyone would shrink, when such a Motion is put before them, from passing it by on the other side, from saying, in effect, it is not worth consideration, and that the great services which are recognised by everyone, and by the noble Earl himself, are matters which are of no concern to this House or to this country.
  The noble Earl told us in the closing words of his speech, that the raising of this question is likely to cause difficulties in South Africa; but the noble Earl has not told us what difficulties. He has not given us an iota of reason why it should create difficulties, and he talks lightly of the policy of Lord Milner and of the policy of the late Government as if they were two different things. Where is the difference? The noble Earl shakes his head, but he did refer to the policy of Lord Milner and he said they were not prepared to discuss the policy of Lord Milner, but that they were prepared to discuss the policy of the late Government.
  THE EARL OF ELGIN: I did not say that.
  EARL CAWDOR: I am sorry if I misunderstood the noble Earl.
  THE EARL OF ELGIN: What I meant was that we could not tell whether the

  1435
  policy adopted was absolutely the policy of Lord Milner or the policy of His Majesty's late Government.
  EARL CAWDOR: I do not admit for a moment that there is any shadow of suggestion as to the High Commissioner having a policy of his own opposed to the Government by which he was employed. The policy of the High Commissioner was supported by the Government at home, and is, and must be, the policy of that Government. I do not know how the noble Earl has got so puzzled, but I do suggest that this question is one that should have and is bound to have, a definite and distinct answer. The noble Earl himself answered the question a few days ago. He admitted the great value of the services of Lord Milner. He stated in this House, and he has stated again to-day, that the words he then used were just. They certainly were.
  The noble Earl stated that during a time of stress and anxiety Lord Milner had served his country in a way that his country will not forget. That, my Lords, is true; but how about the memory of the noble Earl. The country will not forget it, but what about the Government? Are the Government going to-night to vote against the record of Lord Milner's services? They wish not to vote upon it at all. I can understand it. But I do not gather that the Government are likely to carry the previous question to-night, and when the previous question has been defeated what are the Government going to do? Are they going to walk out of the House? Are they going to say that this is a matter of which they have no cognisance? Are they going to vote against it or are they going to vote for it? Up to the present we have had no light on that subject. I for one cannot believe that the noble Earl, if left to himself, and if he could form his own conclusions and act absolutely by himself, would be a party, because of one slight error in a great career, to the marring and besmirching of that career as a whole.
  What is the object of the noble Earl's Amendment? It is an Amendment for the purpose of giving the go-by to the Resolution and putting it aside. Its
  1436
  object can but be to conceal the differences that exist in the Government at the present time. [The Earl of ELGIN dissented.] The noble Earl may laugh. Is he not aware of those differences yet? There are a good many people who are, and I think the noble Earl, if he has not yet found out that there are differences, will probably find them out before he is very much older. But is it not perfectly clear? If the Government have strong views on this subject, if they are absolutely certain that there has been a grave dereliction of duty on the part of Lord Milner, why do they not say so? If that is the opinion, why do not noble Lords have the courage of their opinion? Why do they not come down to this House and explain to us what those grave derelictions-of duty are, and try, if they can, to prove them to the House. Of all things I would suggest that it is not a high position to take up to try and slide off a question of this great magnitude and say they will have nothing to do with it and do not wish to express any opinion upon it at all. They will have to express: an opinion upon it to-night unless they are prepared to take that most undignified position of walking out of the House-when the division is taken. I hope that later on we may find out what the-position of noble Lords is going to be. I thought the noble Earl the Colonial Secretary would have told us what course they were going to take on the Motion, but we have had no such light on the matter.
  We have heard a great deal of the mandates which the Government have received from the country. We have-one coming up one day and another coming up the next. I wonder whether anyone suggests that they are acting now upon a mandate from the country. Is there anyone on the other side of the House who will venture to say for a moment that this Amendment put before us to-day represents the deliberate view of the country at large. No, my Lords. Everyone knows that the feeling of the country is absolutely opposed to what noble Lords opposite are doing to-night. The country is always generous, always has been generous, and always will be generous to those who do its work faithfully

  1437
  and well. What you ask of an official, be he High Commissioner or who he may, is that he should give the best of his powers, the best of his strength, to carry out the policy of the Government he represents. That is what it is admitted Lord Milner has done. The noble Earl says there is no precedent for such a record being placed on the journals of the House. He said that it was only when matters were concluded, when the incidents were closed, that votes recording the good services of public officials were placed upon the journals of your Lordships' House. Is not Lord Milner's career as far as South Africa is concerned a closed incident? Is it doubted that Lord Milner gave the best of his life and the best of his energies to his country for his country's good? It may be that hereafter developments may come out of that policy. Noble Lords opposite may not, perchance, follow it up. They may, perchance, not maintain what Lord Milner has won for this country; but, so far as Lord Milner himself is concerned, is it doubted that the incident, to use the noble Earl's word, of his High Commissionership is at an end. It is as much at an end as is the service of the general who has conducted a successful campaign, or the naval officer who has won a great victory at sea. The noble Earl says we must have the incident closed. I do not understand the difference.
  I do not admit that this is a matter of precedent. What we are asking to-night is that exactly what the noble Earl has himself admitted—the value of the services of Lord Milner— should be recorded on the journals of "the House. The noble Earl says that such a course might lead to difficulties in South Africa. Perhaps some other noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite will tell us before the debate closes what those difficulties are likely to be. I think if the noble Earl would inquire in the Colonies, in South Africa itself, he would find there as strong testimony to the value of Lord Milner's services as he could find in any part of this great Empire. It was said some days ago that Lord Milner had resigned his post amidst the plaudits of the Party on this side of the House. Lord Milner resigned his position, not alone amidst the plaudits
  1438
  of the Party that sits on this side of the House here and in another place; he resigned his position amidst the plaudits of the British Empire. I would ask anyone who doubts it to read back the story of Lord Milner's leaving South Africa, and I would then defy him to come down to this House and tell us that Lord Milner left his office and resigned his place only, as is suggested, amidst the plaudits of his own Party. No one who wishes to testify to facts can possibly be unaware that Lord Milner's great work in South Africa is lauded and applauded, not only in this country, but in every part of our great Colonial Empire.
  There is, I venture to say, one person who need not disturb himself at all with regard to the course which the Government have thought fit to take. I refer to Lord Milner himself. The Government propose, while admitting the value of his services, to decline to place them on record on the journals of your Lordships' House. It does not much matter. The value of those services, the greatness of them, is recorded already. It may be or it may not be recorded in the journals of your Lordships' House or in the records of another place, but it is recorded, and recorded for ever, in the hearts of a grateful and a thankful people. I would venture to say one thing more before I sit down, and I do trust His Majesty's Government will bear in mind this point. It is easy to hit one official, it is easy to pick out one small bit of a man's career and try and injure the whole of his career in consequence of that one act; but we have to look at something more important— important though this is so far as Lord Milner is concerned—because we have to consider it as affecting the whole of the officials of this great country abroad. I do not know that we always appreciate to the full what we owe to those who deal with our interests in foreign countries. The tact, the temper, the patience, the hard work necessary and the responsibility that they have to take are enormous. If we once let it be understood that good work, carrying out Government policy faithfully and truly for years, is to receive not even the recognition of a record, we shall, to my mind, injure

  1439
  seriously the future activity and responsibility of those who represent this country in other lands.
  I would beg His Majesty's Government to bear this in mind, and I would, if it is not too late, again appeal to the noble Earl. I would ask him to look at the effect that this action on the part of the Government must have generally upon officials employed by us in the Colonies and other parts of the Empire. I would beg the noble Earl to follow his own good commonsense. I would beg of him to set aside the Party issues that in another place have shown pretty clearly why this matter was raised there. I would beg him to remember his own statement of the value of the services of that great Englishman whose case we are discussing to-night, and I would beg him, even at the last moment, not to cast his vote at all events against a Resolution that has been moved to place upon record a statement of services, recognised not alone on this side of the House, not alone on the opposite side, where I know they are recognised by many noble Lords, but recognised also throughout the far limits of this country and through every acre of His Majesty's Empire abroad.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I think, speaking generally, it is undesirable for the occupants of the Episcopal Bench to take part in the clash of arms which necessarily accompanies the ordinary conflict of partisan political controversy. But it is just because this matter seems to me to be one which ought to lie altogether outside such controversy that I ask to be allowed to say a few words from a totally independent standpoint. Although I agree in the conclusion of the speech of the noble Earl who has just spoken, I cannot altogether follow him in or agree with some of the arguments with which he supported it. To me the infrequency of votes of commendation or of thanks by Parliament to great public servants is a matter for which I think we ought to be very thankful. Were such votes to be frequently introduced and carried it seems to me that we should be on the verge of very grave difficulties indeed, because large conclu-
  1440
  sions might very rightly be drawn either from the passing or the non-passing of Resolutions of the sort. Therefore, had this Resolution been proposed a year ago I for one would have felt sorry that it was proposed, and would not have been prepared to vote in its support unless some strangely special reason could have been shown for it.
  It is a common-place to say that in the British Empire we ought to secure the best men possible to take the great positions of pro-Consuls and Viceroys in different parts of the world, and that they should be able to rely, in the work they are doing, upon the support of those who sent them forth. Ask the statesmen now in this House; the noble Marquess who leads the House, or the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition, or the noble Earl, the Colonial Secretary, and you will find that in the fulfilment of their vast responsibility for the Government of our Indian Empire, the last thought which occurred to them was that their work should be stimulated or helped by the prospect of Parliamentary votes of thanks. On the spur of a conscientious impulse to duty, and on the assurance that those at home would support and trust them, they did their great work. It is on that support and confidence they have a right to rely, not, I think, on votes of thanks. Therefore, in the abstract I would deprecate in the strongest manner any multiplication of votes such as this.
  But, my Lords, the circumstances are not so simple as that. There is a record upon the journals of Parliament in the last week which makes just all the difference. It is because of what happened in the House of Commons a week ago, not because I think that in ordinary circumstances such votes ought to be given, that I for one desire to vote cordially for the Resolution of the noble Viscount opposite.
  What happened in the other House a week ago is fresh in the memories of all your Lordships. Had the Government on that occasion said what has been said to-night, that votes of this kind were on large grounds undesirable; had they, with what I should have thought would have been

  1441
  in the circumstances a natural courage, opposed the Resolution of censure that was proposed, accompanying that opposition with any criticism they liked of particular acts of Lord Milner during his tenure of office; or had they even gone less far, and met the Resolution by such a Motion as has now been made in this House, I should have felt that the position would then have been entirely I different from that which now faces your Lordships. They did otherwise; they virtually adopted the Resolution, though they struck out the name of the man censured, and since that is the sole reference now standing on our Parliamentary Minutes to Lord Milner and his work, it seems to me that it devolves on your Lordships' House to amend the record. When a great public servant has been thus used I for one feel bound to vote for what is now proposed, greatly as I should have prefered that the proposal should never have been rendered necessary.
  Looking on the work of Lord Milner as a whole, I can most readily join in voting this Resolution conveying our thanks to one who holds, as it seems to me, a splendid record even among the great men who have held high office in our dependencies and Colonies, a splendid record for the devotion, the courage, the resource, and the perseverance with which, during the long-drawn stress and strain of those anxious years, he upheld the cause that he was sent out to uphold. That is the point on which the whole thing turns. We might or might not in the abstract agree with the policy that a particular Viceroy, Governor or administrator had carried through; but if it was the policy that he was sent out to carry through, a policy, too, which he believed to be the right policy, and if, further, the people of England when appealed to at the polls supported it by overwhelming majorities, then that man ought to be supported through thick and thin, because, though he was the trusted executive officer, the ultimate responsibility rested not with him.
  Lord Milner upheld the policy he was sent out to carry through with a manliness, a devotion, and a self-sacrifice that few men even in the greatest positions have shown. As to criticism of
  1442
  particular mistakes, which may have been made by this great Governor, and especially mistakes which he may have made with regard to the question of Chinese labour, those who are bent on misrepresenting everything may very probably misrepresent what happens to-night, if this Resolution is carried, by saying that those who voted for it were supporting every item and detail in the administration of Lord Milner, or of the Government who sent him out. I propose to vote for the noble Viscount's Resolution, but I am not one of those who would give whole-hearted support to all that has been done. That, it seems to me, is, so to speak, beside the mark. With regard to Chinese labour, I do not want to discuss that point afresh to-night, but I am one of those who from the first profoundly disliked and sharply criticised it.
  Separating, if I may for the moment, the acts of the present Government from some of the speeches delivered at the election time, I have no fault to find with respect to their acts in regard to Chinese labour. I strongly desire to say, however, that that does not in the least prevent me from recording my vote with enthusiasm in favour of the Resolution expressing thanks to Lord Milner. If one is cautious and critical about the policy which one dislikes with regard to Chinese labour, very much stronger terms may be used with regard to anything like illegal flogging or illegal wrong done to labourers, be they Chinese or other labourers, in the Transvaal or elsewhere. Nothing, I think, would be less likely to meet with general condonation in England than illegal wrong done to men in that position and under such circumstances as have been described. The strength and the amazing success of England's rule over uncivilised peoples has lain in the assurance, contrasted with what is sometimes felt with regard to other nations, that the lowest in the scale of civilisation —and the Chinese are not low in that scale—might absolutely count upon re-spectfor his rights, and upon absolute freedom from assault and cruelty.
  I am one of those, then, who actively dislike the Chinese labour system as a whole, and who abhor any illegal cruelty

  1443
  to coloured folk of any sort. But because in the closing weeks of a great administration of tight years in South Africa, under all the most difficult circumstances by which such an administration could be surrounded—because in those closing weeks an error had been committed which has been frankly and generously admitted by the noble Viscount him self in this House, an error which was no part of his policy, but was an incidental thing which ought to be forgotten now that it has been long ago brought an end to, is it to be argued that that cancels the claim of a great man upon our gratitude for his devotion and services to the country during long and inexpressibly trying years? I do not believe for a moment that your Lordships will say anything of the sort. Yet that would be what you would do were you to leave untouched on the records of Parliament as the sole account there given of what Lord Milner had done the Resolution passed in the other House which left out his name indeed, but which stood next on record to a Resolution proposed in which his name was given.
  That is a position which I feel could not stand, and, therefore, I shall vote for the noble Viscount's Resolution. I feel that this is an occasion on which one who occupies a responsible position, and holds aloof from Party politics, might appropriately say a word in the largest interests of our public servants, and in defence of a man who, whether we agree with him to the full or not, has at least proved himself to be one of the most illustrious of an illustrious line,
  LORD BURGHCLERE: My Lords, if I were inclined to make a Party speech to-night, which I shall endeavour as much as possible to avoid doing, I would venture to remark that neither the most rev. Primate nor the noble Earl opposite have appreciated the point which was made by my noble friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies. My noble friend sought to point out that in moving the Resolution which he has submitted to your Lordships to-night he did so in no sense depreciative of the services of Lord Milner in South Africa, but rather because the inevitable con-
  1444
  sequences of such a debate on the present occasion would be once more to stir up strife in these Colonies at a particular juncture when it was most imperative that strife should not be stirred up. I trust that in the few words which I shall venture to address to your Lordships this afternoon I shall say nothing calculated to inflame Party differences or revive Party disputes. I had hoped, as I believe the nation itself had hoped, after the late general election, that the angry feelings aroused by the late war in South Africa, whether with regard to its origin, its conduct, or its policy, had been laid aside for a time, and that we were as a nation united with regard to that question on one sovereign point—namely, in promoting the welfare, the pacification and the advancement of our two new Colonies in South Africa.
  With regard to the Resolution moved by the noble Viscount opposite, I venture at once to say that had it been brought forward by the responsible Government of the day, after the late High Commissioner's return from South Africa, I for one would most gladly have voted for it. Nor do I believe that there is any noble Lord, to whatever Party he may belong, or to whatever section of any Party he may belong, who would have refused that recognition to a distinguished servant of the State who, at a time of great public danger, had carried out to the best of his ability the policy of the Government of the day—a policy, moreover, which had the entire confidence of both Houses of Parliament. Surely, if we quarrel with that policy, if we arraign the wisdom of the war, the conduct of the war, or its settlement, we must admit that it was the Government of the day who were responsible for Lord Milner's administration. It was the Government of the day alone who, if we disagreed with this policy, we were bound to attack. But the Government whose policy Lord Milner carried out has passed away. The Colonial Secretary who was responsible for Lord Milner's appointment and administration is no longer in power. The whole of that subject is matter of history, and we should leave it to history to a ward either its praise or its blame to the actors in that momentous period of our times.

  1445
  If the noble Viscount's Resolution could have been dissociated from its inevitable but accidental consequences, I for my part would have certainly voted for it; but at the same time I venture to think, with all submission, that such a Resolution is not a great compliment to Lord Milner himself at this time of day. The noble Earl opposite, Earl Cawdor, thought it was absolutely necessary that a record of Lord Milner's services should be placed on the Journals of Parliament. I venture to think that that was a reflecttion upon the Government which the noble Earl himself adorned, because, if it is absolutely necessary that a record of Lord Milner's services should be placed on the Journals of Parliament, surely it was for the Government who were responsible for his appointment and for his administration to recognise his services in that direction. I think, moreover, that Lord Milner requires no whitewashing even from the most ardent of his friends. I venture also to think that a belated vote of confidence is almost as bad— I will not say quite as bad—as a belated vote of censure.
  My noble friend opposite, Lord Halifax, who I am certain brought forward this Resolution from the highest motives, and without an atom of Party feeling, forgot that it was impossible to discuss these matters, as has been proved by the speeches to which we have listened to-night, without exciting in the Press and on the platform throughout the country, and, what I venture to think is worse still, in the Press and on the platform throughout the two Colonies concerned, those bitter controversies which are associated so lamentably with the late war. And, my Lords, at what a moment are these controversies about to be raised? At the very moment when my noble friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in a position of unexampled difficulty and delicacy, is endeavouring to institute free Government in the Transvaal and in the Orange River Colony, to which we were all pledged by the Treaty of peace made after the war. If ever there was a time when we ought to hush these controversies it is surely at such a moment as this.
  1446
  May I venture to put the position, as I see it, before your Lordships? Whatever my opinions might be as to the policy which led up to the war, I would do everything in my power, in view of the immediate situation in the Transvaal and Orange River Colony, to prevent a discussion of these matters at the present moment. But I have not risen, as I said, to make a Party speech; I rose chiefly to make a humble suggestion to His Majesty's Government, and it is this, that they should consent, either to insert some words in their Resolution as a preamble, or that—and this is a course which I, for my part, would infinitely prefer—they should substitute for the Resolution they have submitted to the House, a Resolution in these words—
  "That this House, taking into consideration that the high services of Lord Milner have already been recognised on the proper occasion, refrains from entering, at the present juncture of South African affairs, on a debate provoca tive of Party strife in the two Colonies concerned."
  If His Majesty's Government would accept such a Resolution, or even if they would put before their Resolution some such words as—
  "Taking into consideration the high services of Lord Milner, which have been already fully recognised on a fitting occasion."
  SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: On what occasion?
  LORD BURGHCLERE: I venture to think that such a Resolution would be more acceptable to some of their supporters than the Resolution which the noble Earl has moved to-night. If His Majesty's Government could accept such a Resolution as that, and if my noble friend opposite could also accept it, we should then avoid a division in your Lordships' House, which I am confident no one wishes to see except the extremest of extreme partisans. The issue, I venture to say, is not Lord Milner's reputation. It is an issue that he himself would, I am confident, put far beyond any personal feeling of his own. It is the issue of a good settlement and the peace of South Africa; and that end, I venture to think, will not be attained by uselessly reviving bitter controversies

  1447
  in the two Colonies at the very moment when peace and goodwill are most necessary and desired. But whether I agree with the exact terms of the Motion moved on behalf of His Majesty's Government, whether I approve even of the course which His Majesty's Government are about to adopt, I say at once that I will not, by voice or vote, do anything to embarrass my noble friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies in his work—his all-important work, fraught with difficulties as great as any Minister has yet had to encounter—in his effort to bring about the pacification and the prosperity, not only of the two Colonies, but, perhaps, of the Empire itself. It is for that reason that, if the House goes to a division, which I for one should deeply regret, I shall follow the Secretary of State for the Colonies into the Lobby.
  VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, I was almost tempted to regret, while I was listening to the speech of the noble Lord who has just sat down, that he had left the House of Commons and entered this House, because I should have liked his speech which he has just addressed to us to have been delivered in the House of Commons on a recent occasion.
  LORD BURGHCLERE: I can assure my noble friend that it would have been delivered if I had been there.
  VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: I should have liked also to see some Member of the Radical Party, or some Member of the Government in the other House, use the same kind of language, or something approaching to the language used by the Colonial Secretary to-night. But how was it that no Member of the Government in the lower House adopted this attitude? Why did not the Prime Minister, with his authority over his great majority, appeal to them and put before them the consequences of the Resolution moved by Mr. Byles? Is the Government so devoid of authority in the House of Commons that they are unable to produce such an effect as the noble Lord the Colonial Secretary wishes to produce upon us? Would it not have had weight with the Party there if they had been told that
  1448
  the debate would arouse these passions in South Africa? The argument of the noble Earl strikes me almost as if a man who had struck another a blow were to say "Peace, peace; if you strike me back it will embitter our relations."
  A blow has been struck at Lord Milner in the eyes of this country, and I believe to the indignation of the country. Still more serious, it has been struck in the eyes of those amid whom Lord Milner stands as the great representative of British influence and predominance in South Africa. The noble Lord asked whether, if Lord Milner himself had been in the House, he would not have listened to his appeal and would have said that the Resolution should be withdrawn. I know the mind of Lord Milner well enough to believe that a question of personal appreciation, of putting upon the records of this House an expression of gratitude to him, would influence him but little if he thought for a moment that a Motion put forward for that object would produce ill effects in South Africa, and that not for a moment would he have encouraged or listened to any one who wished to put down such a Motion on his behalf.
  Lord Milner requires no eulogist. It is not for the purposes of eulogy that my noble friend has put down the Motion, and no one listening to his speech could believe that it was merely intended to do justice to Lord Milner and to express an opinion of his services. Why is the Motion desirable? It is on account of the effect which has already been produced in South Africa by the proceedings which have taken place in the House of Commons. It is with reference to that alone, though I for my part think there is much to be said on other grounds—for instance, the blow struck at the civil service and at those who undertake responsibilities. But for my part the predominant idea is the effect it will have in South Africa—the effect on the loyalists, on the men who have stood by us, and who will still stand by us providing that this country stands by them.
  I will not say more about the services of Lord Milner. That is not the point. We know how he stood at the helm during the dangerous times; and if

  1449
  there had been a weak man at the helm, I ask your Lordships where would now be the position of South Africa? What would have been the position to-day in South Africa if there had not been a man prepared to take upon himself responsibility, a man whom difficulties could not conquer, whom disasters could not cow, and whom obloquy could never move? Strong men, men who can stand obloquy, men who can face difficulties, are wanted in these days; and, therefore, I do not think that we can accept what was put forward in the other House, that Lord Milner will cease to have any influence upon the policy of the country. It was said that he will not be able to deflect for one moment the policy of the day. I am not sure that Lord Milner has not already deflected to a considerable extent the policy of His Majesty's Government. I ask, too, whether the speeches he has made look like the speeches of a played out man, an extinct volcano. I think it will be found that Lord Milner will be able to take his part well enough in the future destinies of this country.
  It is not for the sake of Lord Milner that it is wise that your Lordships should pass this Motion. I want it to be a message of encouragement to the loyalists of South Africa. The "racial feeling and animosities" to which the Under-Secretary referred have already been produced by the proceedings in another place. The Government have allowed the "central figure" in South Africa to be struck at by the Resolution on the journals of the House of Commons. When that has been done, are we to be told we ought not to take any notice in this House of such a proceeding? This Motion is the sequel, the unhappy sequel, of the feelings which have been aroused in South Africa. No one can read the letters which come from South Africa, or the notices which appear in the Press of South Africa on both sides, without seeing that the whole situation has been profoundly modified, and that a feeling of intense indignation has been raised on the part of the loyalists of South Africa.
  Lord Milner is a personage not merely to the Transvaal, but his influence extends, of course, to the Cape and Orange River. The Cape itself is not in such
  1450
  a satisfactory position that any blow struck at the man who was the chief representative of British supremacy will not react on the feelings of the loyalists. There is a feeling that much that Lord Milner has done is to be reversed. Of course that has caused profound consternation among the British party in South Africa. The Government may reverse much of what Lord Milner has done, but is that not a reason why the loyalists should have a message from the House of Lords that the primary points of Lord Milner's policy will not be reversed, but will be fought to the last in the country—the policy which Lord Elgin did not wish to discuss to-night?
  Was the noble Lord aware that his own subordinate in the House of Commons, Mr. Winston Churchill, has said that Lord Milner's policy was "utterly discredited." Discredited by whom? It is not discredited in this House; therefore, we were anxious to put a Motion on the Order Paper to show that it is not discredited by your Lordships. It is not discredited in South Africa, at the Cape, and the policy still holds the field with every loyalist in South Africa. They are afraid that they may lose by the policy of His Majesty's Government, that they may lose in the ballot box that which they won on the field. Look at the language which is being held now by the Boer leaders.
  I do not know whether any of your Lordships have read the speech of Mr. Smuts in which he shadows forth the kind of policy which will be followed. I ask, have the loyalists in the Orange River Colony and the Cape, too, not reason to be frightened? With many of the Boers still smarting from the defeat of the war, are they not rightly anxious lest a Boer general still smarting from defeat may be installed Governor of a community in which the British are a minority? Do you not see if you have executive government entirely in the hands of the Boers what havoc they may be able to make of all the institutions which have been carefully fostered under the ré gime of Lord Milner? It is for the sake of our fellow-countrymen, and because of the

  1451
  blow struck at Lord Milner, that I put these matters before your Lordships.
  Rightly or wrongly, the loyalists believe that British supremacy is threatened now in South Africa. That feeling is increased by the belief that a blow has been struck at the man who represents the policy of British supremacy, and they further believe, rightly or wrongly, that the Government have abandoned the man, have not stood up for the man, and are unwilling to-night to stand up for the man who represents to them that supremacy. In that abandonment I trust your Lordships' House will have no part nor lot. Your Lordships can show that the country, whom you believe you represent in this matter, is equally strongly opposed to that abandonment, and I trust that your Lordships, by a decisive majority, will send words of encouragement to those loyalists in South Africa who have stood by you, and who are deeply concerned in the proceedings of your Lordships' House to-night.
  EARL ROBERTS: My Lords, I most thoroughly agree with all that the noble Viscount who initiated this debate has said as to the desirability of the Members of this House recording their high appreciation of the services rendered by Lord Milner in South Africa to the Crown and to the Empire. I know better, perhaps, than any one else how valuable those services were, and how much the success of the war was due to Lord Milner's wise counsel and able assistance; and I confess I am filled with amazement, not to say indignation, that a body of British gentlemen should have agreed together to pass a vote of censure on the noble Lord for an error of judgment, committed quite at the close of his eventful term of office, and after he had served his country with such conspicuous devotion and such signal success during eight most anxious years. That such a thing should be possible makes me doubt whether any of the 355 Members of the House of Commons who voted in favour of the Government Amendment to Mr. Byles's Motion—practically the same thing as if they had voted for the original Motion so far as Lord Milner is concerned— such a thing, I say, makes me doubt
  1452
  whether any of them could ever have been in a position of national responsibility. For if they had, I cannot believe that thre would have been a party to such an ungenerous action.
  It was said, if I remember rightly, by one of the hon. Gentlemen who joined in the debate, that it was necessary to censure Lord Milner because the national honour was at stake. If that hon. Gentleman had been in South Africa as I was in 1900, he would have seen how nobly, how patriotically, Lord Milner toiled to preserve the national honour, and he would have understood how impossible it would be for such a man to do anything unworthy of his country. Few people who watched the course of events from a distance have, I think ever realised the burden of anxiety which was borne by Lord Milner in South Africa. For many months he had foreseen that the Boer Republics were not arming themselves for nothing, and that the war, which was the inevitable result of our disasters and the mistaken peace in 1881, was bound to come in his time. To this anxiety was added the knowledge that the great majority of the people in this country did not recognise the severity of the struggle that was before them. When that struggle began it was upon the High Commissioner that the burden fell most heavily, and no one saw more clearly than he did what danger threatened the whole of our South African possessions, or worked more strenuously to ensure their safety.
  Lord Milner had a task which would have weighed down most men. Not only had he enemies in the field to deal with, but—what was infinitely more trying— he had disloyalty amongst his councillors to contend against. The truth of this statement cannot be gainsaid, for facts came to my knowledge at Bloemfontein which proved beyond a doubt that this was the case. Lord Milner was in a position which required an unusual amount of tact, firmness, and discretion to bring matters to a successful conclusion. I was greatly struck throughout the time I was in South Africa by Lord Milner's unusual possession of those qualities and the quiet resolution with which he grappled with the numerous difficulties with which he was surrounded.

  1453
  As I have said, these difficulties would have weighed down most men. All this is apparently forgotten, and now Lord Milner is held up to his fellow-countrymen as a person deserving to be severely censured by His Majesty's Government for an error of judgment. Is an error of judgment to be weighed in the balance against the magnificent services rendered by Lord Milner? Such a censure as was passed last week in another place is a poor and a most un-English return for such services. I venture to assert, and this assertion I make in no Party spirit, that the great majority of our fellow-countrymen in no way endorse a censure which is as severe as it is unmerited.
  There is another aspect of this affair about which I must say a few words, and that is the South African aspect. It is impossible to describe the feelings of consternation, indeed of positive alarm, which exists amongst the loyal people in that country at what has been happening lately here. They fear, as some of us fear, that the many valuable lives that have been sacrificed, and the many millions of money that have been spent, will have been sacrificed and spent in vain unless Great Britain wakes up to the fact that, as matters are now trending, the balance of power will be placed in the hands of men who, as I said in this House a few weeks ago, have never concealed their feeling of disloyalty, and their determination, on the first possible opportunity, to make themselves masters of the whole of South Africa.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: My Lords, I do not intend to detain your Lordships with more than one or two remarks, but I desire to give a reason or two why I shall feel bound to support what seems to me the very reasonable proposition of the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies, viz., the previous question. I hold that the Motion of the noble Viscount, besides being in my judgment ill-advised, is very inopportune. I think it may be taken for granted that, whatever be our views as to the policy which underlies this proposal, we all recognise the great qualities of Lord Milner. Some of us recognised them before he became famous. It ought to be understood that we give him every credit as a high-minded
  1454
  public-spirited man with a very high sense of public duty.
  But if I may venture to bring back the House to the business brought before us by the noble Viscount to-night, it is that a very special eulogium should be bestowed on Lord Milner for his work in South Africa. We cannot get away from the fact that the Motion if passed will be interpreted and understood as a very special and exceptional eulogium on the policy which Lord Milner represented. It is not merely that his friends and people generally recognise his personal merits. It is as if a proposal were made as to whether a very special person deserved to be buried in Westminster Abbey. This Motion as a matter of fact picks out Lord Milner from the great band of highly-distinguished Members of this House and of equally distinguished men outside who have served the Empire in great positions. I, for one, am not prepared to give that very exceptional eulogium, because I feel that it must of necessity carry with it a declaration that we consider that his services have been successful. Whatever may be felt in this House, there are a great many persons outside and some of us inside who, with every admiration of Lord Milner on personal grounds, are bound to say that we consider that the policy which he adopted in South Africa has been an unfortunate policy, and, in fact, a failure. That I venture to think, whatever we may say here, is the verdict of the great mass of the English people, and whatever Resolutions we may pass in this House I do not suppose that anyone is under the hallucination that our votes will alter the verdict of the English people or of the world at large. That being my feeling, I deplore that the noble Viscount should have been moved to bring forward this very inopportune Resolution, which in fact challenges criticism of the policy which Lord Milner represented. You cannot interpret it in any other way than as a challenge to criticism of that policy.
  I am not going to follow some of the speakers who have preceded me in any detailed criticism, in the way either of praise or of blame; but Lord Milner himself has made one or two speeches in

  1455
  this House, and, as I read those speeches, they amount in effect to a confession that his policy has to no small extent failed. In the speech which he made some time ago he seemed to me, unless I misunderstood the speech, to represent the present state of South Africa as a very dangerous state, as being honeycombed with disloyalty. I do not know whether the noble Viscount who moved this Motion has that feeling, but he seemed to speak very emphatically of loyalty and disloyalty among our fellow subjects in South Africa. I wonder if that represents the feeling of Lord Milner and his friends about the result of the policy of the last eight or ten years in South Africa. All plain people will say that it amounts to a confession of failure. If so, is the moment opportune to put on the records of this House a very special eulogium of the man who represented that policy? We might indeed ask, is this the happy country which in 1900 or thereabouts we were promised to have in South Africa? If this kind of feeling about the prevalence of disloyalty in South Africa represents the fact, we are to suppose that the country is really honeycombed with dissatisfaction and disloyalty. Anyhow, we are asked to believe that our Dutch and African fellow subjects are moved by a spirit of disloyalty. Now, my Lords, I beg to dispute that. But if it is so, what a damnosa hereditas has been left to his Majesty's Government. Is that a reason for placing a special eulogium on the records of this House? No, my Lords. But we hope and believe that it is not really a new Ireland that has been established in South Africa.
  I think it is important that we should distinguish a great deal more than we sometimes do before we use these terms of loyalty and disloyalty. No doubt there must be a great deal of bitterness in South Africa. Any child could tell you that if you sow such a crop of dragons' teeth as has been sown in South Africa, you must expect a crop after its kind. It is impossible that after such a war as the Boer War there should not be much bitterness in the country. Desolated households, and all the graves, and all the misery, to say nothing of
  1456
  the National Scouts and the rest— what can they produce but bitterness? And that is the result of your policy. But let us distinguish in regard to this bitterness. These men, as I understand it—and I have some information—are bitter, but it is against the authors of the policy that they are bitter and not against the English people or His Majesty's Government or the Crown, and all this bitterness involves no disloyalty to the Empire and the Crown. My belief is that many of these Dutchmen who are being branded as disloyal are as loyal as any Members of this House, and it is in that belief that I hold to the hope that His Majesty's Government, if allowed a fair field in a policy of conciliation and goodwill, will, in no long period, turn this so-called Ireland in South Africa into? new Canada—a Canada as prosperous, as happy, and as loyal as the Canada of to-day. Personally I have a good hope that I shall live to see that happy consummation.
  In conclusion I would say only this: To all those who rise above the atmosphere of Party prejudice and consider the matter in an impartial way, and who really desire patriotically to serve the present needs and interests of the Empire, the Motion that we should pass "the previous question" should appeal, because to-day, as hitherto, the great need of South Africa is peace. It is seven or eight years ago that a famous soldier was reported to have said in memorable words that what the country needed—and he knew South Africa— was peace and not a surgical operation. My Lords, South Africa has had its surgical operation, and its need of peace to-day is greater than ever. I sincerely hope, though against hope, that all those who desire to have a personal share in bringing about that happy consummation which we describe as turning distracted South Africa into a new Canada will take their part in this good work of conciliation by voting for the previous question to-night, because they may be well assured that if they send that decision under present circumstances to South Africa it will be a message of peace.
  LORD HARRIS: I did not intend to address your Lordships to-night,

  1457
  but I really cannot allow the speech which the right rev. Prelate has just addressed to your Lordships to pass without some comment. I can hardly believe that it is a speech made by one who claims to have a pride in our Empire, in our system of justice to the people whom we govern, and in our system of sympathetic administration of the native races who are under our control. The right rev. Prelate deems it inadvisable that there should be placed upon the records of Parliament an appreciation of Lord Milner's services. I assume that the right rev. Prelate would like to be left upon the records of Parliament the Resolution passed in the other House—a Resolution amended, it is true, from what was moved by the private Member, but which bears upon the face of it the opinion of the Government that they are not prepared to express any appreciation of the services of Lord Milner. Then the right rev. Prelate says that he thinks the Motion is inopportune—inopportune that a Resolution such as that proposed by the noble Viscount should be placed upon the records of Parliament. Inopportune? Does the right rev. Prelate claim to speak for South Africa? Does he claim to represent the opinions of the loyalists of South Africa, or of whom? Does he ignore what Lord Milner did there? Does he not recognise what Lord Milner had to do—that apart from any question of such duties as he had to discharge in connection with the war, he had to create a just Government—a Government that should administer justice between Boer and British alike; that he should do more than that—that he should lay down and encourage those feelings of sympathy without which South Africa indeed is likely to be seriously distraught? I venture to say that there is no man who is serving in South Africa or who has served there for many years past who has done more to instil into the minds and the comprehension of the Boers the necessity for justice and sympathy to the native races, or who has done more to bring into harmony the somewhat conflicting views of British and Boer, than has Lord Milner himself. It is upon these grounds that I consider the noble Viscount was
  1458
  perfectly justified, having regard to what took place in another place, in endeavouring to persuade your Lordships to express your opinion upon what Lord Milner has done.
  I must confess that I am surprised that my noble friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies has not been able to influence his colleagues on this point. The noble Earl has filled the most responsible post in the officialdom of the British Empire. Upon what grounds do the Government refuse this meed of gratitude to a man who perhaps has passed through a more serious and anxious time than anyone in the list of our greatest Pro-Consuls since the days of Lord Canning? By what are they actuated? Is it that they are unable to recognise the great services that Lord Milner has performed? That I cannot believe. Judging from the speeches that were made three or four weeks ago, and from what was said in another place the other day, I think I am justified in believing that the ground-work of their refusal to recognise Lord Milner's great services is the one slip which he made towards the end of his administration. I want to ask the noble Earl this Question. Can he say that Lord Milner did not do justice? He may have acted illegally; he has accepted the responsibility in the most honourable and courageous way. Can the noble Earl say that he did injustice? That, after all, is the thing which should guide us most. The noble Earl knows as well as I do that Viceroys and Governors in India have to do things which are not regulated by law, and what they have to consider very anxiously and with great study is: Am I doing justice in this matter? The noble Earl, in his experience in India, must oftentimes have been anxious on questions of this kind, and on every occasion when he has risen from his task I am perfectly certain that he has been able to say conscientiously, "If I have acted without lawful right, it is only after the most careful study of the question; but I believe I have done justice." Can he not now feel with regard to Lord Milner that if he did make one false step at the end of a most trying time, at any rate he did not do an injustice? I believe that Lord Milner's

  1459
  career in South Africa, apart altogether from the fact of his consolidating our rule there, is distinguished and will be marked in the pages of history by this which the right rev. Prelate is unable to recognise—that during those latter years at the end of the war, when he was forming a Government, he did by his personal influence, by his sense of justice, and by his anxiety to strengthen South Africa commercially, very successfully ameliorate the feelings which had been aroused between Boer and British by the war, and that he did very largely succeed in bringing the two races together. It is upon this ground more than upon any other that I shall with the greatest cordiality support the Motion of the noble Viscount.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, I cannot help remarking a peculiarity which has characterised this debate. Setting aside all technical phrases, this is a debate intended by those who promoted it to be a testimonial to Lord Milner's reputation, and I feel very great doubt as to what is the sort of feeling which prevails on the other side of the House with reference to the mode in which the Motion ought to be met. Beyond the small technicality—I am afraid I must so describe it—that there is no precedent for moving a vote of confidence or a testimonial for high services until the "incident"—whatever that may mean—is concluded, I have noticed a very remarkable state of things. Whereas it is supposed that something that Lord Milner has done—what it was we will see presently— has deprived him of the confidence of his fellow-countrymen and ought to prevent either this or the other House of Parliament from testifying their gratitude for the services which it is not denied he has rendered to the State, nobody has discussed what that "something" is. There has been a remarkable abstinence from discussing the thing itself in order to see the extent, degree, and nature of the act which it is supposed has deprived Lord Milner of the just reward of some of the great services he has rendered. It is a remarkable condition of things. Might I, as a retort, ask what precedent there is for censuring a man, unless he has been guilty of a grave
  1460
  dereliction of public duty, when he has undoubtedly, and by the confession of some of those who bring the accusation against him, rendered great services to the country and been one of the most remarkable Pro-Consuls the Empire has ever had? What is this thing which has prevented the just appreciation of Lord Milner's services by the public recognition of the State? Nobody has discussed it, and the reticence of noble Lords opposite on the subject is very remarkable.
  I notice also a somewhat remarkable reluctance on the other side of the House to express their views. We have had an abundance of speakers ready and willing to bear their testimony to the reputation and the great services rendered to the State by Lord Milner, but on the other side there has been the greatest reticence on the subject. The Secretary of State for the Colonies, as everyone who knows him would expect, has, like a frank and honourable gentleman, recognised those services in a manner we all appreciate. But what then? Why are we not to thank Lord Milner for those services? The right rev. Prelate has given the reason that we ought not to make such a tribute too common, that if it were made too common it might occasionally be abused. I recognise the value, greater or less, of that observation. But consider what, in fact, has happened. We are not arguing on the artificial hypothesis of people getting up a testimoniel or what not apropos of nothing. As the most rev. Primate truly said, the situation is absolutely changed by what was done in another place. That is what has rendered it necessary and proper for us to bring forward our view. We could not be prevented by small observation of precedents, or their absence, from doing justice to a great man who has been grievously injured by calumny as well as by other modes of attack during his period of office. I am bound to say that I am very much surprised—I will not say disappointed—by the speech of the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Hereford. The right rev. Prelate, I remember, expressed his great regret in a speech in June, 1904, that Lord Milner was not then present. He gave two reasons.

  1461
  One reason was that if Lord Milner were here he could not do so much mischief as he was then doing in South Africa. That is a matter of opinion, and the right rev. Prelate is entitled to his view. But he went on to say that the other reason he wished Lord Milner was here was that he did not like attacking a public man in his absence. A noble sentiment! Whether the right rev. Prelate adhered to it is another matter. But he said that if Lord Milner had been here he would have spoken out his mind. Here was the opportunity to-night. Lord Milner's character and conduct are in debate, and Lord Milner is here in this country and is able to answer for himself.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: The noble Earl will excuse me, but I never attacked Lord Milner's character.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I think that one of the things that the right rev. Prelate attributed to Lord Milner was impetuosity and inconsiderateness of language.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: Some of his language certainly.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I think the right rev. Prelate has forgotten what he said. I have the report here. I notice in particular that he has made himself a party to one of the common cries against Lord Milner and his policy— namely, that he was doing the will of the gold speculators. The great question, he said, was whether or not human lives or gold would be the more valuable, and I am afraid that the right rev. Prelate suggested that in Lord Milner's view gold was the more valuable article of the two. The right rev. Prelate said in this House on March 21, 1904—
  "Before we examine the Ordinance, may I take the liberty, as a good many of your Lordships seem to support that view, of pausing for a moment to look at Lord Milner's own language? I do it with reluctance because Lord Milner is not here, and I do not much like speaking even of a public man in his position in his absence. I very much wish he were here, and for two reasons. In the first place, I could have spoken my mind more freely in his presence; and in the second place, he would be comparatively harmless on these benches. He would be out of South Africa. I am only expressing the sentiments of a vast numher of thoughtful Englishmen when I say that it
  1462
  would be a great boon to South Africa if Lord Milner was no longer there."
  May I ask the right rev. Prelate why he has not spoken out to-night? He had the opportunity, it was relevant to the subject; why, then, has he not spoken out? I do not pause for a reply, but I have my own views.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: Perhaps the noble Earl will furnish us with those views.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I will quote the right rev. Prelate again. He said—
  "This (the South African Ordinance) is prepared on the principle that the value of the lives of these men is less than that of a better dividend for some of the low grade mines. That is the way in which it presents itself to a plain mind looking at the moral aspect of the question."
  Is that or is that not an insinuation against Lord Milner?
  THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: That was a description of the Ordinance.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: Certainly, as part of Lord Milner's policy, and as applicable to Lord Milner's conduct. Then again—
  "The mine-owners and the dividends are the things to be considered."
  THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: If the noble Earl quotes me he should in justice read the context.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: Does the right rev. Prelate mean, or does he not mean, that Lord Milner in the course of his policy was actuated by the influence of the mineowners? I ask for a reply.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: I mean exactly what my speech said, and I am prepared to repudiate any unjustifiable inferences which the noble and learned Earl may draw from it.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: That depends on what the right rev. Prelate says is an unjustifiable inference. I admit that the question of Lord Milner's fitness or otherwise for his office may be a matter of personal feeling, as to

  1463
  which the right rev. Prelate may have his opinion; he may think Lord Milner was perfectly unfit for his office, and, indeed, he says so, but I have not referred to that question at all. That is a matter on which we also have our opinion, and I am content to leave it to your Lordships. But what I want to ask the right rev. Prelate is what he meant when he spoke of greater dividends being of more value than men's lives and of the influence of the people who owned the mines, and associated these things with Lord Milner's government, if he did not mean the insinuation that Lord Milner was influenced by persons who were interested in the mines, and not by the interests of his country? I am indisposed to treat this personal question any longer, but I cannot forbear saying that after that speech, and after the expression of the desire that Lord Milner should be here to answer what he said, we have had to-night from the right rev. Prelate a speech as mild as any sucking dove, declaring that it is a question of the degree to which Lord Milner's policy should be approved.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: The noble Earl forgets how changed are the circumstances now. Lord Milner no longer holds his former position, and his policy is a thing of the past.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: Certain words have reached me, but how they are a reply to what I have said I am wholly unable to understand.
  With regard to the general question, it appears to me that one of the most serious things that can be done in this country is to discredit a great public servant after his great public services in the way it has been sought to do it in this case. The method by which the attempt was met seems to me to make the matter worse. Nothing could have been easier than for the Government to say "We resist this Motion. This incident—(I use the noble Earl's word)—is closed." Here is a man who has rendered great public services; he has done what we all admit to have been greatly for the benefit of the State. ["No."] Yes—in various parts of the world. I am not speaking of this particular incident at all; I am speaking
  1464
  of the man who has been a great public servant, and, by the admission of all, has rendered services of great benefit in various parts of the world. You say that in one particular instance he has been guilty of an irregularity. Whether he has or has not is one of the grotesque parts of the story that we are discussing. Nobody knows whether he did or did not commit the irregularity. It is said that Mr. Evans had a conversation with Lord Milner, in the course of which he suggested that he should give some slight corporal punishment in order to avoid bringing before the courts of justice cases of a trifling character. Lord Milner, with a chivalry peculiar, I think, to himself, says—and no one will doubt his word— that he does not remember any such conversation — it is not unimportant to notice this point, because it shows the trifling nature of the matter—but, knowing that the gentleman was a gentleman of high honour and greatly to be respected he says the conversation must have taken place, and he takes full responsibility for it. That is the whole story, and out of that has grown this tremendous indictment of Lord Milner.
  We cannot help feeling that there is an air of unreality about the whole business. That is not the real reason why the Govment refuse to recognise Lord Milner's merits. Indeed, I think the observations of the right rev. Prelate to which I have referred took place before that incident could have occurred. The real accusation—and why should we not deal with it?—is that Lord Milner is supposed to have made himself the mere instrument and tool of the persons engaged in the gold-mining industry. That is the accusation against him, but no one has dared to bring forward one atom of evidence in support of such a suggestion. The Party opposite have tried as far as they can to discredit a great and noble and most useful public servant, and we, at all events, will do as much as we can to prevent the effect of that being in South Africa what it certainly will be if it is not in some way or another counteracted.
  And what is the answer of the Government? "We would rather not vote upon it at all." That is not the conduct of a Government, I should have thought.

  1465
  If Lord Milner is guilty of the charges which have been suggested against him, impeach him; if he is not guilty, recognise his public services. But this half-hearted method of evading responsibility, of saying they will not condemn him and they will not agree with us in putting him where he ought to have been before without this— well, one does not like to use strong language, and I will not follow the episcopal example, but one does feel very angry that when a man has been devoting the best years of his life, through periods of strain and difficulty and danger which it is easy enough for us to speak lightly of here, but which nobody can appreciate who has not been through them themselves, he should then be treated as Lord Milner has been. Therefore it is that I am delighted, so far as I am concerned, and to the extent to which any words of mine can carry weight, to have an opportunity of expressing my admiration and respect for the noble and distinguished man whom the House of Commons has sought to degrade.
  LORD GRIMTHORPE: My Lords, I think that in listening to the speeches which have been delivered in support of this Motion it must have occurred to many of your Lordships that those speeches would perhaps have been better delivered in another place and on another occasion. They were speeches which might more appropriately have been addressed to the House of Commons in answer to the vote of censure moved by an independent Member of that House upon Lord Milner. The speeches from the other side have seemed to be directed towards an imaginary Motion. They sound as if the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies had himself moved a vote of censure upon Lord Milner, and that noble Lords opposite were concerned to answer that vote of censure. But nothing of the kind has taken place. I quite agree that the vote of censure in the House of Commons by an irresponsible Member of that House was an unfortunate Motion; I think it would have been better met in the other House by moving the "previous question" as the present Motion is now being met here, and I also think it
  1466
  would have been better answered by the representative of the Government if it had been answered in the same spirit and in the same language as has been employed by the Secretary of State for the Colonies to-night. Nobody can for a moment contend—I do not think that any noble Lord opposite has contended —that the Secretary of State for the Colonies has done any injustice to Lord Milner in anything he has said; I am sure there was not one word in his speech to justify the contention of the late Lord Chancellor that he wished to discredit a distinguished public servant.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I never suggested it of the noble Earl; I do not think he will suggest it himself.
  LORD GRIMTHORPE: I am quite sure he will not; he never dreamt of suggesting such a thing. But the late Lord Chancellor attacked the Government because in his opinion it was their desire to discredit a distinguished public servant. If he thinks it was not their desire to discredit a distinguished public servant, then this Motion is to a great extent answered. We are delighted to have that tribute from the late Lord Chancellor that the Government has no wish to discredit a distinguished public servant; it is a valuable admission on his part.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: The noble Lord is inverting what I said. I said that their desire was to evade responsibility.
  LORD GRIMTHORPE: I took down these words—" to discredit a distinguished public servant." I think the Colonial Secretary took up a sound position when he deprecated the course now being taken by this House. He said that it was an unprecedented course. But the late Lord Chancellor threw ridicule upon that, and suggested that whether the Motion was according to precedent or not was a small technicality. It is somewhat remarkable to hear from a Tory Lord Chancellor that when the House of Lords disregards precedent it is a small technicality; it shows that on his part he is consumed by a desire

  1467
  to protect Lord Milner from the slightest breath of public disapproval, and in comparison with that anything else is a comparatively trifling matter.
  But what is the position that this House is really taking up? Behind the Motion on the Paper there is another Motion. It is not only a Motion of confidence in Lord Milner, it is a Motion of censure upon the House of Commons. That is the real wish and intention of those who have moved and supported this Motion on the other side—to pass a vote of censure upon the House of Commons, because an irresponsible Member of that House wished to pass a vote of censure upon Lord Milner. I cannot think that that is a sound constitutional position for the House of Lords to take up. It is true that that hon. Member took a totally unusual course, and perhaps it was not met by the Government in the happiest possible way; but the fact that an unusual course was taken in another place is no reason at all why this House also should take an unusual course and follow suit. That is certainly what they have done by bringing in this Motion to-night. Have noble Lords really considered the language of the Motion moved by Mr. Byles in the House of Commons? That Motion was devoted to the censure of a particular act on the part of Lord Milner. Is it your wish to uphold that particular act? Personally speaking, it seems to me that this question of flogging has been dealt with with a considerable amount of unnecessary unction. It has been argued as if flogging was a thing unknown in this country, which is rather remarkable when we remember that up to a comparatively recent period flogging was permitted in the Army and in the Navy. Moreover, if noble Lords have been to China or know anything about the Chinese they will understand that the Chinese regard flogging with much the same levity and indifference as Members of your Lordships' House used to regard flogging when they were undergoing a course of instruction at Eton. Therefore, it seems to me that when a bitter and envenomed opponent of Lord Milner casts his eye over his career as Pro-Consul in South Africa, and singles out the flogging of a Chinaman as the one act
  1468
  to which he can take exception throughout that career, he is really posing as an extreme admirer and eulogist of Lord Milner, and he can hardly pay a higher tribute to his administration.
  Consequently, I say it is absurd to make so much of the Resolution which was moved in the House of Commons. It is absurd that because a Gentleman in the House of Commons proposed a Motion of that kind, this House should neglect all precedent and take this matter as seriously as it has done, and go out of its way to pass a Resolution commending the services of Lord Milner as a public servant. The Colonial Secretary said that Lord Milner perhaps would wish that this debate should not take place. In some respects no doubt he would, but I think that any man would be proud to receive such a tribute as Lord Milner has received from Viscount Goschen and Earl Roberts —a tribute which everybody will agree was thoroughly deserved. But this tribute having been paid to Lord Milner in the most emphatic way by his friends and admirers, I think the House would much better consult its dignity to leave the matter there.
  If, however, you are not content to leave it there, we must ask what it is you wish to express your high appreciation of in the character and career of Lord Milner. The late Lord Chancellor said that Lord Milner's character and conduct were in question. I do not think that his character and conduct are in question at all in this Motion. The words are—
  "That this House desires to place on record its high appreciation of the services rendered by Lord Milner in South Africa to the Crown and the Empire."
  That means the political services rendered by Lord Milner to the Crown and the Empire. It can have no other meaning. Services rendered to the Crown and the Empire are political services. It is perfectly obvious from all the speeches which have been delivered in support of Lord Milner that it is not his character and conduct that are in question. Every noble Lord opposite knows perfectly well that no noble Lord on this side wishes to question Lord Milner's character or conduct for one moment. It is his political services to the Crown and Empire that

  1469
  noble Lords opposite wish to endorse, uphold, and commend. [Several noble LORDS: Hear, hear.] Exactly; but how can you expect noble Lords on this side to join in voting for a Motion commending the political services of Lord Milner—services which he rendered in his capacity as a servant of the late Government, under the instructions of the late Colonial Secretary? It is a political Motion. Noble Lords opposite do not wish to rehabilitate the character of Lord Milner as a man; they wish to pass a vote of confidence in the late Government and in the administration of the late Government in South Africa. That is what is at the bottom of the matter, and it shows that there is a double motive in this Motion. Noble Lords wish to pass a vote of censure on the House of Commons on the one hand, and, on the other, a vote of confidence in the late- Government for its policy in South Africa. [A noble LORD: Not at all.] That is the noble Lord's opinion; I am afraid I cannot agree with him. Then, my Lord, Lord Goschen said that until this Motion was passed the loyalists of South Africa would be discouraged and angered; but, it seems to me that this Motion will not make much difference in the feeling of the loyalists of South Africa. Will this Motion make them less loyal? It will certainly stir up the embers of political controversy. It is perfectly well known that noble Lords on the other side, with very good reason from their point of view, uphold Lord Milner, agree with his policy, would like to see that policy continued, and when they are in a position to carry it out, they would probably wish to see Lord Milner in the same position, carrying out the same policy. That is well known by the loyalists of South Africa, they do not require to be told so by a Motion in this House; therefore, I say, with all due deference, that no good purpose can really be served by a Motion of this kind, and, if I may be allowed to say so, I think the House of Lords would have more considered its dignity if it had treated the Motion proposed in the House of Commons with the contempt that noble Lords opposite say it?deserved rather than have gone out of its way to create a new precedent by passing a vote of appreciation of Lord Milner's services in South Africa.
  1470
  If you pass this Motion in the case of Lord Milner, where are you going to stop? I would like to ask noble Lords opposite this question. Suppose noble Lords on this side were to move a vote of appreciation of the services of Lord Curzon in India, basing that Motion particularly on his political services, and saying that they wished to pass that vote of appreciation of the services of Lord Curzon in India because he resisted the attempt to exalt the military at the expense of the civil side of the administration of India. Many noble Lords opposite, while greatly admiring Lord Curzon's conduct and character, would not feel themselves at liberty to vote for such a Motion. In the same way, noble Lords on this side, while appreciating Lord Milner's character and conduct to the same extent as noble Lords opposite would appreciate the character and conduct of Lord Curzon, do not feel themselves at liberty to support the Motion of the noble Viscount but would rather vote for the previous question.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDON-DERBY: My Lords, I confess that after hearing the speech of the noble Lord who has just sat down, I am utterly at a loss to understand what line he is going to take in the division shortly to be taken. He seems to have censured his friends and not supported his opponents. He apparently desires to maintain Lord Milner in the position which I venture to say he holds in the opinion of the world at large, and, at the same time, to censure him. When I saw on the Paper the Motion of my noble friend Viscount Halifax, I thought it would be an opportunity for Members of your Lordships' House, no matter how much they might differ on one or two subjects concerning the career of Lord Milner, to pass unanimously a vote of appreciation of the manner in which he discharged the responsible duties of High Commissioner in South Africa. When I saw the Amendment of the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies, I could not conceive why such an Amendment was necessary. I deprecate on various grounds the course the noble Ear] has taken. It would have been more graceful to a great

  1471
  official to have voted him in your Lordships' House this Motion of confidence which I think he deserves. I deprecate it still more because I am anxious to interrogate the noble Earl on matters connected with the Colonial Office, and he is now precluded from answering any questions which may be put.
  The attack—for I can call it nothing else—upon Lord Milner in the House of Commons by the representative of the noble Earl opposite must mean one of two things. Either the Under-Secretary spoke for himself only or he spoke for the noble Earl the Secretary of State. If he spoke for himself, then to my mind the Under-Secretary repudiated the words used by the noble Earl which have been quoted to-night —generous words as they have been called—to the effect that during a time of special anxiety Lord Milner showed a courage and devotion which this country will not forget. How were those words endorsed by the mouthpiece of the noble Earl opposite? To my mind, the words of the Under-Secretary conveyed to your Lordships' and to the country at large a totally different idea from that conveyed by the words of the noble Earl himself. It is a remarkable fact that in the course of the debate on the Amendment moved by the Under-Secretary not a single Cabinet Minister got up either to repudiate or to affirm the attack made on Lord Milner. Consequently I cannot help thinking that the noble Earl opposite to a certain extent has repudiated his own views as expressed in your Lordships' House. I believe I am correct in saying that that speech of the Under-Secretary was made under the instructions of the Prime Minister.
  What was the statement made by the Under-Secretary of State? The Under-Secretary has had considerable experience of South Africa; he has written books and made speeches on the subject; and I find some difficulty in reconciling his attack upon Lord Milner, if he spoke the mind of the noble Earl and of the Cabinet, with his statement made in 1901 that—
  "During the past eighteen months there had been calumny directed against Sir A. Milner. Every variety of falsehood, slander, and misrepresentation which the disturbed im-
  1472
  agination of rebels, traitors, and pro-Boers could invent had been directed against this able man. What had Sir A. Milner's work been? He said without limitation that on no-public servant for many years had the British Empire devolved a heavier or harder task than, on Sir A. Milner."
  How can the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies reconcile that statement with the impeachment—for it is nothing else—that he made on behalf of the Government of this able and efficient civil servant? Let us go back to the career of Lord Milner in South Africa. Your Lordships know full well that for the first two years of his career in South Africa Lord Milner devoted himself in silence to studying and diagnosing the condition of things in that country. He was not idle. If your Lordships will study the Blue-books you will find that he was constantly sending to the Colonial Office Reports on the condition of affairs in South Africa. It will also be remembered that after a period of hard work he came home for a short holiday, and during the period of his stay in this country there took place what is known as the Edgar incident. I need not recapitulate the details of the Edgar incident; it is sufficient to say that after that time the entire situation in South Africa was changed. Matters were, if I may use the expression, brought to a head. On his return to South Africa Lord Milner realised the change which had occurred in the political situation of the country, and in May he sent home the famous despatch in which he declared that it was urgently necessary that some change should take place in the arrangements of that country. Shortly after that there was held the Bloemfontein Conference of which Lord Milner sent home full details. It has been said that after that Lord Milner could have prevented war in South Africa. I agree—but how? It would have been possible for Lord Milner to have prevented war by surrendering every British right, by going back to the policy of 1881, which, in my opinion, was wholly responsible for the late war. If he had surrendered those rights, as no Englishman anxious to maintain the honour and prestige of his country would have done, we should have been in exactly the same position as in 1881. I say nothing in regard to

  1473
  the surrender of 1881; in all probability it is fully in the mind of your Lordships. Lord Milner would have been unworthy of the position he occupied if he had permitted the country to be placed in the ignominious position which it occupied in 1881. Undoubtedly, from that time Lord Milner had an exceedingly trying experience, such an experience as would have caused any man without ability, without nerve, and without tact, to lose his head. As Viscount Goschen has said, if a weak man had been in Lord Milner's position, the situation in South Africa at the present moment would not be what it is. That view is endorsed not only by myself as an admirer of Lord Milner, but by no less a person than the man who habitually attacks Lord Milner in the House of Commons, acting as the mouthpiece of the Colonial Secretary. What was the opinion of the Under-Secretary when he was—well, I will not say what he was at that time; I do not know what he is now. But what was the opinion of the present Under-Secretary when in South Africa, guaging the difficulties of the position, and realising that Lord Milner was the one man who never lost his head? This is recorded in Mr. Churchill's book, and relates to the year 1900—
  "Only at Government House did I find a man without illusions—"
  that is Lord Milner, the man he now denounces—
  "the cautious and unwearied Pro-Consul—",
  that is Lord Milner—
  "understanding the faults and virtues of both sides, measuring the balance of rights and wrongs, and determined—more determined than ever, for it is the only hope for the future of South Africa—to use his knowledge and his power to strengthen the Imperial ties."
  This, my Lords, is the man whom the noble Earl refuses to defend, and concerning whom, as far as I can gather, he endorses the remarks of his subordinate in the House of Commons. I am not one of those who defend the consistency of the Under-Secretary. I do not think that consistency can be found in a man who, after a very short experience of the House of Commons, changes from one side to the other. He may be right or he may be wrong, but he cannot be considered a consistent politician. What I
  1474
  want to ask is this. Do the Government or do they not endorse the statement of the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies? I do not accuse the Under-Secretary of inconsistency—it is so apparent; but there is one statement in his speech of March 21st which I should like to ask whether the Government endorse. Those are the words—
  "… the ideals, the principles, the policies for which he has toiled utterly discredited by the people of Great Britain.
  What were those ideals, and what was that policy? The policy was the restoration of the British flag and British peace in South Africa; the ideal a British South Africa. Is Lord Milner to be discredited because those are his ideals and his principles? I demand an answer from whoever may speak on behalf of the Government. Is Lord Milner, on account of holding these great, and, to my mind,, glorious ideals and principles, to be told that he is discredited by the English people? I venture to say that he is not discredited. Noble Lords opposite may say that he is discredited by the result of the recent general election. I deny it entirely. The last general election was not fought on Lord Milner's ideals and principles. It is quite possible that a certain section of the community, who cried loudest for the war, now that the war is over regret having to pay the cost, but the election has not discredited Lord Milner's attitude in South Africa. The election of 1900 was undoubtedly fought on the question of the South African War. There are a certain small minority, including the noble learned Lord on the Woolsack, who have always deprecated that war, but I do not think that even the noble and learned Lord will say that the people of England who denounced the war were not comparatively few.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN): They were very few then; they are a vast multitude now.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: With all respect, I venture to differ entirely. If the recent general election had been fought on the question of South Africa, pure and simple, I believe the same people would have come to the front as came to the front in 1900. The result of the recent election was due to misrepresentation regarding South

  1475
  Africa. I will not lower the tone of the debate by dealing with the cartoons and misrepresentations that were put forward; I will merely say that, but for those cartoons and misrepresentations, the truth in regard to which is slowly finding its way into the minds of the English people, noble Lords opposite would probably have been sitting on this side of the House and we on that. But I will not sink to that question; the misrepresentations will recoil on the heads of those who made them.
  Let me deal with the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards Lord Milner. In moving his Amendment, the Under-Secretary declared himself to be acting under the instructions of the Prime Minister. A more extraordinary Amendment was never introduced to the House of Commons by a responsible member of the Government. It was, if I may use the expression, a subterfuge. It would have been far more straightforward for the Government to have supported Mr. Byles' Motion than to have attacked a great public servant anonymously. What were the objects of the Amendment? It appeared to attack the whole political policy of a great public servant on one single point—the question of flogging. That policy was declared to be an exceptional policy, but I venture to say it is the policy of the country at the present time. The question of flogging was made the peg on which to hang an attack upon his whole policy. If there is one man in this country who would have objected to any brutal or cruel course it is Lord Milner. His character was well known in South Africa; he was regarded as one of the most humane and kind hearted men who ever entered the country; in fact, I believe I am correct in saying that his humanity, his dislike of cruelty of any sort to the native races, did not secure unanimous approval from some of the people in that country. But Lord Milner never flinched from the humane course he had always set before him. I was reading only the other day a speech delivered by Lord Milner shortly before he left that country in which he said—
  "With regard to the native question, or rather I should say the colour question, you know I am in the opinion of the vast majority of men in this room a heretic, and I am an impenitent heretic."
  1476
  Is it likely that such a man would be guilty of cruelty? All I can say is that when it is known in South Africa, by people who have followed Lord Milner's career and know his humanity, that the House of Commons has passed a Resolution denouncing him for inhumanity, the opinion of the House of Commons will be considered as nothing. Therefore, I hope your Lordships on this occasion will ratify the opinion of Lord Milner's humanity which is held in South Africa, by agreeing to this Resolution, if not unanimously, at any rate by an overwhelming majority. Is the censure justified or merited? I say it is not. In the recent debate in the House of Commons, Mr. Chamberlain said—
  "Lord Milner says, and no doubt everyone will believe his statement, that he has absolutely no recollection of this conversation, but he has no reason whatever to doubt Mr. Evans' integrity or his memory, and therefore he has taken it on himself to accept his statement as accurate."
  What is Lord Milner's position in this matter? No Member of your Lordships' House will deny the chivalry and loyalty of Lord Milner. He has occupied a groat place in public opinion. What have the groat leading officials to depend upon, but the support of their civil servants? I have myself the highest opinion of the Civil Service. I have been privileged to occupy the post of Viceroy of Ireland, and I have filled other positions in which a great number of people have looked to me for support, as they look to the head of every department for support, and they have never looked in vain. I have never spoken to Lord Milner since he returned to this country; I have had no communication with him direct or indirect. But is it entirely beyond the bounds of probability that Lord Milner has taken upon himself something for which he had no moral responsibility whatever? If that is the case, I say that to attack Lord Milner for one detail of his policy for which he was not morally responsible, and to condemn him as the House of Commons has done, is to act absolutely unwarrantably according to the notions of any Englishman.
  What do our civil servants depend upon? They depend upon the assurance that the chief is loyal to them and they are loyal to their chief, and I cannot help thinking that if you pass this vote

  1477
  of censure on a great civil servant you will be striking a blow at a Civil Service which is without equal in any part of the world, and attacking them in a manner to which they cannot respond. Under these circumstances I gladly endorse the Motion of my noble friend Viscount Halifax, because I think it does simple justice to a great public servant; I endorse it also because it will show the people of South Africa that we realise what Lord Milner has done for them; and I further endorse it on behalf of the Civil Service to which this country owes so much and without whose loyalty, devotion, and energy we should not enjoy our present position of happiness and prosperity.
  LORD COLERIDGE: My Lords, by bringing in this Motion the noble Viscount throws down the gauntlet to the Party to which he is opposed, and he asks us on these benches practically to approve of all that Lord Milner has said and done in South Africa. If the Motion were to the effect that this House recognised that Lord Milner had scorned delights and lived laborious days in the service of his country, or if it emphasised the opinion that Lord Milner throughout was actuated by patriotic motives, I do not suppose there is a single Member of this House on either side who would withhold assent from such a Resolution. Or if it went on to asseverate that Lord Milner was a humane man, as the noble Marquess suggests, who in the world would be found to assert the contrary? But the seconder of the Motion and the noble Earl who was lately at the head of the Admiralty have told us perfectly plainly what the object of this Motion is. It is no doubt partly to pass a vote of confidence in the integrity, the labour, the energy, and the patriotism of Lord Milner. But it goes beyond that. It asks this House to assert that it agrees with Lord Milner's policy, and if we are asked to agree with the policy of Lord Milner we are asked to agree with the policy of the Government of which Lord Milner was the representative. The noble Lord who seconded the Motion spoke at large about its being necessary for this House to express the settled opinion of the country upon Lord Milner. This is not the tribunal to express such an opinion. There is a tribunal capable
  1478
  of expressing such an opinion; it is the great representative assembly of this country. Nor can it be said at the present moment that that representative assembly is stale, or that it does not represent the present settled opinion of the country. There has recently been a general election; the elected Members are there sitting; they and they only can adequately express the settled opinion of the people of this country, and, without any disparagement of your Lordships' House, they can do so in a manner more authoritative than we. The House of Commons has not expressed its view upon the Motion of the noble Viscount. It has expressed its views upon another and a different Motion—a Motion which, no doubt, bears with it certain condemnation of the action of Lord Milner. But if the noble Lord wants the settled opinion of this country, let those who agree with him introduce a Motion in these terms into the Lower House of Parliament. Will anyone suggest that if such a Motion was propounded, it would have the remotest chance of being carried in that House? Therefore, in the absence of such an expression of opinion in that House, I think that the general sentiment expressed that the country is indignant at the action of the House of Commons fails in weight when the test to which that opinion could be applied is shirked by those who assert that such a state of things exist.
  The passing of the Motion in this House will not in any way affect the settled opinion of the country. But the Motion is a provocative one, and it calls from those who desire to support the Government in not voting for it for some answer as to why they do not approve of the Motion in the terms on the Paper. We are said to have a political prejudice against Lord Milner. It did not exist some years ago. When Lord Milner first went out to South Africa, he went out with the hearty good wishes and the high hopes of every person of every Party in the State. I do not think that any Colonial Governor ever left the shores of this country with such a chance as Lord Milner had of establishing a permanent and an enduring fame. The position was critical. The Jameson Raid, which we now all admit to have been an act of human folly, was just over, and Lord Milner went out

  1479
  to a country which was inhabited by two white races, presenting therefore the difficulties that Canada originally presented, and also an extra difficulty which Canada never did present, namely, that those two white races were faced by an overwhelming native population. He found when he went out there a rooted suspicion on the part of the Dutch, undoubtedly inflamed by the Raid, that the great mineowners who were deeply inplicated in that business were only waiting for another and a more favourable opportunity of repeating it.
  What was needed? What was needed was breadth of mind, sympathy of disposition, and a complete severance from Party or race. They ought to exist in any man who represents the Crown, which is above and beyond all Parties in the State. Above all things, time was needed to enable the passions which were then excited to calm down. And time had done wonders even in that short time. People are apt to forget that as soon as the Raid was over the two representative assemblies of the Transvaal and of the Orange Free State both passed Resolutions urging Her Majesty's Government to assume control of the country then under the control of the Chartered Company. That disposes of the fable that from the beginning there was a deeply rooted and widespread conspiracy on the part of the Dutch to get rid of British supremacy in South Africa. Noble Lords seem to believe in that fable still. If so, the answer is that those two representative chambers were only too anxious that the dominions of the Crown should be extended in South Africa, and not diminished. Moreover, one of the first despatches written by Lord Milner was to testify to the united fervour and loyalty that distinguished both Dutch and British in Cape Colony. He said that he drew no distinction between the races, and that these expressions of opinion were not mere expressions of opinion, but were fortified by the fact that the two peoples were joining together to do what no Colony had ever yet done—to present a battleship to the British Fleet and to give in their own land, in Simons Bay, facilities for hospitality to the British Fleet itself. Moreover, that was done by a Government not of the British Party, but by a Government dominated by the Bond, a member of
  1480
  which who looked to the Bond for favour and support was Prime Minister of Cape Colony.
  That was the state of South Africa when Lord Milner first took up the reins of office. Within two short years the whole of that state of things disappeared. I may be wrong, and I know your Lordships will differ from me, but the reason I give for that is that Lord Milner ceased to be the representative of the Crown in so far as he held aloof from and was above all Parties in the State, and that he adopted the policy for which your Lordships now wish to commend him and of which you desire to express your admiration; he sided with one party called the British Party against the other party called the Dutch Party. I do not doubt and never have doubted that the Uitlanders in Johannesburg had grievances which they rightly sought to have redressed, but, as the Uitlanders were said actually to outnumber the white Dutch of the Transvaal, it is only fair to the Dutch to say that they had some ground for their suspicion that if the franchise was given in full measure to the Uitlanders they would outnumber the Dutch and would destroy the nationality of the Transvaal for which they were so anxious and which they had fought to preserve. But there were hopes that time would cure these evils. President Kruger was a very old man, and there was a large and progressive Dutch party against the Kruger policy in the Transvaal. Mr. Chamberlain at home had taken means by his speech to pacify the people and to meet all suggestion that there was any connivance at any interruption of the independence of the Transvaal.
  In 1898 Lord Milner came back to this country. He had long conferences with the then Colonial Secretary. I cannot tell what passed at those conferences, but it is impossible to resist the conclusion that he had formed the opinion that the diplomatic representations which had been made to the Transvaal were to be turned into something stronger than mere representations, because when Lord Milner went back he seemed really to be in a position of a man who was seeking rather than avoiding a dispute with the Transvaal. His attitude towards the Dutch of the Cape became critical and unfriendly. From that day he adopted

  1481
  without reserve the policy and aims of the British Party in Gape Colony, which British Party, be it observed, was in a minority, and therefore was not the Government over which he was the representative of the Crown. You cannot read the Blue-books of that time without seeing that they are filled with quotations, both heated and rhetorical, in favour of this view; they even repeat all the gossip that came to his ears. When the Dutch, seeing that things were becoming more and more critical, approached him in a great representative gathering to express their loyalty to him, he dismissed them with something approaching a sneer; and when Sir William Butler expressed the 'Opinion that it was rest and not a surgical operation that South Africa wanted, Sir William Butler was recalled from the office which he held.
  Then there came a conference, and I sincerely believe that the Government in this country and the Colonial Minister of this country hoped, trusted, and believed that that conference would end in an amicable result. A man who goes into a 'Conference which is to be a diplomatic conference, if he is a wise man, refrains from anything like exaggerated or unguarded language. But just on the eve of this Conference we had that historical and rhetorical Despatch sent by Lord Milner, and read by every Dutchman in Cape Colony and the Transvaal, in which he described the Uitlanders as "helots" and demanded from the Queen's Government—what? "A striking proof of their paramount power in South Africa." That was hardly a conciliatory preface to a conference which was destined to be futile unless it was entered upon in a conciliatory spirit. We search in vain in the records of the conference for the 'exhibition of such a concilitory spirit. Fresh demands were continually brought forth as each demand was acceded to, and we have it now as an historical and an admitted fact that in the end nine-tenths of the demands made were granted by the opponent Party. When you remember that by law we had no right under any convention to interfere in the internal affairs of the Transvaal—indeed,;to force internal reference upon the Transvaal had been described by Mr. Chamberlain as immoral as well as unwise—I think we ought in fairness to admit that President Kruger, in con-
  1482
  senting to confer, must be regarded as having given expression to a conciliatory spirit. The conference was futile. After that, of course, war ensued. One of the essential elements of statesmanship is surely foresight. The man who has not foresight is not fitted to play a great part in public affairs. What foresight did Lord Milner exhibit? Who told Mr. Chamberlain that the Boers would not fight? Who told him that a policy of "bluff" would succeed? Who told Mr. Balfour that it was idle to suppose that the Free State would throw in their lot with the Transvaal? If Lord Milner told these statesmen any of these things, all I can say is he lacked the foresight which is one of the essential qualities of of a great ruler.
  Time went on. On August 31st, 1899, Lord Milner issued a Despatch which was calculated not to appease, but to inflame animosity. The Despatch is well known in which he says that "British South Africa was prepared for extreme measures," and that what he dreaded— what do you think it was? It was not war that he dreaded, but what he described as a "prolongation of the negotiations." After the war was over, Lord Milner described what I believe to be his policy, because he said that —
  "The British people had gone straight upon the way in which they set out from the first, to make an end of the business once and for all, to make South Africa one country under one flag, with one system of law and government."
  I have no doubt that the majority of your Lordships will think that to have been an admirable pursuit. But that is not a ground for our supporting this Motion, because we on this side of the House, I hope, never will support a policy of a war of aggression. To justify such a policy, if that was the policy of Lord Milner from the first, would be to justify aggressive wars whenever entered upon on the final grounds that the end justified the means.
  I am well aware, my Lords, that the war was begun by the Boers, and that the ultimatum was followed by an invasion of British territory—an action which is as great a monument of human folly as the Jameson Raid. I cannot help coming to the opinion that the Boers, who after all were sensible people, would never have indulged in that act of folly unless

  1483
  they had been irresistibly driven to the conclusion from their point of view that Lord Milner intended to attack them and had determined for themselves to strike the first blow.
  With regard to the war, Lord Milner may be proporly acquitted. There came in the Military and the Executive. With regard to the conduct of the war and the incidents of the war no one seeks to lay any blame upon Lord Milner; he was merely the agent of the Government who supported him. But he was responsible for another act, a sinister act, and that was the attempt, after the war, to suppress the Constitution in Cape Colony. In that attempt he was again playing the part, not of an independent High Commissioner representing the Crown above and beyond all Parties in the State, but of the advocate of one Party only. He was thwarted, but how? Let noble Lords who are so desirous of promoting the spread of Imperial views note that the agency which thwarted the action of Lord Milner in attempting to suppress the Constitution in Cape Colony was not the British Government at home, but the Colonial Prime Ministers who were in this country at the time, who remonstrated with the Home Government upon the reputed act of Lord Milner, and it was their sound Imperial ideas that put an end to what I cannot help thinking were the unsound Imperial ideas of Lord Milner himself. It is not a pleasant thing to reflect what might have happened had Lord Milner had his way. We might then indeed have lost to the Empire not only the Transvaal but Capo Colony itself. What I ask, in all reason, would a wise, prudent, and far- seeing Governor do? Would not his first aim, under the new conditions, be to make all fellow-citizens of the Empire forget for ever that they were either Briton on the one side or Boer on the other? But Lord Milner was again, as he has been all through, a slave to his bureaucratic ideas. He has formed the idea that all the Dutch must be disloyal, all the British loyal, and that as the British were in a minority on the land the only way to redress the balance was to expropriate the Boer and plant the Britisher on the land. ["Oh, oh!"] Yes. I will quote Lord Milner's own words about it. He wanted practically to plant another Ulster in the new Colonies which had been added to the Empire. His ideal seemed
  1484
  to be more the ideal of Germany and the Poles, because on January 25th, 1902—I will read his own words—he said this—
  "A selected British population will do much to consolidate South African sentiment in the general interests of the Empire."
  [Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!] Yes, "the general interests of the Empire." That means the supremacy of Briton over Boer. That is not my idea of the interest of the Empire.
  A NOBLE LORD: Will the noble Lord be good enough to say when and where Lord Milner said he was going to expropriate the Boers?
  LORD COLERIDGE: I will give the noble Lord the reference. It was on January 25th, 1902, Paper Cd. 1163, page 88. Lord Milner said—
  "Land settlement must be undertaken on a large scale, otherwise, however useful, it will be politically unimportant. I do not see how any large schemes can be carried out unless the Government is armed with the general power of expropriation. Without it we shall never be able to get land enough. We want two things — power of expropriation and money."
  Can it be suggested that I am incorrect in stating that Lord Milner's policy was to expropriate the Boers and to plant Britishers in their place?
  VISCOUNT HALIFAX: I defy the noble Lord to cite a single instance in which a Boer has been expropriated by Lord Milner's action.
  LORD COLERIDGE: I am talking of Lord Milner's policy.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAX: I am talking about Lord Milner's action.
  LORD COLERIDGE: I thought that the noble Lord who seconded the Resolution asked us to approve of his policy, and as this is part of his policy, I am disapproving of it.
  LORD AMPTHILL: The noble Lord must not misquote me. I said that noble Lords opposite could vote for the Resolution with perfect consistency, because it did not necessarily imply that they approved all Lord Milner's policy and actions;it merely meant that they approved of his public services to the Crown.
  LORD COLERIDGE: Then why not in that case distinguish it in the Motion instead of using ambiguous language which is open to the interpretation which almost every noble Lord opposite has given to it, that it is to redress the balance between the House of Lords and the House of Commons and to approve the policy of a great public servant?
  From this time onwards we come to the question of Chinese labour. ["Oh, oh!"] I am not going to enter upon that question; we have had many debates, and I am not going to repeat what has taken place. I will only point out to noble Lords opposite that, so far as I can gather, on no occasion did the policy of Lord Milner differ in any respect from the policy of the Chamber of Mines, which, after all, is not the embodiment of absolute colonial wisdom. I am not going to deal with the question of the slight irregularity, as some noble Lords describe it, of the permission of illegal flogging in the compounds. I cannot conceive how any man who has read history, who cares for the liberty of the subject, or who has any regard for our Imperial rule, can look upon illegal flogging of persons in compounds as a light matter.
  Finally, Lord Milner comes to this House and makes a speech full of the bitterest political diatribes—["No, no"]— against all those who differ from his policy in South Africa. He applied to his political opponents—and I suppose we are among them—all those old question-begging epithets which had their day in the general election of 1900, and which I should think sensible and charitable men had long disregarded and perhaps now regretted having ever used. A Resolution of this House if passed, and I doubt not it will be, will not alter the facts. Noble Lords are perfectly well aware that the country is against the policy of Lord Milner. [Cries of dissent.] Then why not put it to the test? They are well aware that the House of Commons is against the policy of Lord Milner, and certainly in many respects the Colonies are also against that policy. I suppose it is a consciousness of these facts which is the explanation of the overflowing bitterness which characterised the speech of Lord Milner. The noble Viscount who brought this Motion forward cannot expect us, with these Party attacks from
  1486
  Lord Milner himself ringing still in our ears, to support this Motion.
  I quite understand that the position is critical. I quite understand that the Government, having now sent out an impartial Commission of Inquiry—[" Oh, oh!] Is it not an impartial Commission? [Cries of "No."] Noble Lords no doubt in the debate will give their reasons for that assertion, but I repeat that this is an impartial Commission. Whether partial or impartial does not affect my argument. The Government is sending out a Commission of Inquiry, and I can quite understand that under those circumstances to oppose this Motion by a direct negative might bring difficulties in the way of the work of that Commission, The noble Viscount thinks that everything will be remedied by inscribing this Motion on the journals of the House. The facts with regard to the policy of Lord Milner are known. We have all in this country made up our minds one way or the other about those facts. The recording of this Motion, whether it be wise or discreet, is another matter, but the recording of it will detract nothing from that opinion and will add nothing, to it.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I shall take care not to detain the House many minutes at this late hour of the night, but I think your Lordships will agree with me when I say that one or two of the speeches which we have heard from the other side of the House lately have in no small degree changed the issue upon which we shall vote to-night. I venture to say that, whatever they may do, whether or not they have changed the issue, those speeches will not get any increased support for the proposition moved from the front Government Bench. The two speeches that we have listened to—that of the noble Lord below the gangway and that of the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down —are in no sense appropriate to the Motion for the previous question. If they had been carried to their logical and honest conclusion they would have been appropriate to a Motion, to meet that moved by the noble Viscount, by a direct and unqualified negative.
  The noble Lord below the gangway said, in perfectly plain terms, that they were going to oppose the Motion because

  1487
  they did not agree with Lord Milner's policy. He said that the Motion was intended to serve a double purpose, and the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken tried to prove that the reason why this House should reject the Motion submitted by the noble Viscount was that he and others who thought with him did not agree with Lord Milner's policy, and that this was, as he described it, a provocative Motion. Do not let us mistake the issue. It is of importance to Lord Milner that a majority of the House in which he sits should express their appreciation of his services. It is of importance to us who agree with that policy in its main outlines, to us who are responsible for it in its main outlines, that we should record our appreciation of his services. But it is not of so much importance that we should vote in favour of the Motion on those grounds as to prevent misconceptions arising elsewhere. Lord Milner's record is known. We have our own opinions, and, whatever noble Lords opposite may say, I believe the opinions held on this side of the House are those of the great majority of our fellow-countrymen.
  Their minds are made up on this matter, whatever the late general election may be said to have turned upon. Some say it was the swing of the pendulum, others that it turned upon what is called Chinese slavery, or the fiscal question, or that the result was due to the uprising of labour representation, or to the general record of the late Government, and some even claim it as a victory for Home Rule. But, my Lords, I venture to say, as one who watched? what took place during the month of January, there is not a tittle of proof to show that in any respect whatever this country has changed its mind with regard to the South African policy of the late Government. I believe that His Majesty's Government know that, and I believe it is because they know it that they have chosen to meet this Motion with one for the previous question, and not with a direct negative, which, as I have said, is the only logical conclusion after the speeches we have heard from noble Lords? opposite. If any one doubts the proposal in this Motion then let him move a direct negative. That is the honest, fair, and straightforward course to take; but, if noble Lords do not believe that this Motion is wrong, then I say it is a mere
  1488
  and simple act of justice, after what has occurred elsewhere, to pass it by as large a majority as we can.
  Has Lord Milner proved himself a good public servant? Then why should we not say so? The noble Lord who spoke last said that this Motion is a provocative Motion. I say that is absolutely untrue. This Motion would never have been heard of if it had not been for action taken in the other House, and the mere question of whether Lord Milner was right or wrong in a particular matter which was made the point of the Motion proposed elsewhere was not the real point at issue. That was a cloak for a vote in another place, which might be taken, and I venture to say was taken, as a vindictive Motion, in the hope of discrediting a great public servant on a comparatively small side issue which, in respect to his great career, ought to have been passed over almost in silence. For that reason I say it was a vindictive Motion. The point I want to make is this, that we are not to-night speaking or going to vote upon this question only as a thing personal to Lord Milner or as a matter of our own domestic policy. I think we ought to pass this Resolution by a large majority to prevent misconceptions elsewhere, to prevent misconceptions in South Africa, to prevent the very view gaining currency in South Africa which has been expressed by the noble Lord who spoke last, that this country has in any way changed its mind upon the South African policy of Lord Milner and the late Government.
  I am sure those of your Lordships who were here on Tuesday were gratified to hear first hand evidence from Lord Lovat and the Duke of Westminster that there was not that race hatred between Briton and Boer when they were living side by side on the veldt, and I believe that almost all testimony shows that many of the leaders of the Boer race are accepting the present position and reconciling themselves to it. But, on the other hand, there are some who are not accepting the present position, and what I am afraid of is that some of the speeches which have been recently made in Parliament, if they are reproduced in South Africa, will tend to increase that feeling, and will hinder the process of fraternisation, and re-awaken the racial animosities which we should desire to see buried altogether. There is another

  1489
  fear. No matter how good the law may be, in matters of land and things of that kind a great deal depends upon the administration of the law, and if those who may, under the new Constitution, have to administer the law think that in any act of injustice they will find friends here, there will be more temptation to attempt to reverse the past settlement than if they could be got to appreciate, as I believe to be the case, that the feeling of this country is unanimous that South Africa must always remain British.
  I wish also to say that I value this Motion because it will furnish strength to those who go abroad in high places to serve the country. Their position is difficult under any circumstances. Their responsibility is great. You hear in this country of the fierce light that beats upon a Throne, but the Throne here has responsible advisers—advisers who are in touch with the prevailing opinion of the people, and who take a great responsibility off the Throne. But the representatives of the Throne in these great dependencies are in a position, comparatively speaking, of isolation. They have in such Crown Colonies as some of those of South Africa no responsible advisers. They have to act upon their own responsibility, and in that they have a very difficult task. I venture to say that no man in the recollection of any of your Lordships ever had a more difficult task from firist to last than that which was laid on the shoulders of Lord Milner. He sustained that burden through a long period, a period of continuous work, when day after day he had to take decisions of the greatest importance. Even in the darkest and most difficult times his courage never failed him, and by the testimony of friend and foe alike he steered a straight course, which has gained for him the undying respect of all his fellow-countrymen.
  Do not let us allow domestic issues and domestic differences to taint justice to a great public servant. Do not let us allow domestic difficulties to avail against doing what I believe to be a real act of justice to one who has served us well. I think it will be a very bad lesson to those who may have to go out in the future to great positions if, not only during their period of office, but after that period is over, points comparatively small are raked up against them, and votes of censure moved
  1490
  when there is no possibility of their defending themselves, and when those who would naturally defend them are out of power. If Lord Milner had been actually High Commissioner, if the Government that sent him there and was supporting him had been in power, then I would have nothing to say against a vote of censure on the part of either House of Parliament. But I venture to say that there is hardly a precedent to be found for the particular proposal in the other House, and that it is absurd to call this Motion a provocative Motion, when those who support Lord Milner were not the first to take action.
  I venture to say that His Majesty's Government would have come before us tonight with a better grace if they had moved the previous question in the other House of Parliament. In that House there was a question of censure: here there is a question of praise. It might have been better if neither had been moved, and I venture to say that I would not have been found supporting this Motion against a Motion for the previous question if His Majesty's Government had given a clear lead and equal justice in both Houses of Parliament. If in the other House they had moved the previous question, they could have come before us with a fair case to ask us not to do the thing which they had asked the other House of Parliament not to do. A Motion of censure on Lord Milner stands on the public records of the other House, and therefore I do not think the Government come before us with a good grace when they seek to meet a Motion of this kind with a Motion for the previous question, especially when we know that that is not what is in the minds of many of their supporters, whatever may be in their own minds. Many of them would have desired, and have made speeches pointing to, a Motion of censure and not to the previous question. After the speech to which we have just listened, we know what is in the minds of those who are anxious to discredit Lord Milner, and I wish to record my vote, and I hope the majority of your Lordships will record your votes, in emphatic praise of one who has served his country well and faithfully.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, as hour by hour I have listened to this

  1491
  debate I have become more and more convinced of the wisdom of the Amendment which my noble friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies has brought forward, but which does not appear to have been even understood by many noble Lords opposite. My noble friend's object was to tell your Lordships that he was engaged in difficult duties, in endeavouring to prepare, after the most careful consideration and the freest communication with the Government in South Africa, a Constitution or Constitutions for the two new Colonies by which he hopes to bring increased peace and unity to the people of that country. My noble friend told your Lordships, but you do not seem to have taken note of it, on his authority as Secretary of State for the Colonies, that he felt that a debate of this kind could not be conducted in this House without raising questions which would be calculated inevitably once more to stir up the angry and embittered feelings generated by the late war, and thereby to render the task which he had in hand, arduous as it is, more difficult still.
  We have had from the commencement of this debate down to the present time signal proof in speech after speech of the justice of the judgment of my noble friend. I cannot conceive anything more likely than that the various speeches which have been made to-night should stir up again the embers of those angry feelings which the war generated, and render the pacification of South Africa not easier but more difficult. The noble Viscount who opened this debate went through the whole history of the South African War—indeed he went beyond it. He started at a very early period and went down through that history point after point, and in doing so he inevitably raised many questions calculated to promote angry and hostile feelings among the people who were concerned in the South African War. We all know there is nothing which stirs up hostile feeling between two races more than war. Surely, then, it is the object of all wise men, when war is over, to endeavour to allay the bitter and angry memories which that war created. My Lords, if that is true of all wars, it is particularly true of a war of conquest. There you have the most potent and overpowering reasons for trying, as soon as possible, to put aside those passions, and endeavour to
  1492
  deal in a fair, equal, and considerate spirit with those who have become your subjects. That, my Lords, is the object of my noble friend, that is the duty in which my noble friend is now engaged, and that is the duty which he told you, with all the authority of his position, that you would by this debate render infinitely more difficult. If that had been your object—I do not think for one moment that it was—you could not have done more in the space of a few hours than you have done to-night to promote it.
  This debate has been in some respects a singular one. The question before us has from time to time changed its aspect. My noble friend Lord Halifax, whose generous and honest nature prompted him to speak on behalf of one for whom he has unbounded admiration, confined himself, I admit, to what I must consider the dangerous proceeding of alluding to past history both before the war and during the war. But the noble Lord opposite, Lord Cawdor, adopted a different tone. He laid down the broad principle that it is the duty of the Houses of Parliament to pass votes of approval on behalf of all our public servants who had done good service abroad.
  EARL CAWDOE: I beg the noble Marquess's pardon. I never stated that both Houses of Parliament should be perpetually passing votes in favour of officials. I said nothing of the kind.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: If I have fallen into an error I have done so in common with the most rev. Primate, because it was against that suggestion that the most rev. Primate protested in the commencement of his speech. If the noble Lord did not intend to say that there is an end of it. If you pass Resolutions of this kind in regard to those who have done good service abroad you should do it when that service ends. We have heard language used to-night as if Lord Milner had received no recognition of his services. That cannot be said, for Lord Milner sits in this House in recognition of his services. His services were recognised at the time in a way supposed to be appropriate and sufficient by the Government that he had served. I say, my Lords, that I think it is a bad precedent

  1493
  to propose in this House, or in the other House of Parliament, votes of this description as a recognition for services rendered some time ago and which were rewarded as the Government of the Crown considered proper at the time they ended.
  I pass from the noble Earl opposite and his view of the subject and come to what was said by my noble friend, Lord Goschen. What did Lord Goschen say? Lord Goschen, who, as we all know, is a personal friend of the noble Viscount, told us that Lord Milner did not want any vote of this House or any special recognition of his services, and that the real object of this Motion was to send a message of support to one particular Party in South Africa. My Lords, it is exactly against that that we desire to protest. It is just because we know that that will be the sense in which that particular Party will take these proceedings, and because we fear that it will tend to raise again differences in South Africa, that we have determined not to discuss this question, but to take the course which seems best to mark our conviction of the mischief and danger of the policy which you are pursuing and to leave upon you the full responsibility for the results of that policy.
  But, my Lords, there is another aspect of these proceedings which ought to be considered by noble Lords opposite, and that is the position you are about to create between the two Houses of Parliament. The noble and learned Earl opposite, in a sort of by sentence as he sat down, seemed to recognise, as he most fully does, I am sure, the irregularity of a great deal of what has gone on to-night. I do not say on which side; on both sides, if you like; but you have been the greater sinners because you have been the assailants. I have been fifty years in this House, and I have never seen such an attack, in language and in form, upon the other House as I have had the misfortune to witness to-night. I do not know what may follow on these proceedings. I hope that nothing will follow from them, but I do say that it is highly undesirable that you should do anything to promote a needless quarrel between the House of Lords and the House of Commons, that you should do anything which is calculated to create what is
  1494
  vulgarly called a "wrangle" between the two Houses.
  I believe that the language which has been used to-night is fraught with grave danger. I hope that the wisdom of the other House will avert that danger; but I do most earnestly press upon your Lordships that you should not allow these proceedings to be a precedent, and that you will lay aside the use of language which is calculated to affect the wholesome practice of mutual respect which is generally observed between this and the other House. The noble and learned Earl, I think, described this proceeding under another name. He called it a testimonial to Lord Milner. Well, my Lords, that might be a very proper thing for your Lordships to promote if you could do it without danger to the public service; but I believe, as Lord Goschen has told us, that nothing is further from Lord Milner's desire than that you should render the task of my noble friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies more difficult than it naturally is. I heard the speech which the noble Viscount Lord Milner made the other night. Noble Lords opposite have not taken a lesson from him whom they are here to-night, they tell us, to defend. They have not taken his advice; they have, on the contrary, pursued a course, and are pursuing a course at the present time, which will have effects, in all human probability, that they will all regret.
  It seems that nothing can be done in reference to the affairs in South Africa without its being met by some disparaging incident in this House at the present time. My noble friend behind me has sent out four very distinguished gentlemen to examine into certain questions of fact upon which he requires some information. The Government would gladly have settled the pending questions at once, had they been able to do so. They know the inconvenience of, and the objections to, delay, but they had not before them that sort of detailed information which would have enabled them to form a judgment on the various matters connected with the duties they are called upon to perform. The words "men of honour and impartiality" were challenged just now. I know my right hon. friend Sir West Ridgeway. He served under me in India. I have known him long, and I know him to be an honest and impartial

  1495
  man. Noble Lords on both sides of the House know my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, aye, and they know the sacrifice with which at the present moment he has undertaken this duty. Those who know anything of the Board of Trade know that there is no more distinguished public servant than Sir Francis Hopwood, and the other member of the Committee is Colonel Johnston, a gentleman I know nothing of, who belongs to the service in South Africa. If passion in this House runs so high that the character of these men can be challenged, then I only say it is further proof of the evil which must inevitably result from discussions of this kind. I will not enter into the merits of this question, because it would be inconsistent with the view that I take if I were to do so. I regret sincerely and deeply the tone, and the language, and the results of this debate, and I am quite certain that we meet it in the right and in a becoming manner in moving the previous question.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I shall follow the example of the noble Marquess and compress within the smallest limits the observations I desire to make. Enough, indeed, has been said already on this side, to establish the case which we desire to submit. We have been discussing two distinct questions. In the first place, is Lord Milner or is he not entitled to that recognition which will be afforded to him by the Resolution placed on the Paper by Lord Halifax; and in the second place, supposing that he is entitled to such recognition, is it or is it not proper and convenient that our admiration of him should be expressed in this particular form?
  With regard to the first of those questions, I venture to think that the testimony that has been offered in Lord Milner's favour during the course of this discussion may fairly be described as overwhelming. It has probably fallen to the lot of few public servants to have such encomiums passed upon them as those which have been passed this evening by the noble mover, by Lord Goschen, by Lord Roberts, by the most rev. Prelate, and others; and I rejoice to think that we may claim amongst those who share our high opinion of Lord Milner the noble Earl who fills the high office of Secretary of State
  1496
  for the Colonies, for in the course of his speech this evening he adhered, and if anything emphasised, the generous words which he spoke in regard to Lord Milner the other day, words which he described to us this evening as being not so much a generous as a just appreciation of his services.
  Almost the solitary note of discord was struck by the speech of the noble and learned Lord on the back benches opposite. He passed in review Lord Milner's career, and I gather from him that in his opinion Lord Milner, instead of being the high-minded and faithful public servant we have always supposed him to be, is an unscrupulous and dangerous partisan who approached his task with the set purpose, not of holding the balance between the different sections of the community entrusted to his charge, but of doing deliberate injustice to the Dutch portion of the South African community. That is very far from being our opinion of Lord Milner, and I must say that when I heard the noble and learned Lord's account of Lord Milner's policy of land settlement, I asked myself whether it was the same policy of land settlement which was described to your Lordships in such temperate and interesting terms by Lord Milner himself in this House the other evening, in a speech in which he made it abundantly clear to us that the object of his land policy was not to get rid of the Boer population, but to establish side by side with the Boer population a British element which might in the future be a link between Boer and Briton in South Africa.
  It seems to me, however, that the strongest argument in favour of the Resolution of my noble friend is one which has been supplied by the action of the Government. What are the Government going to do? They are going at once, skipping the intermediate stages through which so many British colonies have had to pass, to confer upon the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies full responsible government. My Lords, if those two colonies are already fitted to receive the boon of responsible government, to whom is that satisfactory condition of things due? If it were not for the manner in which Lord Milner had discharged the great duties of his position, do you believe, my Lords, that there could be any question

  1497
  of conferring responsible government upon these two colonies?
  Lord Milner found the country at the end of the war wrecked, desolated, without administrative machinery, its finances in disorder. He has left it with a fully developed administration, with proper courts of justice, with a system of railways fully developed, with roads, bridges, and all the equipment necessary to ensure its prosperity, and it is because Lord Milner has been able to do all this, and to do it successfully, that you are now able to confer upon the two colonies responsible government instead of requiring them to pass through an intermediate stage. No services, it seems to me, could be more brilliant than these.
  And what is there that you desire to set on the other side of the account? We are told that, if we vote for this Resolution, we vote confidence in the South African policy of the late Government. We do nothing of the kind. The policy carried out by Lord Milner was, no doubt, the policy enjoined upon him by the Government of the day, but the manner in which Lord Milner interpreted that policy, the manner in which he dealt with the many great problems which he had to solve—these were matters for which he, and he alone, deserves the credit which we desire he should receive at the hands of this House.
  Does it not then come to this, that there is really one thing, and one only, that you can allege as a reason why this Resolution ought not to be carried? We come back to the incident of the illegal flogging. That is the single incident in a career of eight years onerous and honourable work to which you are able to take exception. It is an incident which has been explained by Lodr Milner himself, not only frankly, but in the most chivalrous manner; for remember that even on the admission of those who have judged him most harshly there is a grave doubt as to the extent of Lord Milner's own responsibility for that irregularity. And surely when your Lordships pass judgment on that particular episode you must remember what you have been told more than once of Lord Milner's notorious kindness and consideration towards native races, toward coloured men, no matter of what race.
  How unfortunate it is that all these questions could not be thoroughly sifted
  1498
  and examined by a Commission of Inquiry such as that we have again and again pressed for. Is it not clear that such an inquiry would have placed all these facts in their true relation and true proportion one to the other? I say, at any rate, of this episode of irregular flogging that there never was a question less deserving either of direct censure or of that more insidious but, to my mind, even more objectionable censure by innuendo of which we have seen a specimen in the Resolution carried in the other House.
  One word as to what is called the opportuneness of this Resolution. We have been told again and again, and by no one more emphatically than by the noble Marquess who has just sat down that by carrying this Resolution we are likely to create a dangerous exasperation of feeling in South Africa. Does the noble Marquess suppose that there is not already a very considerable exasperation of feeling in South Africa? My Lords, there is. You have only to read the South African telegrams coming in day by day and published in the newspapers to feel that exasperation has been created, not by this Resolution, but by the manner in which this question has been dealt with in another place. It has been created by the-manner in which a private Member was, I will not say encouraged, but at any rate allowed, to put on the Paper a Motion directly censuring Lord Milner. For remember that this question of irregular flogging had been fully dealt with, and dealt with in a manner which ought to have satisfied even those who most disapproved of what had taken place. The objectionable order had been cancelled, and the Secretary for the Colonies had formally placed on record his disapproval of what had occurred. What, then, was the object of the Resolution of censure, and what action could be more unsatisfactory than the manner in which that Resolution of censure was dealt with by his Majesty's Government? The noble Lord who spoke below the gangway, Lord Grimthorpe, told us that we were, in effect, censuring the House of Commons for what they have done, and the noble Marquess warned us that we were committing what seemed to him to be a grave irregularity when we opposed our opinion to the opinion of the other House. I do not yield to the noble Marquess in deprecating,

  1499
  any action which might have the effect of needlessly placing the two Houses of Parliament in conflict. The relations of the two Houses are of a very delicate character, and nothing could be more unfortunate than any action which might have the effect of creating embarrassment between the two Houses. But, in the first place, I ask your Lordships to observe that this Resolution may be fairly interpreted rather as a complement to the Resolution of the House of Commons than as one which traverses the judgment of of the other House. The matter has been put on one side by the other House and has been left, as it were, in a position of suspense. That is a condition in which we do not desire that it should remain.
  This is not a case where our action is at all likely to bring about that which would be the most unfortunate of all things—a deadlock between the two Houses. The noble Marquess spoke of a wrangle. Why should there be a wrangle 2 The other House has expressed a strong opinion; we claim a corresponding right to express a strong opinion which we feel, and to have that opinion recorded on the journals of the House. Are we really to be told in a matter of high Imperial importance to the public of this country, touching very nearly indeed the sympathies and feelings of our colonial possessions, touching besides the honour and reputation of a most brilliant and distinguished Member of this House, that we are to be condemned to silence merely because the other House of Parliament happens to have treated the question, and to have treated it in a perfunctory and inconclusive manner? That really seems to me to be a doctrine which this House could not possibly accept. We claim to have the right of pronouncing for historical purposes a judgment which will remain on record alongside the judgment which has been pronounced elsewhere.
  If I may sum up, I would suggest to your Lordships that that it is absolutely impossible, having the feelings we entertain, that we can allow this matter to remain where it has been left by the House of Commons. It is not, as we have been
  told, that we desire to pay a mere compliment to Lord Milner. Lord Milner has established for himself a position in which he stands in no need of such compliments. He stands no more in need of such compliments than he does of the merciful treatment which, forsooth, he was told by the representative of the Colonial Office in the House of Commons he might expect at the hands of His Majesty's Government. No, my Lords, it is not for the sake of Lord Milner's feelings that we are going to pass this Resolution. We are thinking of the manner in which this question is regarded in the first place by the people of our own country and in the next place by our great Colonies, and more especially by the loyal population of South Africa. In their eyes Lord Milner has for years past stood conspicuous as the champion of that British supremacy which they desire to be maintained and which I trust your Lordships will never allow to be tampered with. I think that to the lips of many of Lord Milner's admirers, in this country and the Colonies, there must lately have risen a saying, old indeed, but one of the most pathetic known to our language—
  "A prophet is not without honour save in his own country and in his own house."
  My Lords, this is Lord Milner's House, and we are determined that in this House he shall not be without the honour which is due to him. And when we offer him as we do, that honour, in full measure and with open hands, we believe we are correctly interpreting the feeling of the great majority of the people of this country.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD LOREBURN): My Lords, the original Motion was, "That this House desires to place on record its high appreciation of the services rendered by Lord Milner in South Africa to the Crown and the Empire," since which it has been moved "That the previous question be put." The question, therefore, which I have to put is, whether the said original question be now put.
  On Question, their Lordships divided: Contents, 170; Not Contents, 35.

  CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, L. Abp.

  Devonshire, D.

  Newcastle, D.

  Fife, D.

  Northumberland, D.

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

  Grafton, D.

  Sutherland, D.

  Wellington, D.

  Halifax, V.

  Herries, L.

  Westminster, D.

  Hill, V.

  Heytesbury, L.

  Hood, V.

  Hylton, L.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Hutchinson, V (E. Donoughmore)

  Kelvin, L.

  Ailsa, M.

  Knutsford, V.

  Kenyon, L.

  Bath, M.

  Llandaff, V.

  Killanin, L.

  Bute, M.

  Peel, V.

  Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

  Camden, M.

  Ridley, V.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Hertford, M.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  Lansdowne, M.

  Bangor, L. Bp.

  Lawrence, L.

  Winchester, M.

  London, L. Bp.

  Lovat, L.

  Oxford, L. Bp.

  Ludlow, L.

  Albemarle, E.

  St. Albans, L. Bp.

  Macnaghten, L.

  Bathurst, E.

  Manners, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Abinger, L.

  Manners of Haddon, L.

  Carnwath, E.

  Addington, L.

  (M. Granby.)

  Cathcart, E.

  Allerton, L.

  Methuen, L.

  Cawdor, E.

  Alverstone, L.

  Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

  Coventry, E.

  Ampthill, L.

  Monson, L.

  Dartmouth, E.

  Annaly, L.

  Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

  Darnley, E.

  Atkinson, L.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Dartrey, K

  Avebury, L.

  Mostyn, L.

  Denbigh, E.

  Balfour, L.

  Mount Stephen, L.

  Devon, E.

  Barnard, L.

  Muncaster, L.

  Ducie, E.

  Barrymore, L.

  Muskerry, L.

  Ellesmere, E.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Napier, L.

  Fitzwilliam, E.

  Belper, L.

  Newlands, L.

  Fortescue, E.

  Borthwick, L.

  North, L.

  Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Halsbury, E.

  Burton, L.

  Ormathwaite, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Carew, L.

  Playfair, L.

  Harrowby, E.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Ponsonby, L. (E Bessborough.)

  Howe, E.

  Chesham, L.

  Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

  Ilchester, E.

  Cheylesmore, L.

  Rathmore, L.

  Jersey, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Ravensworth, L.

  Kilmorey, E.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Rayleigh, L.

  Lathom, E.

  Crawshaw, L.

  Revelstoke, L.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

  Robertson, L.

  Leven and Melville, E.

  De Mauley, L.

  Rossmore, L.

  Lichfield, E.

  de Ros, L.

  Rothschild, L.

  Lytton, E.

  Deramore, L.

  Sanderson, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Desborough, L.

  Seaton, L.

  Mayo, E.

  Digby, L.

  Sinclair, L.

  Northesk, E.

  Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

  Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)

  Onslow, E.

  Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

  Southampton, L.

  Radnor, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Stewart of Garlies, L.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Erskine, L.

  (E. Galloway.)

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Estcourt, L.

  Stratheden and Campbell, L.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Faber, L.

  Stuart of Castle Stuart, L.

  Verulam, E.

  Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

  (E. Moray.)

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Forester, L.

  Tennyson, L.

  Wicklow, E.

  Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

  Tweeddale, L. (M. Tweeddale.)

  Harlech, L.

  Vivian, L.

  Bangor, V.

  Harris, L.

  Wenlock, L.

  Churchill, V. [Teller.]

  Hastings, L.

  Worlingham, L. (E Gosford.)

  Colville of Culross, V.

  Hay, L. (E. Kinnoul.)

  Wynford, L.

  Goschen, V.

  Heneage, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Russell, E.

  Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

  Crewe, E. (L. President.)

  Ripon, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Althorpe, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Emly, L.

  Farrer, L.

  Northampton, M.

  Fitzmaurice. L.

  Hereford, L. Bp.

  Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Grimthorpe, L.

  Carrington, E.

  Burghclere, L.

  Lyveden, L.

  Chichester, E.

  Coleridge, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  De La Warr, E.

  Davey, L.

  Northbourne, L.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Denman, L. [Teller.]

  O'Hagan, L.

  1502

  1503

  Reay, L.

  Stanmore, L.

  Wandsworth, L.

  Ribblesdale, L. [Teller.]

  Tenterden, L.

  Weardale, L.

  Stanley of Alderley L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Wimborne, L.

  Original Motion put accordingly and agreed to.

  WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY BILL.
  Brought from the Commons and read 1a, and to be printed.
  ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons and read 1a; then (Standing Order No. xxxix. having been suspended), Bill read 2a (The Lord Privy Seal (M. Ripon)): Committee negatived: Bill read 3a, and passed.
  SUNDAY TRADING.
  Message from the Commons that they have ordered that the Select Committee appointed by them to join with a Committee of this House on the subject of Sunday trading, do meet the Committee appointed by their Lordships in Committee Room A, on Tuesday next, at Three o'clock, as proposed by this House.
  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
  Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House as the panel of Lords to act as Commissioners under the Act, viz.:—L. Sinclair, L. Killanin; agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly.

  THE NATAL MINISTRY.
  On the Motion for the adjournment,
  The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid: My Lords, before the House rises,
  1504
  I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies a Question of which I have given him private notice — namely, whether he has any information to the effect that the Government of Natal have resigned or tendered their resignation; and, if so, whether he can state the reasons which led to their taking this action.
  The EARL of ELGIN: My Lords, I only received this Question about half an hour ago, and of course have not been able to get any further information than I had before. We were informed yesterday by telegram from the Governor that twelve natives had been tried by court-martial, found guilty of murder, and sentenced to be shot. No further details were given. A telegram was sent to the Governor commenting on the serious nature of this communication, and requesting him to suspend the execution of the sentence pending further information. No reply has been received to this message, and I have no further official information. I may state, however, that I understand that the news agencies have been informed that the Natal Government have resigned, but remain in office pending further communication. There is no possible intention, I may say, of any want of sympathy with the Government of Natal in the circumstances of the Colony at the present moment or any idea of interfering with a self-governing Colony; but the execution of twelve men under sentence by court-martial is a serious matter, and I have to consider it in view of possible demands for the assistance of British troops. I think it was my duty to ask for the information I did.
  House adjourned at Twelve o'clock till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.